LGP on Airborne Shooter

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Woody:

Read Articles 3 and 4 of NFHS R4-S23. Nothing in those two articles prohibits a defender, B1, from moving to maintain a legal guarding position against an airborne player, A1, as long as the B1's LGP was obtained before A1 became airborne and if contact occurs, B1 was not moving toward A1 when contacts occur.

Lets see what type of foul occurs when B1 has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1 (who has player control of the ball) and A1 dribbles the ball directly toward B1.

Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne. BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occured. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.

Everybody is applying a rule (NFHS R4-S23-A5) that applies to a defensive player who has NOT obtained a LGP to a play where the defensive player has ALREADY obtained a LGP.

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 AFTER 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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Tony:

I am suprised at your language.

Is "suprised" Buckeye for "surprised?"

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne. BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occured. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.



NFHS R4-S23-A3c: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained the guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

A1 jumped at such an angle that there would have been no contact. B1 moved, not toward A1, yet there was contact. There's a word for this. I know! Impossible.

Had B1's movement been lateral or oblique, there would not have been contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne. BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occured. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.

Lah me........

This is the play that MTD Sr. sent to Peter Webb....from way back on p1 of this thread. A1 goes airborne. A1 will miss B1 completely if B1 doesn't move from the position that B1 had when A1 went airborne. B1 then moved sideways into the path of airborne A1. Mark said it's a foul on A1. Peter Webb and everybody else in the damn world said it's a block on B1.

If B1 moves sideways into the path of airborne A1, he is neither maintaining or establishing a freaking legal guarding position. If B1 moves sideways under an airborne shooter, he quite simply does not HAVE a legal guarding position. That's an absolute fundamental call under every basketball ruleset on this planet.

Mark still insists that this is a foul on A1.

Does anybody agree with him?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This is a play situation posted on the NFHS forum.....

Play: A1 with the ball leaves his feet to attempt a shot. Defender B1, who had a legal guarding position on A1 before A1 left his feet, now moves laterally(sideways) into the path of airborne A1 after A1 became airborne. Note that B1 does NOT move forward towards airborne A1, just laterally. If contact occurs, who should the foul be called on?

Thoughts?

I've got a block. I can't imagine the crap that would ensue if a PC was the correct call. Coaches would coach this defense and then it would get changed quite quickly to be a block.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

MTD, Jr. and I got home about 45 min. ago from officiating in a boys' H.S. team shootout at The Univ. of Findlay and we are now leaving to watch Jr. and Andy play in a baseball game at 6pm. But I just checked my email and received an email from Peter Webb of Maine. Many of you know that Peter is the go to guy for NFHS rulings. I will post the email that I sent him and his reply to me, but I will tell you in advance that he agrees with my ruling in Play D.

MTD, Sr.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

MTD, Jr. and I got home about 45 min. ago from officiating in a boys' H.S. team shootout at The Univ. of Findlay and we are now leaving to watch Jr. and Andy play in a baseball game at 6pm. But I just checked my email and received an email from Peter Webb of Maine. Many of you know that Peter is the go to guy for NFHS rulings. I will post the email that I sent him and his reply to me, but I will tell you in advance that he agrees with my ruling in Play D.

MTD, Sr.

I'm confused, is play D the play that is in question by everyone on this board? I'm under the assumption that everyone agrees with the ruling in Play D. I thought the play that everyone is questioning is the defender moving laterally (side to side) after A1 is airborne, and you calling this a charge. I'm hoping that isn't the case, but like others, I didn't believe you would call that a charge.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

But I just checked my email and received an email from Peter Webb of Maine. Many of you know that Peter is the go to guy for NFHS rulings. I will post the email that I sent him and his reply to me, but I will tell you in advance that he agrees with my ruling in Play D.

Post the e-mail, Mark. This should be interesting....to see how you worded the question. It should have been quite simple..."After a shooter has left his feet, can a defender now move sideways into the path of that airborne shooter?" That's the question that you need to ask him.

Btw, to date, not one responder here has agreed with you. Co-incidence?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Post the e-mail, Mark. This should be interesting....to see how you worded the question. It should have been quite simple..."After a shooter has left his feet, can a defender now move sideways into the path of that airborne shooter?" That's the question that you need to ask him.

Btw, to date, not one responder here has agreed with you. Co-incidence?

JR:

I am not a nameless poster on the NFHS Discussion Forum, I use the same name there as here. Here is the exchange of emails (I have blocked out Peter's email address, but you can contact him through the Maine Prinicipals' Association at http://www.MPA.cc):


P. Webb: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question.‏
From: Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ([email protected])
Sent: Sat 6/14/08 11:44 PM
To: Webb, Peter A. ([email protected])


Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Basketball Official
Boys'/Girls' High School Since 1971
Women's College Since 1974

OhioHSAA no.: 104563
MichiganHSAA no.: 322997
USA Basketball Referee (FIBA) no.: 5204
Ohio Association of Basketball Officials
Int'l. Assn. of Approved Bkb. Off., Inc./Lake Erie Dist. Bd. #55
Trumbull Co. Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. Bkb. Off. Assn.: Rules Interpreter & Instructional Chairman (1990-99)


Jun. 14/Sat.(11:44pmEDT), 2008


to: Peter A. Webb
Basketball Commissioner
Maine Principals’ Association

subject: BKB: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question.


Peter:

A discussion on the NFHS Basketball Discussion Group regarding moving to maintain a legal guarding position. I have written four plays and have given my ruling for each play using the definition of a legal guarding position in NFHS R4-S23. I appreciate it if you would read them and tell me what you think. The key is Play D; I wrote the plays in a particular order so as to build a case for my ruling in Play D.

Play A: A1 dribbles toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. A1, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1.

Play B: A1 stops his dribble and jumps directly toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. A1, while airborne, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1.

Play C: A1 dribbles toward B1 but changes direction so as to go around B1. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Foul by A1.

Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne.
BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.

Mark



Re: P. Webb: Moving to maintian a legal guarding position question.‏ From: [email protected] Sent: Tue 6/17/08 11:33 AM To: [email protected]





Hi Mark,

The play situations and rulings that you have put are a good way of teaching/understanding 'guarding-block/charge' as per rules 4.7; 4.23

Rulings are accurate as per rule.


Peter


As one can see, I copied Plays A, B, C, and D verbatim in my email to Peter.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play D: A1 stops his dribble and jumps toward B1 but at an angle that will enable him to go past B1 if B1 either does not move or moves directly backward along A1's path before A1 went airborne.
BUT, B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1 makes contact with B1's torso. B1 was NOT moving toward A1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.


Rulings are accurate as per rule.

This is simply mind-boggling. This is a block every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Either Peter misunderstood or mis-read the question, or simply didn't take enough time to think about it.

If you move INTO the path of an airborne player and there's contact, block. Period.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is simply mind-boggling. This is a block every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Either Peter misunderstood or mis-read the question, or simply didn't take enough time to think about it.

If you move INTO the path of an airborne player and there's contact, block. Period.

Unless it's outside of your primary of course...

(sorry couldn't resist)

[Dan_ref]

So what you & Peter are saying is any defender who establishes LGP can legally move under an airborne player with the ball. And the airborne player is responsible for any subsequent contact.

Sorry Mark, I don't agree. As was posted previously you ignore completely the underlying principle that the airborne player has a right to the spot he's going to land on. This is vital for the safety of the players.

[Jurassic Referee]

Mark, his interpretation is so egregiously wrong that it's absolutely ridiculous.

Again, ask him this:

AFTER AN AIRBORNE PLAYER HAS LEFT HIS FEET, CAN A DEFENDER LEGALLY MOVE LATERALLY OR OBLIQUELY INTO THAT AIRBORNE PLAYER'S PATH?

I await your response to that question. I would have e-mailed him myself but your link doesn't work. I'll try to find another e-mail addy for him. If you can post one, I'll use that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark, his interpretation is so egregiously wrong that it's absolutely ridiculous.

Again, ask him this:

AFTER AN AIRBORNE PLAYER HAS LEFT HIS FEET, CAN A DEFENDER LEGALLY MOVE LATERALLY OR OBLIQUELY INTO THAT AIRBORNE PLAYER'S PATH?

Seeing Mark doesn't seem to be around today......

I e-mailed Peter Webb and asked him the same question above, explained the play being discussed and also gave him a link to this thread. Apparently, I wasn't the only one. He responded with the following statement in an e-mail sent to Mark DeNucci Sr., c.c-ed to me also.

"I have received a couple of notes from people who know me which seem to indicate that a posting with a reference to a requested response from me has resulted in readers (I was not aware that there was any readers) thinking that I am indicating that a defender can obtain a legal guarding position after an opponent has become airborne. Obviously the rule does NOT permit that."

That's pretty much self-explanatory imo. He also said to Mark "I assumed that you were indicating the difference between the rule abiding obtaining a legal guarding position prior to an opponent becoming airborne vs the opponent already being airborne."

I didn't post the complete e-mail, just the parts that I thought were pertinent. Mark can post the balance if he likes. Hopefully that'll end this one....unless Mark is reading that e-mail completely differently than I am.