Block/Player Control/No Call

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.