The airborne player was only going to be able to reach that spot by going through the defender. The defender already earned the right to block that particular direction of movement.

But, 4-23-3c allows them to move laterally or obliquely to maintain position. And, as long as they're in the path of the opponent, they're maintaining it. The right to maintain position doesn't disappear just because the opponent is airborne....only the right to obtain a new LGP. If, however, the opponent has jumped in a path to the defender's side (is airborne), they've lost LGP and it is too late to gain a new position with A1 being airborne.



Yes, B1 can ALWAYS move directly away from A1 if they were in the path of A1 before A1 becomes airborne. If A1 has jumped over B1 and then B1 moves back into A1, that is entirely different.

Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....

- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.

If you really insist that's a foul on the defender, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't find anything in the rules that will justify that premise. At NO time, did the defender do anything illegal that I can think of. The defender with a legal position was moving straight back trying to avoid contact and the player with the ball continued straight forward to initiate contact. That isn't a block.

1) And fwiw, that's basically what I've been trying to say also. The defender didn't commit an illegal act under any rule that I'm aware of.

"All we want are the facts, ma'am" (Joe Friday)
 

If every Forum member posted in this manner, we'd have fewer arguments and name calling. Jurassic Referee has posted the facts in a clear, concise manner. Now all we need to do is to apply an interpretation to the rule in his posted situation. By not paying close attention to the language in their posts, some Forum members tend to "muck" things up. Not always their fault, because it's very difficult to describe some plays in typed words in an internet post. A lesson in how to post for all members, but especially for newer members.

By the way, in Jurassic Referee's play, as described above, I do not have a blocking foul.

JR,
You hit the nail on the head. I tried to use those points you mentioned to the evaluator but he closed his ears to all words that came out of my mouth. Plus I got labled as: Difficult, Argumentive and ... well you get the idea.

Under the circumstances which you present, I actually believe that a player control foul is warranted. I'd probably go 75% PC - 25% No whistle depending upon how much contact there was.
What I'm not going to do is penalize the defender.

That's always gonna be a judgment call versus incidental contact imo. If the contact took the defender out of the play and allowed the offensive player to continue going to the hole, I can see calling a PC under those circumstances also. You don't want to let 'em gain a definite advantage like that out of the contact.

Another good example of a play like that is the quick push-off by the forearm of a dribbler, a push-off that makes the defender stumble back a little and allows the dribbler to get the separation that allows him to go up and shoot. Iow a Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant special.

Evaluators should always keep an open mind too. It's another area of officiating where we should never stop learning also imo.

Small consolation but at least you know in your own mind that you were right.

I know I'm late to this party - but I have a problem with this. Why can't an official see his own evaluation? This does not help an official to improve himself.

Maybe it was a try-out camp?

It seems like I'm a minority of one here. It's possible that I'm thinking too much with my NCAA hat on, and if so, I will bow to the greater collected wisdom of the majority. But before I do that, let me give it one more try and see if anybody wants to agree with me. Here's where I'm hanging my hat:

Very simply, I take this to mean that the guard must have gotten to the spot of contact (his legal position) before the ballhandler left the floor. It's not talking about initial guarding position; that discussed in 4-23-4a. It's not talking about maintaining LGP, because that's covered in 4-23-3.

It says he has to already be at his position before the ballhandler is airborne.

If we accept the majority view here, a ballhandler could make a terrific, athletic play -- jumping laterally to avoid a defender with LGP; and that defender could then run/slide laterally into the ballhandler's landing spot. You guys would say that's a PC foul.

I can't honestly believe that the rule is supposed to allow any player to move under any other after one of them becomes airborne.

Actually, in the post from Jurassic, he specifically mentions the case where the defender was always directly in the path of the offender.

I think your situation introduces another variable with the offensive player jumping laterally.

1) And your NCAA hat also probably tells you that there's an AR that says it's a block if a player with the ball stumbles over a defender who fell in front of him. Different rules iow...NFHS versus NCAA. My own opinion is that this is one play where either one or the other should move so that there's unified interp. That makes it easier for the officials like you that go back and forth between the two rulesets.

2) And the problem remains that the defender did nothing to lose that legal position on the court by simply falling straight backwards under any rule that I am aware of.

3) Is the defender moving under the airborne shooter or is the airborne shooting jumping into/onto a defender who is falling backwards? We all know that the defender can't move laterally or forward under an airborne shooter, but there's nothing stating that he can't fall backward. The act of "turning" to absorb the contact is legal, and that act will usually move the defender backwards slightly too n'est-ce-pas?

Apologies To Gomez Addams ...
 

"Jurassic Referee! I just love it when you speak French!"

I saw his original comments
-Good Positioning
-Referee the Defense
His additional comment was writen after my discussion with him about his statement that "the defender loses LGP when he leans back"