LGP on Airborne Shooter
 

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 <b>before</b> A1 left his feet, now moves <b>laterally</b>(sideways) into the path of airborne A1 after A1 became airborne. Note that B1 does NOT move forward <b>towards</b> airborne A1, just laterally. If contact occurs, who should the foul be called on?

I posted this play because a nameless poster over there(Mark T. DeNucci Sr.) insists that a defender can legally move laterally into the path of an airborne shooter AFTER the shooter became airborne and still maintain a legal guarding position. Iow, if the defender does move laterally into the path of an airborne shooter <b>after</b> the shooter became airborne, it's a player control foul if contact occurs.

Note that the following case play was also cited:
<b><u>10.6.1 SITUATION C:</u></b> <i>B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1.
<b>RULING:</b> B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player control foul cancels the score. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. B1's foul on the airborne shooter is a foul during the act of shooting. If the shot is successful, one free throw is awarded and if it is unsuccessful, two free throws result. (4-19-1, 6-6-7-4, 10 PENALTY2 5a)</i>

Again, can a defender who has established a LGP before a shooter became airborne now legally move laterally into the path of that shooter after the shooter became airborne?

Thoughts?

This is very simple, a defender cannot move laterally into an airborne shooter's path. You listed the caseplay, so not sure what else I can say about this, other than that I agree with you.

I'm giving the airborne shooter a place to land.

I don't care if the "defender" ran from BEHIND the airborne shooter, and somehow got in front of the shooter before he landed...I've got a block.

Laterally, forward, backwards, on all fours or upside down...if the defender was not at the spot of the landing BEFORE the shooter became airborne...I've got a block.

Is someone really debating this?

Block!!! On B1 shoot two if missed and one if successful. No! B1 cannot move into the path of A1 after leaving the floor.

A coupla "someones" actually. :)

One of them(nameless--MTD Sr.) posted a 10,000+ word diatribe explaining his position. He also posted a Coles Notes version that I'll reproduce here(the other one would take a half hour just to cut and paste):
<i>"Read articles 3 and 4 of NFHS rule 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 towards A1."</i>
Iow, it's completely legal for a defender to move into the path of an airborne shooter if such defender had LGP before the shooter went airborne and doesn't move towards the shooter.

Thoughts?

That's why I posted it here.....to get as many opinions as possible. There's a lot more people reading this forum than t'other one, and there's also certainly a bunch of very knowledgeable officials posting here.

PS- from NCAA AR66(MENS):
<i>B1 is standing under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward motion of A1 causes contact with B1.
RULING: B1 is entitled to the position provided that there was NO movement INTO such position AFTER B1 leaped from the floor."</i>
The NCAA Womens philosophy is the same, with slightly different penalties.

It was bullsh!t when MTD posted it on the NFHS board and it's still bullsh!t.

The Ransom Of Red Chief ...
 

Asking for input instead of giving experienced advice? Polite language in the post? What have you done with the real Jurassic Referee and how much ransom do we have to pay for you to keep him?

Seriously, I think 10.6.1 SITUATION C says it all. I can't believe that MTD Sr. is having trouble with this situation. His posts, on this Forum, and on the NFHS forum are usually right on target, and I consider him to be a reliable source of information.

Wait a minute. Maybe someone has kidnapped MTD Sr. and is posting in his name. Old School, what have you done with MTD Sr. and what do we have to do to get the real MTD Sr. back?

Happy Father's Day everybody.

http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2508674655

J Dallas Shirley must be spinning in his grave.

Block.

Billy, this isn't one of the esoteric, once-in-a-million-years plays that we sometimes argue to death here. This is a standard, basic call that happens every single game. It's a basic rules concept imo too. I think it's worthwhile to just present the play and have a discussion on it. And one of the reasons that I thought it was worthwhile was the fact that Mark is usually a fairly reliable source of information. I'm trying to give him(or anyone else who agrees with him) every chance available to explain their reasoning.

Must be playing devil's advocate and trying to get what he sees as weak wording changed in the rules. No one could seriously argue that an airborne shooter be required to avoid a player who was not there before they went airborne... huge disadvantage for the shooter otherwise.

I think I speak for us all when I say "HUH?" It could be worse. That bigseth guy could follow us over here.

I'll Be Here All Week Folks ...
 

We could leave a trail of breadcrumbs. Then the birds would eat them and ... Wait. That's Hansel and Gretel, not bigseth and Gretel. As Emily used to say, "Never mind".

Woody:

I did not post a diatribe on the NFHS Board. I admitted up front that my post would be long. I quoted the complete NFHS and NCAA definitions for guarding.


Tony:

I am suprised at your language.


Moving on:

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.

I NEVER (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) said that a defender can jump in front of an offensive player any time and it will NEVER be a blocking foul. If B1 does not have a LGP against A1 before A1 became airborne then, OF COURSE, B1 is guilty of a blocking foul if B1 takes a position in front of A1 while A1 is airborne and contact occurs while A1 is airborne.

Below are the four plays (Play D is the play that is causing all of the hand wringing, but I posted the plays in a specific order to lay the foundation for why the rules support a ruling of a foul against A1 in Play D.) that I posted on the NFHS Forum:

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 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 obliquely into A1 when the contact occured. 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 occured. RULING: Based upon the definition of guarding and Plays A, B, and C, the only logical conclusion is a foul by A1.

The specific NFHS (NCAA and FIBA rules agree) rule citations are:

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.

NFHS R4-S23-A4b: Guarding an opponent with the ball or a stationary opponent without
the ball: If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal
position before the opponent left the floor.

Article 3c makes no distinction between an offensive player who is airborne or NON-airborne when the defender is MOVING TO MAINTAIN a LGP. It does state that if the defender is moving TOWARD the offensive player, the defender is responsible for contact that occurs.

Article 4b states that a defender must OBTAIN his LGP before the offensive player becomes airborne.

There are only two questions that the official must ask and answer:

1) Did the defensive player obtain a LGP before the offensive player became airborne?

If the asnwer to (1) is YES, then the official must ask the next question:

2) Was the defensive player moving TOWARD the airborne offensive player when contact occurs?

If the asnwer to (2) is YES, then the defensive player is responsible for the contact. If the answer to (2) is NO, then the offensive player for the contact.

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.

MTD, Sr.

The rule may be poorly worded (although, if you look closely, it says "legal position" must be obtained before A1 goes airborne, not LGP), but the casebook play that Jurassic posted is plain as day. I don't see how anyone could argue this.

Lets tweak Play B just a bit:

Play B-1: A1 stops his dribble and jumps directly toward B1 while B1 is standing in front of A1. After A1 becomes airborne B1 moves backwards in the same path as A1's leap. A1, while airborne, makes contact with the front of B1's torso. RULING: Foul by A1.

B1 is moving to maintain a LGP against A1. He is NOT moving TOWARD A1 when contact occurs. This is still a foul by A1.

MTD, Sr.

Are we missing Basketball fundamentals here?

Fundamental states that everyone is entitled to a spot on the floor.

The spot is determined at moment offensive player jumps and is entitled to come down

Defender slides laterally and takes spot away

This is a foul. Always has been always will be.

Two playes cannnot occupy the same space at once. The offensive player is occupying it. By the defensive player taking that spot he has displaced the offender from his legally entitled spot...


BLOCK!

Can Of Worms For Lunch ???
 

Very interesting. I haven't completely processed this yet, but it makes me go "Hmm?". Nice counterpoint MTD, Sr.

This epic saga continues ...

Sorry, FIBA definitely doesn't agree with your interpretation, and I guess that NFHS and NCAA don't either.

With reference to the 2006 edition of FIBA rules:
(1) article 33.3 defines LGP;
(2) article 33.4 defines legal defense on a player who controls the ball;
(3) article 33.6 talks about a player who is in the air.

It's pretty clear from 33.6 that an opponent is not allowed to move into the path of an airborne player, even if this could be considered a legal movement under article 33.4:
The rule makes no distinction between offense and defense in the case of an airborne player.

Ciao

10-6-3-Note
 

Is this relevant?

10-6-3-Note: When a guard moves into the path of a dribbler and contact occurs, either player may be responsible for the contact, but the greater responsibility is that of the dribbler if the guard conforms to the following principles, which officials use in reaching a decision. The guard is assumed to have obtained a guarding position if he/she is in the dribbler's path facing him/her. If he/she jumps into position, both feet must return to the floor after the jump before he/she has obtained a guarding position. No specific stance or distance is required. It is assumed the guard may shift to maintain his/her position in the path of the dribbler, provided he/she does not charge into the dribbler nor otherwise cause contact, as outlined in 10-6-2. The responsibility of the dribbler for contact is not shifted merely because the guard turns or ducks to absorb shock when contact by the dribbler is imminent. The guard may not cause contact by moving under or in front of a passer or thrower after he or she is in the air with both feet off the floor.

This thread jumped from the NFHS basketball forum to the Official Forum. Where will it show up next? This reminds me of the final scenes in the movie "Blazing Saddles", the fight between the townsfolk and the gunfighters is such that it literally breaks the fourth wall; the fight spills out from the film lot in the Warner Bros. Studios into a neighboring musical set, then the studio commissary where a pie fight ensues, and finally pouring out into the surrounding streets.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AOeSrLCD-U

That's the relevant part. It's self-explanatory, same as the NFHS and NCAA case plays.

A defender can't re-position himself in front of an offensive player with the ball after that player has left his feet.

Billy, if a defender moves backward, they still remain in the <b>exact</b> same path that the shooter established when that shooter jumped. The defender is NOT moving INTO the path of the shooter.

Apples and oranges....and irrelevant to the play being discussed.

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 <b>AFTER</b> 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.

True, however, in this situation B1 is absorbing the contact by A1 this is nothing wrong there.

Right, but here B1 is not moving INTO A1's path. Apples and oranges.

Not Billy Packer! :eek:

Doesn't really matter how much tweaking you do on these plays - the rules are clear. Once the shooter goes airborne, you can't move underneath him/her or into his/her landing area. Well, you can, but it's gonna be a block called on you.

Kinda wish this one had stayed over on the NFHS forum...it was silly there and is silly here.

BLOCK!

The only thing the defender can do after a shooter has jumped is jump straight up or move in such a way that it doesn't improve their position. I'd let B1 move sideways ONLY if B1 was directly in A1's path already and the sideways movement was either neutral or was taking B1 out of A1's path.

Is "suprised" Buckeye for "surprised?"

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

Can't help but jump in here
(and hopefully the defenders will maintain their legal guarding positions...:D ),

but, when a post starts to disintigrate into a "how dare you take offense to my commentary and interpretation"... in my opinion... it becomes a peanut gallery mosh pit.

And... NO... I am not directing this sarcastic reply at anyone specific.
I am just amazed at the direction "too many" posts seem to take.

I really do love you guys... because once you filter away all the silt and mud, I do on occasion find that special nugget of officiating knowledge and wisdom.

Thanks !
Paul

MTD, to consider how far out there you are, I would present evidence A, which is that I agree completely with JR, and that, quite frankly, doesn't happen very often. :) The wording in the rulebook in this situation is fine and is clear to me.

This is exactly right. It's a geometry problem. If a shooter goes airborne, the only way that LGP remains is if the defensive player moves parallel to the offensive player- and if that happens, there can't be any contact.

This is crude, but in the following pictures X is the offensive player and O is the defensive player. The bold letter is where they begin and the non-bold letter is where they end up after the offensive player is airborne.

.....................O
.....................X
.........O
.........X

Here, legal guarding position is maintained, but no contact is going to occur anyway because they are moving parallel to each other as both are moving obliquely.


.....................X
.........O..........O
.........X

Here, the defender has moved INTO the path of the airborne shooter by moving laterally while the offensive player moved obliquely. The defender no longer has legal guarding position when this contact occurs, and a foul should be called on the defensive player.

And let me respond to your very kind words.

I fully expect that one fine day (after filtering away all of your own particular brand of silt & mud) we will finally locate a single small nugget of knowledge & wisdom.

I know there are some who doubt this, but I remain optimistic.

I will agree that this play could be ruled as a foul against A1, as B1 has NOT lost legal guarding position in this situation, which is why it is completely different than your other scenario.

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.

I see that you've made your usual contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom. Thanks for jumping in.

Wow.

"We have met the enemy and it be us."

(disclaimer: While I'm sure some will not be able to see the forest from the trees, believe it or not this is not commentary on labeling anybody an "enemy". This is reference to the familiar idiom that "upsetting forces exist within, not without"...)

Good luck,
Paul

Another solid contribution to officiating knowledge and wisdom, Paul. Thank you for maintaining your high standards and your usual, distinct work.

Nah, C- at best.

He got the quote wrong and the interpretation.

Yup, he definitely is maintaining his usual high standards and distinct work. The man is nothing but consistent in the eyes of those of us who comprise the Official Forum Peanut Gallery.

(sigh…)

Seriously, I’m sorry you took offense to that comment.
My intent was never to encroach on the personal feelings of those within this forum.

Only to try to understand why any post should have to deteriorate into a finger-pointing exercise.

Paul

Just keep filtering away the silt and mud from those of us in the Official Forum Peanut Gallery(tm) mosh pit, Paul. The best idea is maybe for you to just ignore us completely. Do that and your chances of finding those special nuggets will be greatly improved.

Sir,

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply?

I mean, if it is your intention to play the part of the wry comic… ala, Archie Bunker… I can understand.

But without context to your chronic acrimony, I am having a hard time understanding why someone who is so established on this forum… and by proxy probably just as established as a referee… would utilize such a habitual caustic tone.

Paul

Why such a surly response to my sincere reply also? :confused:

I wasn't playing the comic. My sincere advice to you was to just ignore the silt and mud of the Peanut Gallery.

This site has an "IGNORE" feature. Just enter the names of us silt'n'mudder peanut-gallerians and your problems should be over. You'll never have to put up with another one of our posts, and you'll never have to worry about acrimony again either.

That's just who he is. Like it or not. He's quite clearly not trying to win Miss Congeniality. He has stuff to offer once you get past the ogre on the outside.

Exactly. You may never come to love him. But if you really listen to him, you'll come to respect him and his opinions. Even when you disagree with him.

Pogo ???
 

That's the one.

What I was "interpreting", of course, is why the Pogo cartoon used this particular play on words and what that means...

I better stop.

Why did the chicken cross the basketball court?
He heard the ref was blowing fouls.

:p

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.

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? :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Again, ask him this:

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

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.

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

(sorry couldn't resist)

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.

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

Cue theme from Jeopardy

The suspense is palpable.

Not only that... you can almost touch it.

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>"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 <b>after</b> an opponent has become airborne. <b><font color = red>Obviously the rule does NOT permit that</font></b>."</i>

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

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.

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?:confused:

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 <b>after</b> the shooter had left his feet.

Peter Webb (wrongfully) assumed that Mark was referring to a defender moving sideways <b>before</b> 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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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:

:confused: :confused: 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.

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.

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

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

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:

<font size = +7> <font color = red><b>"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!"</b></font></font>

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.......:rolleyes:

Time for my favorite gif. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

Very appropriate too imo......

You think correctly.

That's not what Mark is saying
 

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.

rwest, see post #61.

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

What he said......

A basketball fundamental apparently completely misunderstood by MTD Sr.

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

Again, this is not what Mark is saying
 

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...

.

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?

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.

No, re-read Peter's response
 

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?

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.

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.

Lah me........:rolleyes:

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 <b>anybody</b> agree with him?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Here is the problem with that logic....when A1 jumped in a direction where B1 was not in his/her path, B1 LOST LGP....B1 has to obtain a new LGP....and since A1 is airborne, B1 can not obtain a LGP.

Are you saying....
 

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!

Are you serious?

Camron is telling you that if a defender is no longer in the <b>PATH</b> of the offensive player after that player has changed direction, then that defender has <b>LOST</b> a legal guarding position. That's completely true and always has been. And you disagree with that?

The definition of "GUARDING" in rule 4-23-1 says that it is <i>"the act of legally placing the body in the <b>PATH</b> of an offensive opponent."</i> The defender can move then laterally or obliquely to <b>MAINTAIN</b> their position in the <b>PATH</b> of the offensive opponent, as long as the opponent isn't airborne. However, if you <b>CAN'T</b> maintain a legal guarding position in the <b>PATH</b> of an offensive opponent, then you have <b>LOST</b> that legal guarding position. That's true for <b>ALL</b> situations. Once you lose LGP, you have to establish it all over again. And the rules won't allow you to <b>ESTABLISH</b> a new legal guarding position on an airborne opponent.

Those are basic guarding principles..

I don't disagree with an Airborne shooter
 

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!

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 <b>BEFORE</b> A1 left the floor, but.....<i><b>"However if B1 moves into the path of A1 AFTER A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."</b></i>

Yeah,
 

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.

I agree
 

To OBTAIN LGP you have to have two feet on the floor facing the player, however when you move obliquely to MAINTAIN LGP are you still in their path?

You don't have to have <b>ANY</b> feet on the floor to <b>maintain</b> a LGP. That's only a prerequisite to initially <b>obtaining</b> a LGP. However, to <b>maintain</b> a LGP you do have to constantly stay in your opponent's path. If an opponent changes direction, the official then has to judge whether the defender was able to constantly stay in that opponent's path. Judgment call iow. Once you're judged to be out of that opponent's path, buh-bye LGP. And if that opponent becomes airborne and you're not in their path when they did so, you can't possibly have a LGP. The defender now has to <b>obtain</b> a new LGP all over again. And the rules won't allow any defender to <b>obtain</b> a new LGP <b>after</b> their opponent goes airborne. That's what Mark seems to be unable to comprehend.

No....there are some direction changes that cause the defender to lose LGP....those where the defender is, at some point in time, in a position where there would be no contact if A1 were to continue in the established direction.

True, IF B1 actually does maintain it...by staying constantly in the path of A1. If at any time A1's path doesn't not go through B1, B1 has lost LGP...they can reobtain it very easily, however....but they can't do it with A1 airborne.
If A1 cuts such that B1 is no longer in his path, B1 must again get into the path with 2 feet down and facing A1. B1, after falling out of A1's path, can't turn sideways, run into the path and take the contact on the side.