2007-08 Case Book 10.6.1 Situation A:
 

I need help to understand this.:confused:


2007-08 CASE BOOK 10.6.1 SITUATION A:

B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands one foot and then charges into B1.
RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)


2007-08 RULE BOOK

4-23-5d: If the opponent is air borne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

The opponent was not airborne when the contact occurred in this situation.

Correct. Thus 4-23-5d does not apply, and there is no conflict with the casebook ruling.

In (b), if A1 had run into B1 prior to the foot touching the floor, it would have been a block.

The NFHS considers an airborne player to have landed when the first foot touches.

IINM, the NCAA doesn't consider the airborne player to have landed until both feed touch the floor...which would make (b) a block....again IINM.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

4-33-4d A.R. 92 in the 2007 NCAA case book is the same as the above NFHS case play.

Edit:
In the 2008 NCAA case book this play is numbered A.R. 88.

A.R. 88.

(1) A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1, or
(2) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 comes to the
floor on one foot and then charges into B1.

RULING: In both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1 because B1 is entitled

to that spot on the floor provided he/she gets there legally before the
offensive player becomes airborne.
(Rule 4-35.4.d and 4-35.3)

At one time, there was a difference regarding an airborne shooter -- iirc, the player was no longer airborne after returning with one foot in FED, two feet in NCAA. I don't think that distinction exists anylonger.

This rule is in place because it is totally possible for a defender to move into the path of an airborne offensiver player and cause contact. The philosophy is that an airborne player cannot avoid the contact and this play is a defensive foul even though the defender may have been "set" for several seconds.

Doesn't this take precedent too? the fact that the defender was in position BEFORE A1 even became airborne?

Maybe...depends on whether A1 has the ball or not.

If A1 has the ball, then yes, it is a charge if B1 has position before A1 becomes airborne.....no landing space required.

If A1 doesn't have the ball, B1 must give time and distance. If B1 got the spot just before A1's last foot left the floor or even as A1 was taking their final step, it will still be a block....not enough time/distance.

The only dilemma that remains is when (a) A1 catches the ball while in the air or, (b) having started with the ball, passes the ball while in the air.

In (b), B's LGP, if obtained before A1 jumped, doesn't cease to be LGP just because the ball is passed away.

In (a), it is a bit stickier question. At the time B obtained a position on A1 without the ball, it was not LGP....too late. But when airborne A1 catches the ball, does that make B1's position legal? This point has been discussed and debated here in the past and you'll not find 100% agreement on the topic. That said, it is my opinion that B1's position that was obtained just before A1 became airborne becomes legal when A1 catches the ball. Rationale...A1 had the ball at the point of contact and B1 had position before A1 jumped.

Camron, you have this a bit twisted.
In order to keep it simple all that one needs to remember is that the guard must have obtained legal position BEFORE the opponent left the floor if the opponent is airborne. This is true whether the opponent has the ball or not.

The time and distance factor (two strides) only applies to guarding a nonairborne, moving opponent who does NOT have the ball.

Actually, I don't have it twisted at all. And it is not so simple as you seem to think.

The question is about what position is legal...and when does it become legal. We have two orthogonal rules (control/time/distance vs. airborne player) that interfer with each other in ruling on the play.


When A1 never has the ball, the answer is clear, time and distance are always required...B1 must give 1-2 steps and just before A1 jumps is not good enough.

When A1 had the ball prior to the jump, the answer is also clear, time and distance are not required and gaining position just before the jump is sufficient.

In the case referenced, B1's position is NOT legal at the time it is obtained (time and distance were not given) but becomes legal when airborne A1 catches the ball (erasing the need for time/distance). And that is the key point of the discussion...that a position that, as obtained, is not legal becomes legal through other actions (A1 catching the ball).

Now, does the legality of B1's position depend on airborne A1's possession of the ball at at the time of the contact, the time of the jump, or if there was possession at some time at or after B1 obtained their position? At a minimum the case play supports the time of contact and, I assert, implies that possession of the ball for any amount of time after the position is obtained is sufficient to negate the need for time/distance. This is necessary for a player who jumps with the ball but passes it away before contacting the B1. B1's position, once legal, can't become illegal because A1 passes the ball.