Block/Player Control/No Call

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

1) 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.

2)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.

2) 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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

N'est-ce-pas?

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

3) Is the defender moving under the airborne shooter or is the airborne shooting jumping into/onto a defender who is falling backwards?

No matter how you phrase the question, the answer is that after the ballhandler becomes airborne, the defender moves to the spot where the airborne player will land. Again, I cannot believe that it is the intent of the rules to allow this. Once that player becomes airborne, no one can move into that player's landing spot.

[Adam]

I'm going to advocate a sort of compromise position that depends upon the trajectory of the shooter. If the shooter has the ability, demonstrated by the trajectory of his jump, to jump over the defender, and the defender then moves backwards into the landing zone; I'd say it's a blocking foul based on scrapper's logic.

If, however, the shooter's trajectory would take him into the defender and the defender simply moves backwards, maintaining LGP, PC (or incidental).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to advocate a sort of compromise position that depends upon the trajectory of the shooter. If the shooter has the ability, demonstrated by the trajectory of his jump, to jump over the defender, and the defender then moves backwards into the landing zone; I'd say it's a blocking foul based on scrapper's logic.

Sorry, that ain't a compromise. You can't compromise anything without any rules backing to back up your supposed side of the compromise. And neither you nor Scappy have any rules backing for your position.

Logic is meaningless when rules are involved. One has nothing to do with the other. And one man's logic doesn't necessarily equate to another man's logic either. Mehinks you need to insert the word "opinion" instead of "logic". You and Scrappy are giving your opinion; that's a heckuva big difference than the way that the rules actually read.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No matter how you phrase the question, the answer is that after the ballhandler becomes airborne, the defender moves to the spot where the airborne player will land. Again, I cannot believe that it is the intent of the rules to allow this. Once that player becomes airborne, no one can move into that player's landing spot.

Are you serious? Didn't you read the agreed-upon scenario? The defender started moving backward upon the initial contact BEFORE the offensive player jumped. The defender was ALREADY moving backward either from the incidental contact or from trying to avoid further contact BEFORE the offensive player became airborne!

No matter how you phase the question, the ballhandler became airborne after the defender started moving straight backwards and jumped into/onto the defender. The rules do not allow us to call a block because by rule the defender has not done anything illegal.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you serious? Didn't you read the agreed-upon scenario? The defender started moving backward upon the initial contact BEFORE the offensive player jumped. The defender was ALREADY moving backward either from the incidental contact or from trying to avoid further contact BEFORE the offensive player became airborne!

Ummmm, so what?

Nobody, including me, is saying that the defender has to start moving toward his spot on the floor before the offensive player becomes airborne. My entire point in this thread is that, in order to have legal position at the time of contact with an airborne player, the defensive player must get to that position before the player became airborne.

I couldn't care less when he started moving. That's completely irrelevant.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

No matter how you phrase the question, the answer is that after the ballhandler becomes airborne, the defender moves to the spot where the airborne player will land. Again, I cannot believe that it is the intent of the rules to allow this. Once that player becomes airborne, no one can move into that player's landing spot.

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.

[mbyron]

(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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

(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".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

(2) Defender steps backward. Shooter jumps while the defender is in the process of stepping straight back. Shooter crashes into defender.
JR: PC
Scrapper: block

Do I have that right?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

(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 Everyone but Scrapper: PC
Scrapper: block

Do I have that right?

Almost. See above...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Almost. See above...

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

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

I wonder if Scrapper was my evaluator?