Are we missing Basketball fundamentals here?

Fundamental states that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor.

The spot is determined at moment offensive player jumps and is entitled to come down

Defender slides laterally and takes spot away

This is a foul. Always has been always will be.

Two playes cannnot occupy the same space at once. The offensive player is occupying it. By the defensive player taking that spot he has displaced the offender from his legally entitled spot...


BLOCK!

Can Of Worms For Lunch ???
 

Very interesting. I haven't completely processed this yet, but it makes me go "Hmm?". Nice counterpoint MTD, Sr.

This epic saga continues ...

Sorry, FIBA definitely doesn't agree with your interpretation, and I guess that NFHS and NCAA don't either.

With reference to the 2006 edition of FIBA rules:
(1) article 33.3 defines LGP;
(2) article 33.4 defines legal defense on a player who controls the ball;
(3) article 33.6 talks about a player who is in the air.

It's pretty clear from 33.6 that an opponent is not allowed to move into the path of an airborne player, even if this could be considered a legal movement under article 33.4:
The rule makes no distinction between offense and defense in the case of an airborne player.

Ciao

10-6-3-Note
 

Is this relevant?

10-6-3-Note: When a guard moves into the path of a dribbler and contact occurs, either player may be responsible for the contact, but the greater responsibility is that of the dribbler if the guard conforms to the following principles, which officials use in reaching a decision. The guard is assumed to have obtained a guarding position if he/she is in the dribbler's path facing him/her. If he/she jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position. No specific stance or distance is required. It is assumed the guard may shift to maintain his/her position in the path of the dribbler, provided he/she does not charge into the dribbler nor otherwise cause contact, as outlined in 10-6-2. The responsibility of the dribbler for contact is not shifted merely because the guard turns or ducks to absorb shock when contact by the dribbler is imminent. The guard may not cause contact by moving under or in front of a passer or thrower after he or she is in the air with both feet off the floor.

This thread jumped from the NFHS basketball forum to the Official Forum. Where will it show up next? This reminds me of the final scenes in the movie "Blazing Saddles", the fight between the townsfolk and the gunfighters is such that it literally breaks the fourth wall; the fight spills out from the film lot in the Warner Bros. Studios into a neighboring musical set, then the studio commissary where a pie fight ensues, and finally pouring out into the surrounding streets.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AOeSrLCD-U

That's the relevant part. It's self-explanatory, same as the NFHS and NCAA case plays.

A defender can't re-position himself in front of an offensive player with the ball after that player has left his feet.

Billy, if a defender moves backward, they still remain in the <b>exact</b> same path that the shooter established when that shooter jumped. The defender is NOT moving INTO the path of the shooter.

Apples and oranges....and irrelevant to the play being discussed.

Cutting away the extraneous bafflegab, there's exactly what you can't seem to understand. The NFHS and NCAA case plays cited, plus rule 10.6.3NOTE that Billy dug up and posted, all say that the defender doesn't maintain a legal guarding position if he moves laterally or obliquely into the path of an airborne shooter after that shooter has left his feet. It's impossible.

And regarding your play D(which pretty much says it all), both the NFHS and the NCAA have issued case book plays stating that in a play like that, the foul is to be charged to the defender. It is hardly a "logical conclusion" for you to try and claim something that is diametrically opposite to the written rulings.

What you fail to understand is that a defender with LGP loses that LGP if he moves laterally/obliquely into the path of an airborne shooter if the defender does move <b>AFTER</b> the airborne shooter left his feet.

A defender can't legally jump INTO the path of an airborne shooter AFTER the shooter has left his feet. That's a basic rules concept, Mark.

True, however, in this situation B1 is absorbing the contact by A1 this is nothing wrong there.

Right, but here B1 is not moving INTO A1's path. Apples and oranges.

Not Billy Packer! :eek:

Doesn't really matter how much tweaking you do on these plays - the rules are clear. Once the shooter goes airborne, you can't move underneath him/her or into his/her landing area. Well, you can, but it's gonna be a block called on you.

Kinda wish this one had stayed over on the NFHS forum...it was silly there and is silly here.

BLOCK!

The only thing the defender can do after a shooter has jumped is jump straight up or move in such a way that it doesn't improve their position. I'd let B1 move sideways ONLY if B1 was directly in A1's path already and the sideways movement was either neutral or was taking B1 out of A1's path.

Is "suprised" Buckeye for "surprised?"

I'm surprised, no, amazed that at this poor, weak, lame argument you offering.

Can't help but jump in here
(and hopefully the defenders will maintain their legal guarding positions...:D ),

but, when a post starts to disintigrate into a "how dare you take offense to my commentary and interpretation"... in my opinion... it becomes a peanut gallery mosh pit.

And... NO... I am not directing this sarcastic reply at anyone specific.
I am just amazed at the direction "too many" posts seem to take.

I really do love you guys... because once you filter away all the silt and mud, I do on occasion find that special nugget of officiating knowledge and wisdom.

Thanks !
Paul

MTD, to consider how far out there you are, I would present evidence A, which is that I agree completely with JR, and that, quite frankly, doesn't happen very often. :) The wording in the rulebook in this situation is fine and is clear to me.

This is exactly right. It's a geometry problem. If a shooter goes airborne, the only way that LGP remains is if the defensive player moves parallel to the offensive player- and if that happens, there can't be any contact.

This is crude, but in the following pictures X is the offensive player and O is the defensive player. The bold letter is where they begin and the non-bold letter is where they end up after the offensive player is airborne.

.....................O
.....................X
.........O
.........X

Here, legal guarding position is maintained, but no contact is going to occur anyway because they are moving parallel to each other as both are moving obliquely.


.....................X
.........O..........O
.........X

Here, the defender has moved INTO the path of the airborne shooter by moving laterally while the offensive player moved obliquely. The defender no longer has legal guarding position when this contact occurs, and a foul should be called on the defensive player.