LGP on Airborne Shooter

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by rwest

Are you saying that anytime an offensive player changes direction, that the defender has lost LGP? If so, I don't agree. If A1 has the ball and B1 has OBTAINED LGP, when A1 moves to go around B1, B1 can move to maintain LGP. B1 does not have to regain LGP. If B1 has to re-establish LGP, then in very few instances can he move to maintain it. Remember, to obtain LGP you only have to have 2 feet on the floor facing the opponent. If A1 moves at an angle to get around B1, B1 is still facing A1. He hasn't lost anything.

Everything changes when a player goes airborne - it is horrible to think that B1 would be allowed to undercut an airborne player who would otherwise miss him/her and the foul would go against the airborne player? That is completely insane and twists the rules to an unfair advantage for the defender, placing the ball handler at a tremendously unfair and dangerous disadvantage... no way!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

Everything changes when a player goes airborne - it is horrible to think that B1 would be allowed to undercut an airborne player who would otherwise miss him/her and the foul would go against the airborne player? That is completely insane and twists the rules to an unfair advantage for the defender, placing the ball handler at a tremendously unfair and dangerous disadvantage... no way!

But what about a offensive player on the ground? You'll not find anywhere in the rule book (at least not to my memory) the phrase "re-establish" LGP. I agree that we have to call this a block for the same reasons you mentioned. We have to give the offensive player a place to land. Its a safety concern. We have other rules that protect an Air Borne shooter. We make it a shooting foul if he his fouled while still in the air but has released the ball. We don't give a player on the floor the same protection. This is just another one of those areas where we give protection to the offensive player.

We all agree that this is a block, except Mark and he is going to want to see this in black and white. He needs a rule reference. Which we haven't given him. We've given rule references regarding movement to obtain LGP. However, we've yet to give him a rule reference regarding maintaining LGP. Big difference!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

We all agree that this is a block, except Mark and he is going to want to see this in black and white. He needs a rule reference. Which we haven't given him. We've given rule references regarding movement to obtain LGP. However, we've yet to give him a rule reference regarding maintaining LGP. Big difference!

How many times in this thread does case book play 10.6.1SitC have to be cited? You know? The one that states that B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally BEFORE A1 left the floor, but....."However if B1 moves into the path of A1 AFTER A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How many times in this thread does case book play 10.6.1SitC have to be cited? You know? The one that states that B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally BEFORE A1 left the floor, but....."However if B1 moves into the path of A1 AFTER A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."

That got lost in the noise. It was so far up in the thread I had to go back and look at it. I agree with you that it is a block. I've never said otherwise.