Block/Player Control/No Call

[Scrapper1]

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I've already said in another post that a defender can't move laterally into a airborne player's landing spot. That's a basic.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

1) 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.

2) 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)?

1Either they're both legal or they're both illegal. And what I've been saying all along is that they're both illegal.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) 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)

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.

[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."

[Camron Rust]

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.

Here is what the rule says (4-23):

Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent.

Is there any time in this situation that the player is not in the path?

It also says (about OBTAINING position)....

If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.

Note that it doesn't say anything about a spot or at the point of contact....just about when LGP must be obtained. This is in the section about OBTAINING position. Do you agree that the player in this situation has LGP before stepping back? Did the player obtain initial LGP? Yes.

It also says (about MAINTAINING position):

After the initial legal guarding position has been obtained: The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position....

I can find no place that says this rule no longer applies once a player is airborne. The only rule regarding airborne players is in regards to OBTAINING initial position.

For a player that has LGP, this rule allows a defender the freedom of movement. In particular, it allows rearward movement even when guarding an airborne player. Any other movement would imply the defender was no longer in the path of the airborne player and, as a result, the defender no longer had LGP to maintain....movement would be in order to re-obtain a LGP...which is not allowed after the opponent is airborne. (Some lateral movement could be legal as long as B1 was already in A1's path where such movement would either be insignificant or would take B1 out of A1's path).