Block/Player Control/No Call

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

I wonder if Scrapper was my evaluator?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I wonder if Scrapper was my evaluator?

Just for the record, Zooch, Scrappy is a very knowledgable and level-headed rules interpreter and a more than competent official at all levels also. Very rarely do I disagree with him on anything. We do disagree completely on this one but I am trying to see where he is coming from and why.

He sureashell ain't "Old School" but he does have his shortcomings.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
If I understand Scrapper, he's saying that by backing up WHILE THE OPPONENT IS AIRBORNE the defender loses LGP

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I would agree with this.

Okay let's examine that proposition.

I am the defender and you are the offensive player. You have the ball and are dribbling straight down the court at a high rate of speed. I am directly in front of you and and backpedaling quickly. When you reach the FT line I am about four feet below the FT line and still directly in front of you. Both of us are still moving in the same path and direction. You now decide to go airborne to try for goal. What must I do? Must I immediately stop or may I continue to backpedal? If you jump forward towards the goal and crash into me what is the call? Does it depend upon whether I stopped or continued to move backwards?

I see it as very difficult to penalize the defender in this case.

[bainsey]

I wish we could post diagrams on this thing (and not just online images), but let's try this...

A1 is the airborne shooter. B2 is the defender.
Point X is the spot on the floor where A1 takes off; point Y is where A1 lands. The resulting airborne "path" is line XY.

When A1 leaves the floor, B2 has obtained LGP next to XY. Before A1 lands, B2 maintains LGP by moving laterally into XY.

Scrapper, does this illustrate your point?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

"Old School"

Let's be careful here. You said "Old School" once. That's OK. Just don't say it three times in a row. Please.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I wish we could post diagrams on this thing (and not just online images), but let's try this...

A1 is the airborne shooter. B2 is the defender.
Point X is the spot on the floor where A1 takes off; point Y is where A1 lands. The resulting airborne "path" is line XY.

When A1 leaves the floor, B2 has obtained LGP next to XY. Before A1 lands, B2 maintains LGP by moving laterally into XY.

Scrapper, does this illustrate your point?

It's might illustrate Scrappy's point but it sureasheck doesn't even come close to illustrating mine and everybody elses.

B1 didn't obtain LGP NEXT to anybody. B1 obtained LGP in FRONT of A1. In a1's DIRECT path. At NO time in the situation being discussed did the defender EVER move LATERALLY. Laterally means sideways. At ALL times, the defender was moving straight BACKWARDS. There's a big difference.

XY is a straight-line path going backwards. B1 was never next to XY. B1 was always somewhere on XY. And B1 was moving from X to Y before A1 took off.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The resulting airborne "path" is line XY.

Juan didn't know that there would be geometry problems on the Forum today. May Juan please be excused?

[M&M Guy]

Ok, this has been a kind of entertaining discussion.

Fwiw, I actually see and understand Scrappy's point about the defender arriving at the spot where the airborne player will land. We all agree that according to 4-23-4(b), the defender must be in the "landing spot" (legal position) before the airborne player leaves the floor. I think we are all in agreement in that.

His point is that it appears, within a strict reading of the rules, it does not provide any specific protection if that airborne player will land behind the defender, if the defender is still moving and not in the "landing spot" before the airborne player left the floor.

I agree with the practical application that it will be a PC or incidental contact in that specific instance. But, if I was discussing a literal interpretation of the rules, I cannot come up with any reason why one rule of guarding (defender has the right to move laterally or obliquely) "overrides" another rule (defender must obtain the spot before the airborne player leaves the floor).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I wish we could post diagrams on this thing (and not just online images), but let's try this...

A1 is the airborne shooter. B2 is the defender.
Point X is the spot on the floor where A1 takes off; point Y is where A1 lands. The resulting airborne "path" is line XY.

When A1 leaves the floor, B2 has obtained LGP next to XY. Before A1 lands, B2 maintains LGP by moving laterally into XY.

Scrapper, does this illustrate your point?

That's a clear blocking foul. There's a case book play which says so.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's might illustrate Scrappy's point but it sureasheck doesn't even come close to illustrating mine and everybody elses.

B1 didn't obtain LGP NEXT to anybody. B1 obtained LGP in FRONT of A1. In a1's DIRECT path. At NO time in the situation being discussed did the defender EVER move LATERALLY. Laterally means sideways. At ALL times, the defender was moving straight BACKWARDS. There's a big difference.

XY is a straight-line path going backwards. B1 was never next to XY. B1 was always somewhere on XY. And B1 was moving from X to Y before A1 took off.

My post was as JR writes. B1 is at point Z, which lies between X and Y, when A1 goes airborne. B1 is moving from point Z to point Y at the same time as airborne A1 is moving from X to Y, but at a slower rate of speed, so that they both reach point Y at the same time and a crash results.

That's the scenario up for discussion.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just for the record, Zooch, Scrappy is a very knowledgable and level-headed rules interpreter and a more than competent official at all levels also. Very rarely do I disagree with him on anything. We do disagree completely on this one but I am trying to see where he is coming from and why.

He sureashell ain't "Old School" but he does have his shortcomings.

I know there is/was only 1 Old School! It created a lot of discussion some time ago.
I know Scrappy is a knowledgable contributer. I am just entertained that this thread doesn't want to die.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

If you can provide ANY rule support for that distinction, I will immediately drop the argument. As far as I can tell there is none. The only rule that I know of, that discusses legal position on an airborne player, is the one I've already quoted twice; and that rule says that the defender must be at the point of contact before the opponent became airborne. It makes NO distinction between laterally or backwards; or between "in the path" and "to the side".

You have, as far as I can tell, NO rule support for your position stated above; whereas I have very clear rule support for mine. I love it when that happens.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1

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.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If you can provide ANY rule support for that distinction, I will immediately drop the argument.

4-7-2a: A player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position in his path.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If you can provide ANY rule support for that distinction, I will immediately drop the argument. As far as I can tell there is none. The only rule that I know of, that discusses legal position on an airborne player, is the one I've already quoted twice; and that rule says that the defender must be at the point of contact before the opponent became airborne. It makes NO distinction between laterally or backwards; or between "in the path" and "to the side".

You have, as far as I can tell, NO rule support for your position stated above; whereas I have very clear rule support for mine. I love it when that happens.

NFHS rule 10-6-9-- "When a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight line, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to LEGALLY OBTAIN A DEFENSIVE POSITION IN THAT PATH, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction and or ending his/her dribble."
Isn't that exactly what happened in Zooch's scenario?

NFHS rule 10-6-10--"The dribbler is NOT permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal,, feinting or in starting a dribble."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-7-2a: A player who is moving with the ball is required to stop or change direction to avoid contact if a defensive player has obtained a legal guarding position in his path.

Excellent reference. Two things to say about it.

1) While it's very clear regarding the requirement of the offensive player, it does not address the distinction that Jurassic is trying to make. He's saying it's illegal to move laterally into the landing spot of an airborne player but legal to move backwards into the landing spot of an airborne player. I disagree with him on that, and your reference does not address any such distinction.

2) Clearly, the offensive player is required to stop or change direction if the defensive player has obtained a legal position in his path. So now we need to ask whether that defensive player has a legal guarding position on the airborne player under discussion.

Well, how does one get a legal guarding position on an airborne player? According to 4-23-4b, which I've quoted twice and referenced about 10 times in this thread, the defensive player has to get to the spot BEFORE the opponent becomes airborne.

So if the offensive player becomes airborne and then the defensive player continues to move, the defensive player does NOT have a legal guarding position on the airborne player. Therefore, 4-7-2a doesn't apply.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 10-6-9-- "When a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight line, he/she may not be crowded out of that path, but if an opponent is able to LEGALLY OBTAIN A DEFENSIVE POSITION IN THAT PATH, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction and or ending his/her dribble."

Sigh. I'm not talking about a dribbler. I have never been talking about a dribbler. I am talking about an airborne player.

NFHS rule 10-6-10--"The dribbler is NOT permitted additional rights in executing a jump try for goal,, feinting or in starting a dribble."

Again, I'm not talking about a dribbler. I don't care at all in this thread about the dribbler. Forget the dribbler. I understand that the very first post in the thread was about a dribbler. I changed it to include an airborne player and that's what I've been discussing for 4 pages now.

Neither of those rules is germane to the discussion.