Overthinking Time and Distance
 

In studying 4-23 recently and thinking through scenarios, I invented one for which I can't conclusively determine the answer. Here's how it goes.

If a ballhandler goes airborne, then a defender moves into an otherwise legal guarding position just beyond where he will land, then the ball handler lands, then he contacts the guard, I believe that's a player control foul. 4-23-4-b ends when the ballhandler returns to the floor, and no time and distance are given to the ballhandler. So LGP is established the instant the ballhandler touches down.

If the same scenario is played out for a moving offensive player without the ball, then I think the contact must be a block because even after 4-23-5-d ends, the otherwise legal defender must still allow time and distance per 4-23-5-a,b,c.

Assuming that is all correct, what about a hybrid scenario. What if the airborne ballhandler passes before he lands? Is he then a moving offensive player without the ball and entitled to time and distance? Or do we treat him as a ballhandler still? Does it matter if the pass occurs before or after the defender takes his position?

If I were to see this I would probably consider it a pass-and-crash and call a team control foul. Would I be correct? What rule would I use to back up the call, either way?

Maintaining a previously obtained LGP doesn't requre that the opponent keep the ball.

However, the defender can't establish LPG while the opponent is airborne.

I think you answered your own question.

If LGP was established before the player with the ball left the ground, then time and distance were probably appropriate, and it wouldn't matter if the ball-handler passed or not. And whether or not the ball was passed, it's team control if not player control, penalties are the same, going the other way.

If LGP wasn't established, it doesn't matter whether or not the ball handler keeps the ball, shoots or passes, it's a block.

And I thought I was an over-thinker!!

Not relevant....at the time of contact, the player wasn't airborne.

If the position taken gives sufficient time/distance at the time it is established, it is LGP. At the time it was obtained, the player had the ball. In this case, it gave the the airborne player a place to land before contact...all that is required for a player with the ball. That mean that it was legally obtained. The fact that the ball handler gave up control of the ball doesn't negate a previously obtained LGP.

As I read what I wrote here in conjunction with reviewing the rules, I'm not so sure I'm right....at least by the letter of the rule.

However, I can't believe the intent was to force a defender to get out of a position that would have drawn a charge had opponent not passed the ball.

I think that once the player lands, the "airborne" clause of the rule is irrelevant and all that matters then is when the defender obtained the position relative to the opponent and ball's status....obtained while the oppoent had the ball makes it LGP and obtained after the opponent gave up the ball is not LGP unless extra time/distance is given.

How about a travel???

I have traveling.

LOL! Great minds think alike! :cool:

Agreed...and that's why Jurassic and M&M didn't think of travelling - they don't have great minds!!:p

I think this scenario requires us to differentiate between LGP, and displacement of an opponent that has a legal right to a spot on the floor, just by virtue of being there first.

All "protection" for an airborne shooter ends once they touch the floor. If an opponent is standing there, and allowed the shooter to return to the floor, the opponent "owns" that spot, and if contact occurs, greater responsibility is on the ballhandler, in my opinion

how about a jump stop???

How about an airborne dribbler?

You might just change your mind about that after reading case book play 10.6.1SitA(b).