In that particular sitch you are absolutely right :)

Very well explained M&M. Now I see the importance of the foot on the floor. So if I understand you correctly, time and distance is a factor in the situation where contact occurs before the offense returns to the floor because the offense didn't have the ball when they jumped and it's a "guarding a player without the ball" situation until he/she establishes possession on the floor. Correct?

OK, I should have read between the lines of your post. Thanks for the help.

That is the way I read the rule. There might be others that disagree, given the fact A1 now has the ball, their status changed at that moment, even in mid-air.

Either way, you see how all this information must be processed in that instant, and the reason some officials simply call the travel instead to avoid making that decision.

I actually disagree based on the logic M&M gives. Once the player gains the ball, time and distance are not a factor.

Once I went back and read that rulebook thingy, I would both agree and disagree with you. :p The rule actually reads the same for guarding an airborne player either with (4-23-4b) or without (4-23-5d) the ball. Either way, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor. So once the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor. However, before the player gains the ball, time and distance aren't a factor either.

So, I will amend my original statement somewhat and take out the part about time and distance on the airborne player. But it still doesn't change the reason for the initial comment on having the foot back down on the ground - no time and distance is required for the guard, as opposed to the guard needing to be in the spot before A1 went airborne.

pesky rules. good grief.
I was thinking of the case when the airborne player puts a foot on the floor just prior to contact.

You think you're the only one to have ever thought of this??

Not really...touching outside of the space is effectively the same as leaving te space but they had to spell it out for those wound't believe it was the same.

While the wording and thinking may be differnet, it, in practice, results in excactly the same outcome.

Neither...having caught the ball in the air, the landing (the first foot to touch) doesn't count as a step...any subsequent contact does.

It is included because the NFHS states unequivocally that this is a block.
In order to definitely state that, it is necessary to know that the offensive player with the ball to returned at least one foot to the floor prior to the contact occurring. If the contact occurs before either foot comes down, then we don't have enough information to decide whether PC or blocking is correct because we need to know whether the defender obtained a legal position on the court PRIOR to the opponent going airborne. That is what the call will depend upon in that case.

The NFHS is against using traveling as a bail-out call in such plays as M&M has correctly articulated. I know that the PAC-10 was actually teaching to call it that way a few years ago! :eek:

Very well said. :)

The NFHS does not provide a definition for a step, but the rules book does mention "the other foot touches in a step." I think that we are going to be arguing with coaches who interp it to be whatever supports their cause.

I can state that what I described above is always considered a step by those on TV reviewing a replay and counting feet hitting the floor. That doesn't mean that they are correct, but if that is the prevailing opinion of the masses, then the NFHS just made our job much more difficult and opened us up to taking unnecessary grief.

http://classroomclipart.com/images/g.../lightbulb.gif
Bright idea here!

Since we can't agree on my first scenario, I'll just disprove this statement with a completely different example.

4-33: "A pivot takes place when a player who is holding the ball steps once, or more
than once, in any direction with the same foot while the other foot, called the pivot
foot, is kept at its point of contact with the floor."

That action certainly isn't illegal. :D

One can split hairs and argue language specifics here, but the bottom line is that this sentence:

is a lot more accurate than:

The second sentence is what a huge number of player/coaches/fans believe.