Block/Player Control/No Call

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Hornets222003

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

It does, indeed. And I introduced it precisely because it shows that the majority opinion here would allow an unacceptable result.

According to the folks who agree with Jurassic, the defender in my scenario did not to anything illegal. He obtained a LGP, then maintained that position by moving laterally. Thus, when he is quick enough to move laterally into the airborne player's landing space, most folks here seem to think this should be a player control foul. I think that's unacceptable and not the intent of the rule.

As I've said, once a player becomes airborne, I honestly believe that no other player can move into that player's landing spot, even if they do so by what would otherwise be maintaining a LGP.

(Also, as I re-read this, I realize that it may sound like I'm calling Jurassic out or trying to be antagonistic to him. That's not my intent. I simply use his name because he's the primary person who has been having the conversation with me.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It does, indeed. And I introduced it precisely because it shows that the majority opinion here would allow an unacceptable result.

According to the folks who agree with Jurassic, the defender in my scenario did not to anything illegal. He obtained a LGP, then maintained that position by moving laterally. Thus, when he is quick enough to move laterally into the airborne player's landing space, most folks here seem to think this should be a player control foul. I think that's unacceptable and not the intent of the rule.

As I've said, once a player becomes airborne, I honestly believe that no other player can move into that player's landing spot, even if they do so by what would otherwise be maintaining a LGP.

(Also, as I re-read this, I realize that it may sound like I'm calling Jurassic out or trying to be antagonistic to him. That's not my intent. I simply use his name because he's the primary person who has been having the conversation with me.)

So you are saying that a defender who has established LGP and then moves directly backwards is responsible for the contact if the offensive players jumps and lands on him?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So you are saying that a defender who has established LGP and then moves directly backwards is responsible for the contact if the offensive players jumps and lands on him?

If the defender moves AFTER the offensive player jumps, then yes. The rule says you have to get to the spot BEFORE the player becomes airborne.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If the defender moves AFTER the offensive player jumps, then yes. The rule says you have to get to the spot BEFORE the player becomes airborne.

If the offensive player makes contact stright on with the defender and the defender then falls away straight backward because of that contact or to try and avoid further contact, there is nowayinhell that the offensive player can jump BEFORE the defender started moving backward afyer the initial contact. And if the offensive player now jumps, he's jumping straightforward into/onto a defender that was already moving straight backward. There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to call a block on a play like that. Quite simply, by rule the defender has done NOTHING illegal.

[Hornets222003]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It does, indeed. And I introduced it precisely because it shows that the majority opinion here would allow an unacceptable result.

According to the folks who agree with Jurassic, the defender in my scenario did not to anything illegal. He obtained a LGP, then maintained that position by moving laterally. Thus, when he is quick enough to move laterally into the airborne player's landing space, most folks here seem to think this should be a player control foul. I think that's unacceptable and not the intent of the rule.

As I've said, once a player becomes airborne, I honestly believe that no other player can move into that player's landing spot, even if they do so by what would otherwise be maintaining a LGP.

(Also, as I re-read this, I realize that it may sound like I'm calling Jurassic out or trying to be antagonistic to him. That's not my intent. I simply use his name because he's the primary person who has been having the conversation with me.)

In your situation, if the player moves laterally very quickly to get to the landing spot, I think you would have a block because the player would have to move toward the airborne player in order for this to occur. And no doubt under current human physical capabilities, the player would still be moving toward the airborne player when the contact occurs. I don't think most would disagree with you here. This is illegal by 4-21-3 c.

In the situation that we have been discussing, the player falls backward so they would be moving away from the airborne player. This is allowed. Therefore, they would have legally obtained a spot on the floor prior to the contact.

We could do some vector analysis (never thought I'd bring physics into a discussion here) and prove that the player was moving completely away from the airborne player during the play, but I don't think it's physically possible to slide into the spot without moving toward the player after he has jumped laterally away from the defender.

Just my opinion in this paragraph.
I would say that in your situation, if it were physically possible to move into the airborne shooters landing spot without moving toward him and get there and stop before he lands, then yes, there would be a PC foul. It may be a loophole in the rules as I read them and as you read them, but I just don't think that the athletes that we have today can do what you describe without doing something illegal. So you'd probably be right to call the block.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

According to the folks who agree with Jurassic, the defender in my scenario did not to anything illegal. He obtained a LGP, then maintained that position by moving laterally. Thus, when he is quick enough to move laterally into the airborne player's landing space, most folks here seem to think this should be a player control foul. I think that's unacceptable and not the intent of the rule.

No, the defender never moved laterally, and neither I nor anyone else has ever said that the defender moved laterally. "Laterally" means "sideways". The defender moved straight backwards. That's a whole different direction, Skippy.

Crabs walk laterally, lobsters walk straight! You're talking crabs vs. lobsters now.

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. But....big BUT....we're discussing a defender moving straight backwards, NOT laterally.

You're confusing the hell out the situation now.

[mbyron]

The idea of lateral motion got introduced because of its link to LGP: it's possible to maintain LGP against a dribbler by moving laterally.

That's not the case with an airborne shooter, which explains why everyone is agreeing that moving laterally into an airborne shooter is a block.

I suppose the point of dispute is: does the defender lose LGP by ANY motion, lateral or away from the airborne shooter? If I understand Scrapper, he's saying that by backing up the defender loses LGP and is thus liable to be called for a blocking foul when the AS lands on him.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If I understand Scrapper, he's saying that by backing up the defender loses LGP and is thus liable to be called for a blocking foul when the AS lands on him.

And I know of no rule that says a defender loses either LGP or a legal position by moving backward before an opponent directly in front of that defender became airborne.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

I would agree with this.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I would agree with this.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

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.

You have not yet addressed why this reasoning is incorrect.

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And if either of you think that really you do have rules backing, feel free to cite the germane rules.

See post #56 of this thread.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No, the defender never moved laterally, and neither I nor anyone else has ever said that the defender moved laterally.

See post #56 of this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

See post #56 of this thread.


See post #56 of this thread.

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?