LGP on Airborne Shooter

[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)

[Jurassic Referee]

E-mail address for Peter Webb found and e-mail sent. Question asked as same as quoted in my last post. Will report upon receipt of reply.

[Jurassic Referee]

Reply received from Peter Webb- sent to both MTD Sr. and myself. I'll let Mark post it.

[Dan_ref]

Cue theme from Jeopardy

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Cue theme from Jeopardy

The suspense is palpable.

[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.

[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.

[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?