LGP on Airborne Shooter

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Time for my favorite gif.

Very appropriate too imo......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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.

You think correctly.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.......

I don't agree with the Mark's ruling that this is a foul on A1, but I have to say that the above quote is not what Mark is talking about. B1 had obtained LGP before the player was airborne. He moved to maintain LGP. There is a big difference. Someone needs to ask Peter the following: Can a player who has already obtained LGP before an offensive player became airborne, can said player move into the airborne players path? Everyone agrees, including Mark, that a defender can not obtain LGP AFTER the offensive player has gone airborne.

[Dan_ref]

rwest, see post #61.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by rwest

I don't agree with the Mark's ruling that this is a foul on A1, but I have to say that the above quote is not what Mark is talking about. B1 had obtained LGP before the player was airborne. He moved to maintain LGP. There is a big difference. Someone needs to ask Peter the following: Can a player who has already obtained LGP before an offensive player became airborne, can said player move into the airborne players path? Everyone agrees, including Mark, that a defender can not obtain LGP AFTER the offensive player has gone airborne.

It's very simple: in order to have a legal position against an airborne player you have to be there before that player became airborne. It's illegal to move into the path of an airborne player (and this does not distinguish between offense and defense). "Moving to maintain LGP" refers to guarding a player who is not airborne.

Are there other ways to express the concept? Again, I know FIBA, but Fed or NCAA should be the same.

I learnt (or should I say "learned"?) this motivation: the player with the ball must expect to be guarded, when not airborne, so there are no time and space restrictions for the defender; but for an airborne player it's impossible to stop or change direction, so ...

Ciao

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

It's very simple: in order to have a legal position against an airborne player you have to be there before that player became airborne. It's illegal to move into the path of an airborne player (and this does not distinguish between offense and defense). "Moving to maintain LGP" refers to guarding a player who is not airborne.

What he said......

A basketball fundamental apparently completely misunderstood by MTD Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

Everyone agrees, including Mark, that a defender can not obtain LGP AFTER the offensive player has gone airborne.

Um, I hate to break it to you but Mark does NOT agree with that. That's exactly what we've been arguing about.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

You and Mark are asking two totally different questions. In Mark's scenario, the player had obtained LGP BEFORE A1 left the floor. You asked Peter...

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

.

In your question you don't specify if the player has obtained LGP before A1 has left the floor. And Peter's response is not the end of it. He responded that B1 can not OBTAIN LGP after A1 has left the floor. We all agree on that, even Mark. But there is a difference between obtaining and maintaining. There are defensive moves that are not allowed until LGP has been obtained, but once obtained they are legal when maintaining LGP. You need to ask Peter.... Can B1, after obtaining LGP, move laterally or obliquely into the path of an airborne shooter to maintain LGP?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

In your question you don't specify if the player has obtained LGP before A1 has left the floor.

My take is JR's question is broader than that.

He asks if a player can legally move laterally or obliquely under an airborne player. The answer from Peter was basically no. He did not qualify that based on whether or not the defender had established LGP.

This is pretty basic stuff.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

My take is JR's question is broader than that.

He asks if a player can legally move laterally or obliquely under an airborne player. The answer from Peter was basically no. He did not qualify that based on whether or not the defender had established LGP.

This is pretty basic stuff.

JR's question may be broader, but Peter's response was more specific.
Peter specifically addressed the play where the player had NOT obtained LGP before A1 became airborne. Let me make it clear. I do not agree with Mark's call on this play. I have a block. But there is a difference between obtaining and maintaining LGP. There are moves that are allowed when maintaining LGP that are not allowed when obtaining LGP. That is why it is so important that Peter is asked the correct question.

And yes, Peter did qualify his response in relation to LGP. It's black and white. It's right there in his response.....


"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 is saying that the rules do not permit a defender to obtain LGP (not maintain, there is a difference) AFTER an opponent has become airborne. Mark is saying that a defender can move to MAINTAIN LGP AFTER a defender has become airborne. Do you see the difference?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

JR's question may be broader, but Peter's response was more specific.
Peter specifically addressed the play where the player had NOT obtained LGP before A1 became airborne. Let me make it clear. I do not agree with Mark's call on this play. I have a block. But there is a difference between obtaining and maintaining LGP. There are moves that are allowed when maintaining LGP that are not allowed when obtaining LGP. That is why it is so important that Peter is asked the correct question.

And yes, Peter did qualify his response in relation to LGP. It's black and white. It's right there in his response.....


"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 is saying that the rules do not permit a defender to obtain LGP (not maintain, there is a difference) AFTER an opponent has become airborne. Mark is saying that a defender can move to MAINTAIN LGP AFTER a defender has become airborne. Do you see the difference?

Yes I do. IMO the email exhange between JR, Peter & Mark is pretty clear but I'll agree that maybe what we have here might be less than crystal clear.

In any event I do not accept that there is any case when a player can legally move under an airborne player, period.

This is pretty basic IMO & goes beyond LGP. Do you not agree with this?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yes I do. IMO the email exhange between JR, Peter & Mark is pretty clear but I'll agree that maybe what we have here might be less than crystal clear.

In any event I do not accept that there is any case when a player can legally move under an airborne player, period.

This is pretty basic IMO & goes beyond LGP. Do you not agree with this?

I agree that this goes beyond LGP and it is basic. I have a block. But what I can't understand is why we can't all agree that JR and Mark are asking two different questions.

Answer the following questions?

1. Is there a difference between maintaining and obtaining LGP?
2. Did Mark not say that B1 had OBTAINED LGP?
3. Did not Peter's response refer to a player who had NOT OBTAINED LGP?

If you answer yes to all of the above, then you have to agree with me that Peter's response did not clarify the question that Mark is raising. Mark is asking about a player who has obtained LGP not a player who has NOT obtained LGP.

Also, did JR's question address the LGP status of the defensive player? No. His question did not even mention LGP. Peter assumed he meant to obtain LGP. JR's and Mark's questions are totally different. Peter didn't adequately address Mark's question.

But I guess we are arguing over semantics.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

I agree that this goes beyond LGP and it is basic. I have a block. But what I can't understand is why we can't all agree that JR and Mark are asking two different questions.

Answer the following questions?

1. Is there a difference between maintaining and obtaining LGP?
2. Did Mark not say that B1 had OBTAINED LGP?
3. Did not Peter's response refer to a player who had NOT OBTAINED LGP?

If you answer yes to all of the above, then you have to agree with me that Peter's response did not clarify the question that Mark is raising. Mark is asking about a player who has obtained LGP not a player who has NOT obtained LGP.

Also, did JR's question address the LGP status of the defensive player? No. His question did not even mention LGP. Peter assumed he meant to obtain LGP. JR's and Mark's questions are totally different. Peter didn't adequately address Mark's question.

But I guess we are arguing over semantics.

Yeah i think we are.

I am certainly willing to agree with you that JR, Mark & Peter are all talking about completely different things. But that does not change our understanding of the rule: MTD's original play where a defender with LGP moves into the spot that the airborne player will land is clearly a block.

It doesn't matter what MTD, Peter, JR, Bhuck Elics, J Dallas Shirley or John Diebler may think.

[Raymond]

How about this? Next you work a game in front of your supervisor or camp game in front of an evaluator call a PC foul in this situation then explain it after the game and see what kind of response you get.

[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?