Block/Player Control/No Call

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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.

scrapper, in that rule, the dribbler becomes airborne when he executes a "jump try for goal."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

scrapper, in that rule, the dribbler becomes airborne when he executes a "jump try for goal."

Correct, but all that means is that the dribbler is not allowed to contact the defender in order to jump. (Picture "leaning in" with a shoulder to slightly push the defender back, then jumping to attempt the try. This is a very common method of "creating space" for the shot.) The rule is NOT talking about a player who is already airborne. That's clear by calling the player a dribbler, rather than an "airborne shooter".

[Jurassic Referee]

Scrappy, I'm still waiting for you to cite me a rule, any rule, that says a defender can lose a legal position in the direct path of an offensive player by simply backing straight up. And note that the defender with the legal position on the court in the direct path of the offensive player was backing up before the offensive player went airborne.

[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).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

FINALLY!!! LOL. This is the obvious and the only rule-based objection to my position that really has any bite. I'm not sure it's fatal, but I've been waiting for 2 days for somebody to throw it in my face. I skirted my way around it in post #56, and nobody called me on it.

So now that Camron has called me on it, I'm going to try to say why I don't think it's actually a problem for me.

(I'm actually going to use Camron's own objection against him.)

4-23-4b does not talk about the point of contact. It only talks about obtaining a legal position. Camron's absolutely right about that. But he's wrong when he states that the rule addresses "when LGP must be obtained". It only addresses obtaining a "legal position".

The rule doesn't actually refer to LGP. "Legal guarding position" is a very specific term and is used explicitly for a specific purpose in Articles 2 and 3 of 4-23. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if the rulemakers had intended LGP -- in that specific sense -- to be a consideration, they would have simply included the phrase in the rule, just as they did in Articles 2 and 3. Especially since they just discussed obtaining a legal guarding position in 4-23-4a. But they didn't do that.

I don't think it's talking about "obtaining an initial legal guarding position", because that's covered in 4-23-2. If that's what they were talking about, they could have included it as 4-23-2c. And they're obviously not talking about maintaining a legal guarding position (since the rule explicitly uses the word "obtained".)

So since the rule isn't talking about LGP, what does it mean to obtain a legal position? It just means to get to your spot on the floor without being out of bounds. And you have to get there before the opponent became airborne.

Am I stretching? Yeah, probably. But to me, this makes more sense than saying that it's not legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing spot but that it is legal to move backwards into an opponent's landing spot. That makes absolutely no sense at all, based on the rules. In fact, based on Camron's excellent post, even Jurassic would be compelled to say that it IS, in fact, legal to move laterally into an opponent's landing space. And as I said earlier, that is an unacceptable result.

[mbyron]

I'm going to say that the rules have a lacuna: they don't say how a defender may maintain legal position while the shooter is airborne. Scrapper says this can be done only by staying put; JR et al. say that this can be done also by retreating.

Let's request a new rule.

[just another ref]

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: If the defender is on the floor in the path of the offensive player when the player becomes airborne, and the defender's only movement is directly away from the offensive player, it is impossible for this defender to commit a blocking foul, whether he ever had legal guarding position or not.

This is true (in NFHS rules), although I'm not sure why it's the bottom line. . .