Legal Guarding Position

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A1 would NOT be called for a foul in this situation. A1 no longer has the ball -- so the guarding rules on "a moving player with the ball" don't apply.

Read the guarding and screening rules and note the difference between stationary and moving; with the ball and without; airborne shooter.

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?

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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).

Got it, and appreciate all the help. In retrospect, I was overthinking this, or maybe just not really understanding the basic principles.

Thanks again.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I believe he is not recognizing the change timing requirements for obtaining a legal guarding position.

If A1 has the ball, B1 just only get a legal position just before contact. If A2 does not have the ball, B1 must get a legal position allowing A1, if moving, 1 to 2 steps to avoid contact.

In the case he's talking about where A1 lands with one foot down and immediately collides with B1, there are two possibilities....

1. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but before A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player with the ball.
2. B1 obtains the position with A1 airborne but after A1 releases the ball. In that case, B1's position is judged based on the rules about guarding a player without the ball.

A position by B1 that is legal doesn't become illegal by actions of A1 (releasing the ball).

Agreed, and an illegal position can (but doesn't always) become legal by the actions of A1 obtaining the ball (as in the case play referenced at the start of this thread).

Hmm... what happens if A1 without the ball goes airborne, b1 then moves into the path (but beyond the landing spot), A1 receives the ball (making B1's position legal), A1 then passes the ball, lands on one foot and crashes into B1?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by requintero

Thanks for the replies. I imagine the issue is figuring out what is exactly moving into the path of an airborne opponent. It seems pretty tough that A1 goes full speed for a layup, checks before he goes airborne that no B players are in front of him, lands with one (or two) feet and then because of his momentum immediately contacts B1 who established a court spot while A1 was airborne right in front of where he knew A1 was going to land and contact him - and then A1 gets called for a foul. A1 never would have had a chance to see B1.

He should have expected defensive pressure. Nothing forces A1 to jump in a way that causes a foul.

It's a play we can imagine, but not one we really see.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed, and an illegal position can (but doesn't always) become legal by the actions of A1 obtaining the ball (as in the case play referenced at the start of this thread).

Hmm... what happens if A1 without the ball goes airborne, b1 then moves into the path (but beyond the landing spot), A1 receives the ball (making B1's position legal), A1 then passes the ball, lands on one foot and crashes into B1?

Good question.

I think that B1 would be legal. Once A1 has the ball, the time & distance requirements are met making B1's position legal. A1 then giving up the ball doesn't negate a position that was legal.