Legal Guarding Position

[RefBob]

I came across NFHS Case Book scenario 10.6.1, Situation A with a result that I was not expecting. In the scenario, B1 is legally occupying a spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass. B1 then moves to a new spot (while A1 is airborne). A1 then lands on one foot and charges into B1. Foul on A1.

CB 10.6.1 Situation C has a scenario with airborne shooter A1 with language that says if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1.

Why the different results? I know that in Situation A, A1 is not a shooter, but NFHS Rules 4-23-4b and 4-23-5d seem to have the same language for establishing a legal guarding position on an airborne opponent with or without the ball - "the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

Not sure what I'm missing.

Thanks.

[Raymond]

Because in the first situation he landed so he's no longer an Airborne player

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

The first play, A1 came back to the floor. He was given a chance to land and then contacts B1.

The second play A1 never got a chance to get back to the floor and that is why it is a foul on B1.

Again, go back and read what a legal B1 can do with an airborne player and what they cannot. There is your answer.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Also note that in neither case is moving prohibited after the opponent is airborne. What is prohibited is moving INTO the path of an airborne opponent. That means a defender who is in the path of an opponent can legally continue to move....backwards, or even sideways. However, sideways movement, if the player was already in the path serves no useful purpose. Don't penalize a defender who legally gets in the path in time, but adjusts sideways for some reason when they would have been hit either way.

[RefBob]

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.

[justacoach]

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.

Sorry, the issue is figuring out the definition of airborne shooter. Once you grasp that simple concept, the other questions answer themselves.

[RefBob]

Makes sense when you focus on the fact that, by definition, A1 is not an airborne shooter after he returns to the floor. So he would be subject to the contact rules of any other player. So I see everyone's point. Is my thinking correct that if A1 made the shot, and the contact with B1 was after the ball went through the ring the ball would be dead so the contact (assuming it was not intentional or flagrant) could be ignored? Even if the contact couldn't be ignored, I assume the basket would count?

Thanks again, and appreciate the expertise.

[bob jenkins]

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.

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.

[Pantherdreams]

Scenario in the OP is not an Airborne shooter. A1 jumped to catch a pass.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

A1 sure had a chance to see B1. B1 didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Only if A1 was driving with his eyes closed would A1 not be able to see the defenders that were close enough to be relevant. A1 could have determined that B1 would be able to get into a position to draw a foul and could have made a different choice.

[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.