LGP on Airborne Shooter

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

If Peter assumed something (as he said he did, and that something being the difference between obtaining position prior to or after the shooter is airborne) based on the e-mail from MTD, then I think it's quite possible that Peter didn't read the question close enough to see that the play should result in a block. I think Peter had a chance here to correct Mark, and since he didn't, bears some of the responsibility for the incorrect confirmation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If Peter assumed something (as he said he did, and that something being the difference between obtaining position prior to or after the shooter is airborne) based on the e-mail from MTD, then I think it's quite possible that Peter didn't read the question close enough to see that the play should result in a block. I think Peter had a chance here to correct Mark, and since he didn't, bears some of the responsibility for the incorrect confirmation.

Say what?

Peter Webb said "obviously the rule does not permit that" in response to the question that I asked about it being legal for a defender to move laterally in front of an airborne shooter after the shooter had left his feet.

Peter Webb (wrongfully) assumed that Mark was referring to a defender moving sideways before the shooter left his feet. He admitted to that wrongful assumption.

You have what he said backward, Juggs. Peter Webb is a respected and knowledgeable rules resource. He'd never knowingly come up with a basic rules misunderstanding like that one imo.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what?

Peter Webb said "obviously the rule does not permit that" in response to the question that I asked about it being legal for a defender to move laterally in front of an airborne shooter after the shooter had left his feet.

Peter Webb (wrongfully) assumed that Mark was referring to a defender moving sideways before the shooter left his feet. He admitted to that wrongful assumption.

You have what he said backward, Juggs. Peter Webb is a respected and knowledgeable rules resource. He'd never knowingly come up with a basic rules misunderstanding like that one imo.

No, I don't, JR.

Peter agreed with MTD about the ruling of Play #D, which we all know should be a block.

You then called MTD on it and went on to e-mail Peter yourself. Peter admitted that he made an incorrect assumption about the nature of Mark's four plays, which ultimately was the cause of him incorrectly agreeing with MTD's ruling.

When he re-read the play, he corrected his ruling.

Maybe Mark's questions could be worded better, but Peter had the chance to correct Mark at the outset. And he didn't.

My text in brackets and Peter's admitted assumption say the same thing, JR.

[Jurassic Referee]

OK, I see what you're getting at. Yes, Peter probably originally misread the play. That's because Mark didn't ask the question clearly and simply like I did. He gave 4 scenarios, of which 3 had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.

If the question as written in the original post of this thread had simply been put to Peter, there wouldn't have been any confusion imo.

[icallfouls]

Part of the problem lied with the carefully structured argument for the ruling that A1 committed the foul, as MTD noted in his original email. Plays A-C clearly left the reader with a foul on A1. Play D needed to be worded more obviously so as to ensure that the ruling Peter was asked to give was based on a player that had already gone airborne prior to the defender moving into position to draw a foul. A quick glance at the play might lead people to making the improper ruling.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have been busy with family things the last week or so, so to review lets look at two plays, Play 1.x (deals with an offensive player that is NOT airborne) and Play 2.x (deals with an offensive player that is airborne) and all of my rules references will be 2007-08 NFHS but they will be equally applicable to NCAA and FIBA. A1 has control of the ball and B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA/FIBA) a legal guarding position.


Play 1.0: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 is standing in front of A1. A1 makes contact with the front of B1’s torso. RULING 1.0: Charging foul by A1.


Play 1.1: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 moves backward from A1 along the same path as A1. A1 makes contact the front of B1’s torso while B1 is moving backward from A1. RULING 1.1: Charging foul by A1.


Play 1.2: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 moves toward A1 along the same path as A1. A1 makes contact the front of B1’s torso while B1 is moving toward A1. RULING 1.2: Blocking/pushing foul by B1.


Play 1.3: 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 is moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 1.3: Blocking/pushing foul by B1.


Play 1.4: 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 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 1.4: Charging foul by A1.



Play 2.0: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 is standing in front of A1. A1 jumps toward B1 and makes contact with the front of B1’s torso. RULING 2.0: Charging foul by A1.


Play 2.1: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 moves backward from A1 along the same path as A1. A1 jumps toward B1 and makes contact the front of B1’s torso while B1 is moving backward from A1. RULING 2.1: Charging foul by A1.


Play 2.2: A1 dribbles toward B1. B1 moves toward A1 along the same path as A1. A1 jumps toward B1 and makes contact the front of B1’s torso while B1 is moving toward A1. RULING 2.2: Blocking/pushing foul by B1.

Play 2.3: A1 dribbles toward B1. A1 then 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 original path before A1 went airborne. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1, while airborne, makes contact with B1's torso. B1 is moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 2.3: Blocking/pushing foul by B1.


Play 2.4: A1 dribbles toward B1. A1 then 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 original path before A1 went airborne. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1, while airborne, makes contact with B1's torso. B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 2.4: Charging foul by A1.


I have written the plays in a logical progression to show that Play 2.4 is not different from Play 1.4 and that their respective rulings are the same.

NFHS R4-S23-A2 (NCAA R4-S35-A4) defines how a legal guarding position is obtained (established), NFHS R4-S23-A3 (NCAA R4-S35-A6) defines how a defender may maintain a legal guarding position, and NFHS R4-S23-A3c (NCAA R4-S35-A6e) states that a defender “may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.” NFHS R4-S23-A3c (NCAA R4-S35-A6e) makes no distinction between Play 1.4 and Play 2.4. There is no exception for Play 2.4 in NFHS R4-S23-A3c (NCAA R4-S35-A6e).

I also know that many of my antagonists will quote NFHS R4-S23-A4b (NCAA R4-S35-A4d) to defend a blocking foul by B1 in Play 2.4. But this rule applies to B1 who is attempting to obtain (establish) a legal guarding position against A1 who is already airborne. In Play 2.4, B1 has already obtained (established) a legal guarding position (legal position on the court) relative to A1 prior to A1 going airborne and is moving to maintain his legal guarding position (legal position on the court) relative to A1.

NFHS Casebook Play 10.6.1 Situation C (2006-07 NCAA A.R. 72-Men) has been quoted to defend a ruling of a blocking foul by B1 in Play 2.4, but there is one problem with using CP 10.6.1 Sit. C (2006-07 A.R. 72-Men): No where does it say that B1 as obtained (established) a legal guarding position against A1. Based upon the description of the play the only conclusion that one can make is that B1 had a legal position on the court, one cannot state that B1 had a legal guarding position against A1. A defensive player with a legal position on the court does not necessarily have a legal guarding position on the court, nor does it mean that a defensive player with a legal guarding position on the court have a legal position on the court. If one is having trouble understanding this concept, just look at the following examples.

Example 1: B1 has a legal guarding position against A1 and is moving per rule to maintain a legal guarding position against A1 when A2 sets a legal screen. B1 makes contact with A2 that results in a pushing foul against B1. This example shows that B1 can have a legal guarding position (legal position on the court) relative to A1 while not having a legal position on the court relative A2 (has a legal position on the court relative to B1).

Example 2: B1 has a legal guarding position against A1 and is moving per rule to maintain a legal guarding position against A1 when A2 sets an illegal screen. B1 makes contact with A2 that results in a blocking foul against A2. This example shows that B1 can have a legal guarding position relative (legal position on the court) to A1 while having a legal position on the court relative to A2 (does not have a legal position on the court relative to B1).

Therefore, in the final analysis, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that A1 has committed a charging foul in Play 2.4 because NFHS R4-S23-A3c (NCAA R4-S35-A6e) is the rule that governs in this play.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play 2.4: A1 dribbles toward B1. A1 then 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 original path before A1 went airborne. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1, while airborne, makes contact with B1's torso. B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 2.4: Charging foul by A1.

Review it. Rethink it. Retype it. This is still wrong. Legal guarding position, in my opinion, is the most overrated term in the book. Some think a player must have lgp in order for a pc foul to occur. Not true. In this case, the assertion is that once a player has established lgp, the foul can only be a pc foul. Also not true. LGP can be established, lost, and reestablished at the drop of a hat. If A1 is airborne and his path is such that there would be no contact, B1 no longer has lgp. If B1 moves and causes contact, his movement was toward A1. The above scenario is not totally possible. Bottom line: blocking foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Review it. Rethink it. Retype it. This is still wrong. Legal guarding position, in my opinion, is the most overrated term in the book. Some think a player must have lgp in order for a pc foul to occur. Not true. In this case, the assertion is that once a player has established lgp, the foul can only be a pc foul. Also not true. LGP can be established, lost, and reestablished at the drop of a hat. If A1 is airborne and his path is such that there would be no contact, B1 no longer has lgp. If B1 moves and causes contact, his movement was toward A1. The above scenario is not totally possible. Bottom line: blocking foul.

JAR:

By your illogic thought process, then B1 is also guilty of a blocking foul in Play 1.4.

Take the time to read the rules and apply them correctly.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JAR:

By your illogic thought process, then B1 is also guilty of a blocking foul in Play 1.4.


MTD, Sr.

Not if "B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs." is true.

You still have not explained how there can be contact if neither player is moving toward the other.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not if "B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs." is true.

You still have not explained how there can be contact if neither player is moving toward the other.

JAR stated: "Not if B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs is true." And I say you are quoting Plays 1.3 amd 2.3.


JAR stated: "You still have not explained how there can be contact if neither player is moving toward the other." And I say see Plays 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JAR stated: "Not if B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs is true." And I say you are quoting Plays 1.3 and 2.3.



MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. Denucci, Sr.

Play 1.4: 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 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 1.4: Charging foul by A1.

I've about run out of arrows here. My reinforcements should arrive eventually.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have been busy with family things the last week or so, so to review lets look at two plays, Play 1.x (deals with an offensive player that is NOT airborne) and Play 2.x (deals with an offensive player that is airborne) and all of my rules references will be 2007-08 NFHS but they will be equally applicable to NCAA and FIBA. A1 has control of the ball and B1 has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA/FIBA) a legal guarding position.

...

Play 1.4: 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 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 1.4: Charging foul by A1.

...

Play 2.4: A1 dribbles toward B1. A1 then 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 original path before A1 went airborne. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1, while airborne, makes contact with B1's torso. B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 2.4: Charging foul by A1.


I have written the plays in a logical progression to show that Play 2.4 is not different from Play 1.4 and that their respective rulings are the same.

...

I hate to repeat myself, but since you insist to say that this is also FIBA interpretation, I have to reply that this is false.

There is a fundamental difference between plays 1.4 and 2.4: in the second one A1 is airborne so B1 cannot move into A1's path to "maintain their LGP". I've already posted the relevant rule reference. No player can ever move into the path of an airborne player, who only has to take care that the path is clear before the jump. And I continue to think that this is the same under every rule set.

Ciao

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play 2.4: A1 dribbles toward B1. A1 then 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 original path before A1 went airborne. B1 moves to maintain his legal guarding position against A1. B1 is moving when A1, while airborne, makes contact with B1's torso. B1 is not moving toward A1 when the contact occurs. RULING 2.4: Charging foul by AI.

Therefore, in the final analysis, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that A1 has committed a charging foul in Play 2.4 because NFHS R4-S23-A3c (NCAA R4-S35-A6e) is the rule that governs in this play.

MTD, Sr.

Cutting out everything that's irrelevant leaves the above.

You e-mailed that exact play to Peter Webb, the IAABO head rules interpreter. His response to you, which was also copied to me stated:

"I have received a couple of notes....stating that a defender can obtain a legal guarding position AFTER an opponent has become airborne. OBVIOUSLY THE RULES DO NOT PERMIT THAT!"

Peter Webb told you that the correct call in play 2.4 is a BLOCK by B1, Mark.

Now you're trying to spin things further. You asked Peter Webb for a definitive ruling. You got a definitive ruling from him. You're now ignoring completely the definitive ruling that YOU asked for.

Why won't you now accept Mr. Webb's definitive ruling as sent to you?

Lah me.......

[Nevadaref]

Time for my favorite gif.