Bride of the Son of Under (the Sequel)

[Hawks Coach]

In the two "under the front" threads, I quoted a series of rules that I think boil down to a basic proposition.

A is the airborne player, B has both feet on the court when A leaves ground. My proposition is that A has the right to come down on any piece of court that was open when A left the ground. B owns that space that B occupied at that same instant AND all vertical area over that space. If A comes down on B with B not leaving B's vertical plane, the fault lies with A regardless of where B was facing. Players cannot jump into other players. If B moves from that vertical plane after A is airborne and contact results, the fault lies with B. Players cannot move into a space under an airborne player and deny them the right to a safe landing. Granted not all contact requires a foul, and all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact - this only applies if you see the need to call a foul based on contact that occurs between A and B.

The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.

If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?