[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by requintero

Now I'm really confused. The way I read Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A, this is a foul on A1 and the posts above all explain that the reason why is that A1 is not airborne once he has returned to the floor. The discussion also expanded a bit to reference A1 as an airborne shooter, and the analysis is the same. Once A1 returns to the floor he is no longer an airborne shooter. Given the above posts, if A1 missed his shot and the ball is still live, why would it not be a foul on A1 if after landing he ran over B1? Because A1 no longer has the ball.

Interesting reference to the screening rules. Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A did not talk about whether B1 had set a legal screen on a moving opponent without the ball (A1). In the Case Book Situation A, "A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1." B1 certainly didn't seem to give A1 at least one stride as per 4-40-5. Presumably, the official would have to judge whether B1 "moving to a new spot" as in Situation A while A1 was airborne was or was not B1 setting a screen. You only need to give a stride on to a moving player without the ball. In the case play, A1 had the ball, and was given room to come down (on one foot). So, B does not need to give any more room, and as long as B is now legal, it's a foul on A1.

See answers above -- but I don't have the case book handy, and the discussion has mutated enough that I'm not entirely certain to which plays you are referring