Already have.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain under what rule the defender can lose that legal position by moving straight backward BEFORE the offensive player went airborne. Not "after", before the offensive player went airborne.

If a defender established LGP in front of a dribbler and was retreating straight back in the path of the dribbler, would you allow the dribbler to speed up, gather the ball and then jump on that retreating defender? Is that a block also, using your same logic?

Why not? If the defender established an initial guarding position, then maintained that position by moving laterally, why can he not continue to move laterally into the airborne player's landing spot???? According to everything that I've seen in this thread, the defender hasn't done anything illegal. He's allowed to move laterally to maintain his guarding position.

So what really is the difference between moving laterally into the landing spot (which you're saying here is not legal) and moving backward into the landing spot (which you're saying is legal)?

Either they're both legal or they're both illegal. And what I've been saying all along is that they're both illegal.

I agree with what Scrappy is saying also. Yup, he's definitely saying that. I also think that what he is saying is completely wrong though by rule.:)

Ok, first of all, I think this is a terrific conversation, regardless of whether or not we ever agree on this topic.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is relevant. I think I've made my point as clearly as I can, and your comment above doesn't have anything to do with my point.

Just in case my point wasn't clear, here it is again.

In order for a defender to have a legal position at the time of contact with an airborne opponent, the defender must have arrived at that position on the floor (where the contact occurs) before the opponent became airborne.

It is completely irrelevant whether he began moving toward that spot before the opponent became airborne. That issue is a non-starter. I'm not discussing it at all.

A dribbler, no. A dribbler is not an airborne player. If the dribbler gathers the ball, then jumps to attempt a try for goal and the defender continues to move, then if contact occurs, the defender is responsible for it.

Here's my appeal to rule, as I wrote in post #56:

You have not yet addressed why this reasoning is incorrect.

1) A defender can maintain LGP by moving laterally. But if that defender wants to establish a legal position in an airborne shooter's path, he had to be in that legal position directly in the path before the shooter went airborne. It's illegal to move laterally under aairborne opponent after that opponent went airborne. Rule 4-23-4(b)

2) I can find nothing in rule 4-23 or anywhere else that states that a guard with a legal position on the floor as mentioned in rule 4-23-4(b) can lose that legal position by moving straight backward in the direct path of the opponent before that opponent went airborne.

3) And that's where we disagree. One (moving laterally under an airborne opponent after that opponent went airborne) is illegal by rule. The other (moving straight backwards in a legal position in the direct path of an opponent before that opponent went airborne isn't illegal under any rule that I know of.

Here's what trips me up. Why would a defender be responsible for contact that he did not cause in this situation? If the airborne shooter would end up making contact with the defender regardless of whether the defender moves back or not, how is it a foul on the defender for moving backwards? If anything, I would think the defender's movement would lessen the contact between the two. This situation is not the same as a defender moving laterally into the path of an airborne shooter because without the defender moving in his path, the shooter would not make contact with the defender.

Just my two cents. It has been quite an interesting discussion to follow.

If the defender continued to move backward in the direct path and the shooter then went airborne and jumped on him, you'd call a block?

What would you call if the defender turned around just after the opponent went airborne, took a short step to firm himself up and braced for the contact? Block too?

Methinks we're just gonna have to disagree on this one, Skippy. We're both going around in circles now, repeating ourselves. The time might be better spent on more worthwhile endeavours, like walking our dogs. :) Might be a good subject for one of your Sunday night phone calls though, if they're still on during the off-season.

You do realize that 4-23-4b, which I quoted above (twice) doesn't say anything at all about moving "laterally" or moving "in the path" of an airborne player, don't you? That rule only says that the defender must establish his position before the opponent became airborne. You're making statements that have nothing at all to do with the rule you cited.

Does the defender's movement change the fact that their will be contact or how much? No. If it doesn't change the fact that there will be contact or only reduces it, it is NOT a block. The defender's movement is, in this case, irrelevant.

(1) Defender sets. Shooter jumps. Defender doesn't move. Shooter crashes into defender.
JR: PC
Scrapper: PC

(2) Defender sets. Shooter jumps. Defender takes a step back. Shooter crashes into defender.
JR: PC
Scrapper: block

Do I have that right?

Based on the posted evidence, "yes".

Fixed it for ya....

Now you should have it right.

The defender was never set, as in set "motionless". The defender was set in a legal position on the court at all times by rule imo though.

Almost. See above...

Well, I didn't want to make Scrapper feel bad... :)