Block/Player Control/No Call
 

B1 is tightly guarding A1. A1 has his back to B1. A1 receives a pass. Just as A1 turns towards B1, B1 starts to lean back(bail out?). A1 makes contact so that B1 falls (or flops) to the floor.
One official states that this CAN NOT be a player control foul because B1 is leaning back. B1 has lost his 'Legal Guarding Position'. Thus Blocking foul or Play on. Another official states that it could also be a player control foul because B1 did not do anything wrong. A player is entitled to a space on the court.
A) Block
B) Player Control
C) No Call/Play On
I know... someone is going to say "Had to be there to see it"

No where in the rules does it state that LGP is lost if a defender leans backwards. That one official is expressing a total fallacy.
The second official is 100% correct. If the offensive player creates contact which displaces the defender from his legally obtained position a player control foul has been committed.

+1

The description of the play is not sufficient to rule on it. With the player leaning back, incidental contact (which would otherwise have been legal) might have displaced him. I'm not likely to call a PC foul for that.

However, the contact might have been illegal and so more than enough to displace the off-balance defender. I would get the PC for that. As I read your second official, he's saying this could be a PC foul, and Nevada seems to agree. And so do I.

As described, the defender has LGP and does nothing to lose that. So the one call that should NOT be made here is a block (at least for the contact that sends the defender to the floor).

HTBT. :)

You mention that B1 bails out and then "flops." I'd rule that contact incidental and let the play move forward.


If A1 then tripped over B1 after B1 fell to the floor I'd call a block.

If the contact comes before the fall, it's very tough to rule it a flop, and the rule explicitly allows a player to brace for contact by moving away. IMO, if B1 is moving away from A1 and still gets run over, A1 deserves the foul.
If, OTOH, B1's movement away from A1 causes him to lose his balance such that incidental contact finishes the job, I'm ok with incidental contact.

Further, in NFHS rules, you cannot call a player for a foul if he's merely lying on the floor and someone trips over him.

Agreed.

What I have in mind when I think of "flop" is that player that falls to the floor violently after incidental contact trying to "draw" a charge. When that player trips someone, I am more inclined to call the block.

We got into a huge discussion in my association about this one last season. The rules interpreter and I, together with about 2 other people, were on one side ruling this a travel (our case had the ball handler going to the floor with the ball after tripping). Everybody else thought it had to be a block, on the grounds that lying on the floor is not LGP. :eek:

1) Nope, the original post said that "A1 makes contact SO that B1 falls or flops..." Cause and effect. If the contact caused the fall or flop, there's nowayinhell you can call that incidental contact. If the contact hindered the opponent from participating in normal defensive movement, you can't call the contact incidental. That's NFHS rule 4-27-2. You can't play defense if someone knocks you on your azz.

2) You don't have any rules backing to do so under NFHS rules. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court if they got there first without illegally contacting an opponent. And B1 did not contact A1 illegally. That's rule 4-23-1.

It's not so clear to me: I read it as "before and after," which would be consistent with cause and effect but wouldn't entail it.

If it really was cause and effect, then that's pretty obviously a PC foul for the displacement. I agree. I suppose the OP could clarify what happened.

A "flop" is defined in the rule book as faking being fouled. A flop involves very little or no contact. If the contact caused the player to fall, it is not a flop by definition. It's a judgment call. But even if you judge it to be a flop, you have NO rules backing under NFHS rules to call a block if the offensive player moves forward and then trips over the defender on the ground. The defender has a legal position on the court under NFHS rules, even though that defender might be flat on his back.

I read the "so" as being cause and effect. Iow, the contact by A1 caused the fall or flop. No matter what, judgment call. PC or incidental contact.

What you can't have on the play using FED rules is a block.

He said in the OP that the player flops. I've already stated what I think of when I hear flop. Usually, when I see a flop, there is contact, but the contact is usually not enough alone to displace the player or cause the player to fall.

The usually fall on their own accord, and in some cases will trip an offensive player when they have fallen to the floor. I'm saying that I would call this particular instance a block.

1) If so, you have either incidental contact or a technical foul. Those are the only two choices under NFHS rules. But it's always a judgment call by the calling official. If he thought that the contact caused the fall, he could also call a PC foul by rule.

2) Maybe you would call a block, but you have no rules justification under NFHS rules to make that call. If you disagree(and you obviously do), then supply rules citations to back up your assertation. I've already cited the pertinent NFHS rules above that state that it can't be a block.

There was a lengthy discussion on here not that long ago about that very topic.

4-23-1 says that LGP is not established if an arm, shoulder, hip, or leg is extended into the path of the offender and contact happens. In what I see in my mind and am trying to describe is just such an instance. The player "flops" and falls to the floor (which I don't think you can do by 4-23-3 IMO), then the offender gets tripped by a leg or something that comes flying into the air during the flop. I'd call this particular instance a block.

If the player on the floor moves something into the ball handler, that's an easy block call.

More controversial is the case where the defender is lying still on the floor and the ball handler trips over him. That's what the rest of us (or at least JR and I) are saying cannot be a block under NFHS rules.

I would agree with you guys on that one. If the player is just lying on his back, I don't think I would necessarily call a foul either.

And LGP is not required to absolve a player from responsibility for the contact.

IMO, if you think the player is guilty of faking a foul, warn, whack, or both. I've found that, at the high school level, coaches yell at their players more for this than they question us.

And the original post said that B1 had LGP and one official thought the he lost LGP when he leaned back. Well, we know that isn't true under the rules. You can't lose LGP just be leaning back or retreating. And there's no mention at all of contact being made BEFORE B1 was on the floor except for the contact that iniatiated by A1.

Did you bother to read the rule that I cited? NFHS rule 4-23-1 which is under GUARDING? That says that "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent." Did B1 get to his spot lying on the court without illegally contacting an opponent? According to the original post, the answer is "yes". If B1 hadn't, then a blocking foul for the illegal contact would have been called on him BEFORE he fell on the floor. But there was no rules justification for calling a block on B1 on the initial contact because B1 had a LGP, never lost that LGP by rule, and A1 initiated the contact by moving into B1.

Keep looking for rules justification to call a block. I sureasheck can't think of any.

True. Just be ready for the cries of "common sense," or my personal favorite, "incorrect application of the rules."

I know you guys are extending the original post to include a player on the ground. Contact occurred while both players were upright. I was observed by a 'senior, State caliber' official. He asked me about my Player Control Foul. I told him from my angle I saw A1 turn and have torso/torso contact w/B1. He said from his angle he saw B1 lean back, not sideways, absorb minimal contact, and in his words, Flopped. Then went on to say that B1 lost LGP when he leaned back, thus the ruling would be either 'No Call or Blocking Foul'. I used the same Rules/examples that JR, Nevada and Snaqwells used to justify my call. He then proceeded to write additional comments on my evaluation form. He would not tell me what the comment was, but I am assuming it is along the lines of 'Argumentive. Does not respect constructive criticism.'

Too bad we can't critique the evaluators. Sometimes a bit of book smacking is in order.

Exactly. That's the primary issue here: some officials seem to think that the ONLY way to avoid being guilty of a block is for the defender to have LGP.

I've had such officials bite the bullet on this one: B2 is walking up the court to guard A2. A1 dribbles up behind B2 and runs into him. They want to call B2 for a block because he doesn't have LGP. Ha!

Very applicable to the one that Zoochy got. It's tough when the person being evaluated has a better understanding of the rules than the evaluator.

That's when you have to learn when to fold 'em. While you may have the winning hand, sometimes it's best for your career to fold anyway.

Had a veteran partner recently call OOB on a player returning to the court because he didn't establish with both feet. I know that's why he called it because he took a moment to explain the call. He's a guy who has given me great feedback in the past, and I respect him immensely. I've had evaluator-level partners get into discussions about pivot cheeks when an airborne player gathers the ball and proceeds to land on his arse.

Yet I know I have a lot to learn from these folks about handling coaches and problem players, as well as positioning and other nuances.

Hey, I was just going to say that. :p

And then, I was going to say that. ;)

But, I guess I'm not getting on the board early enough, so I will defer to the earlybirds.

Should I forward the link of this thread to the evaluator?
Or do I just 'fold'?
Can anything good come out of this?

Fold. You don't know how the evaluator is going to respond. Politics can be tough but they're a fact of life in some instances unfortunately.

JMO.

+1

There are worse things than a vet mistakenly thinking you blew a rule.

Fold. If he was insisting he was right, sending him this link isn't going to convince him otherwise, and will only reinforce his opinion that you're a "yeah-but-guy."

If he was actually noting that you knew the rule well, sending him the link will only hurt. There is nothing good that can come from pushing this.

Your evaluation situation is unfortunate, but you can take it from another "senior, State caliber official" that your understanding of the rule is 100% correct. It's tough to find quality evaluators.

True.
If one pays attention to Zoochy's posts on this forum, which I'd like to see more of, one will notice that they convey a very solid grasp of the rules.
He is never asking a basic question. There is always something there to make us ponder.

Yes Sir. I have read it. I understand that every player is entitled to their spot. And I also understand that if the defender is on the floor and the offensive player happens to come by and trip without the defender doing anything then it isn't a foul on the defender.
What I'm arguing is that if that player lifts legs into the air and they contact the offender as the offender passes and the offender falls from the contact then it's a foul. And that is listed in the rule that you referenced.

There's your original comment, Hornets, and I still disagree with it. And that's what we have been arguing. There's no mention in it of B1 tripping A1 by making any additional movements after falling. You made an all-inclusive statement about a situation that is not all-inclusive.

This is from an old case book play that has since disappeared from the newer case books. I got it out of the 2003-04 case book. That doesn't mean that the concept still isn't valid under NFHS rules. None of the relevant rules have changed.

CASEBOOK PLAY 10.6.1 SITUATION F: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor.
RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

It is not illegal for A1 to trip over B1 unless B1 actually and actively does something illegal to trip A1 after falling.

You are right. The first statement does seem all inclusive AND if so is wrong. I didn't mean for it to come out that way.

And that's all that me, Snaqs, mbyron et al were trying to point out. :)

If the defender lands on the floor after A1 has become airborne, then he did not get to the spot legally. He's moved out of his plane of verticality after the shooter left the floor. If the shooter then lands on him, the defender is not entitled to that spot. Block.

In real life, the play is going to happen quickly enough that this is a block 90% of the time.

1) :confused: What's that got to do with anything? That situation has got absolutely nothing to do with what we've been discussing. It's a completely different scenario.
And besides that, if a defender with LGP jumped vertically before A1 became airborne and then fell to the floor after A1 became airborne, under what rule is that a foul on the defender? Did the defender move at or under A1 after A1 was airborne? Nope, he was at that spot before A1 jumped! The defender might have lost his verticality but what he didn't lose was his legal spot on the court.

2) Disagree completely. In real life, any official that knows the rules and knows enough to referee the defense will get that play right every time. And the right call sureashell ain't a block on the situation that we've been discussing. I give my fellow officials a helluva lot more credit than saying they'll screw up that call 90% of the time, Scrappy.



Or are you saying that it really is a block under NFHS rules if a defender falls on the court and an offensive(non-airborne) player then trips over that defender?

It's not completely different. I've simply added a shooter, instead of a dribbler.

Now you've changed the scenario. Nobody has been talking about a player who has jumped vertically. We've been discussing a player who has flopped backwards onto the floor.

I guess I apologize for changing the scenario slightly. But let me reiterate what I'm talking about, just so we're clear on what I'm actually saying is a block 90% of the time.

A1 dribbles toward the basket. A1 and B1 make slight or no contact. B1 falls backwards of his/her own volition. A1 becomes airborne to attempt a try. On returning to the floor, A1 trips over B1 who is now lying on the floor.

90% of the time, B1 has taken a defensive position (if you can call it that) under A1 after A1 has become airborne. This is not a legal position. If contact ensues that prevents A1 from landing normally, this is going to be a block.

You know that's not what I'm saying ;) Although, it could be a block if the defender takes that position on the floor without giving an offensive player without the ball time and distance to change direction.

Not sure I agree here.

If B1's position was in A1's path to start with (which is usually the case in such "flops"...otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what to do if they fall...it would have already been a block), falling backwards to the floor is no more taking is landing spot away than was already the case.

Now, if B1 falls INTO A1's path, fine, you can have a block. But really, how many times do the player's fall sideways....which is probably the case needed to fall into A1's path.

Agree with this. If the defender in A1's path(such as in the original post) started to fall straight backwards (either from incidental contact or to try and avoid contact) before A1 became airborne, you can't penalize him for landing on the floor after A1 became airborne. The defender had a legal position on the court right from the start of his "flop" to the time he ended up on the floor. And if the defender had LGP when A1 became airborne, that defender can then legally duck, turn, fall straight backwards, etc. The defender can't move sideways, forward or stick out an appendage into A1's landing spot after A1 became airborne.

1) Disagree. You've added an airborne shooter. That's different than a "shooter. A shooter might still be on the floor when the initial contact/flop was made. No matter what, if the defender had a LGP or a legal position on the court either before or after A1 became airborne, the defender can still legally duck, turn or fall straight backwards. That's what we've been saying.

2) See my response to Camron. If B1 who is in A1's path had either a LGP or a legal position on the court and then fell straight backward from either incidental contact or trying to avoid contact, B1 is legally allowed to land on the court. That is a legal position. I can't think of any rule that says that it isn't under the described circumstances.

3) Yup, but in the OP, there is nothing that says the defender did not have a legal position before the incidental contact/flop. We've been answering on the assumption from the OP that B1 had either a LGP or a legal spot on the court.

So you guys are going to allow a player to move into an airborne player's landing spot after that player has gone airborne? He's not turning or ducking, as allowed in 4-23-3e. He has intentionally left his defensive spot and moved (backwards, I grant you) into the shooter's landing spot.

In an extreme example, suppose A1 is able to jump clear over B1, who has obtained a LGP. B1, seeing that A1 will completely clear him, takes two strides straight backwards so that A1 lands directly on him. You gonna say this is ok? He had LGP and moved only backwards. This is exactly the same as what you point out above. So he still has LGP?

1) Rule 4-24-4(c) says that if a defender is guarding a player with the ball, then that defender must have established a legal position BEFORE the player went airborne. Note that it says a "legal position" and not a "legal guarding position". Did B1 have a legal position in the play being discussed. Yes, indeedy!
And 4-23-3(b,c&d) say that the defender isn't required to face the opponent, can move laterally or obliquely to maintain LGP, can raise hands and jump within his vertical plane, and may turn or duck to avoid the contact. What the rules say that you can't do is stick out an appendage and have primary contact made on that appendage, or be moving towards the player with the ball when contact occurs. Iow, if the defender is there legally, and stays in front of the offensive player--airborne or not--the onus by rule lies with the offensive player.
The defender is NOT moving INTO the airborne shooter's landing spot. The defender was legally IN the airborne shooter's landing spot BEFORE the airborne shooter went airborne. And the defender never moved INTO the airborne shooter's landing spot AFTER the offensive player went airborne either. Nope, he didn't move sideways or forward. The defender just maintained his legal spot on the court.
Can you cite a rule that will back up what you're saying? I can't think of any.

2) That play has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. TWP.

Scrappy, this is what we've been discussing. B1 falling backward to avoid the contact and A1 going straight forward and landing on the defender. Are you really going to call that a block 90% of the time?

In the play that I outlined above (understanding that it's different from the play in the original post), the answer is no. The defender is still moving to his/her spot (on the floor) while the shooter is airborne 90% of the time. That's my point. Once the shooter (or any player, really) is airborne, the defender better not still be moving to his/her spot or it's a block.

I understand that (except for the TWP part). I've already apologized for changing the original scenario. If you think there should be a new thread for my scenario, I wouldn't object. But in MY scenario, 90% of the time, the call is a block.

The airborne player was only going to be able to reach that spot by going through the defender. The defender already earned the right to block that particular direction of movement.

But, 4-23-3c allows them to move laterally or obliquely to maintain position. And, as long as they're in the path of the opponent, they're maintaining it. The right to maintain position doesn't disappear just because the opponent is airborne....only the right to obtain a new LGP. If, however, the opponent has jumped in a path to the defender's side (is airborne), they've lost LGP and it is too late to gain a new position with A1 being airborne.



Yes, B1 can ALWAYS move directly away from A1 if they were in the path of A1 before A1 becomes airborne. If A1 has jumped over B1 and then B1 moves back into A1, that is entirely different.

Let's see if we agree on the circumstances.....

- you have a defender who has established a legal position in the path of a player with the ball.
- the player with the ball now moves directly into the defender without altering his straightforward path and initiates slight contact.
- the defender now tries to avoid further contact by moving/falling straight backwards away from the player with the ball.
- the offensive player now continues and jumps straight FORWARD without altering his original straight path and runs into/onto the defender.
- at NO time after establishing his legal position was the defender NOT in the offensive player's direct path.
- At also at NO time did the defender do anything to LOSE his legal position under any rule that I know of.

If you really insist that's a foul on the defender, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't find anything in the rules that will justify that premise. At NO time, did the defender do anything illegal that I can think of. The defender with a legal position was moving straight back trying to avoid contact and the player with the ball continued straight forward to initiate contact. That isn't a block.

1) And fwiw, that's basically what I've been trying to say also. The defender didn't commit an illegal act under any rule that I'm aware of.

"All we want are the facts, ma'am" (Joe Friday)
 

If every Forum member posted in this manner, we'd have fewer arguments and name calling. Jurassic Referee has posted the facts in a clear, concise manner. Now all we need to do is to apply an interpretation to the rule in his posted situation. By not paying close attention to the language in their posts, some Forum members tend to "muck" things up. Not always their fault, because it's very difficult to describe some plays in typed words in an internet post. A lesson in how to post for all members, but especially for newer members.

By the way, in Jurassic Referee's play, as described above, I do not have a blocking foul.

JR,
You hit the nail on the head. I tried to use those points you mentioned to the evaluator but he closed his ears to all words that came out of my mouth. Plus I got labled as: Difficult, Argumentive and ... well you get the idea.

Under the circumstances which you present, I actually believe that a player control foul is warranted. I'd probably go 75% PC - 25% No whistle depending upon how much contact there was.
What I'm not going to do is penalize the defender.

That's always gonna be a judgment call versus incidental contact imo. If the contact took the defender out of the play and allowed the offensive player to continue going to the hole, I can see calling a PC under those circumstances also. You don't want to let 'em gain a definite advantage like that out of the contact.

Another good example of a play like that is the quick push-off by the forearm of a dribbler, a push-off that makes the defender stumble back a little and allows the dribbler to get the separation that allows him to go up and shoot. Iow a Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant special.

Evaluators should always keep an open mind too. It's another area of officiating where we should never stop learning also imo.

Small consolation but at least you know in your own mind that you were right.

I know I'm late to this party - but I have a problem with this. Why can't an official see his own evaluation? This does not help an official to improve himself.

Maybe it was a try-out camp?

It seems like I'm a minority of one here. 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. But before I do that, let me give it one more try and see if anybody wants to agree with me. Here's where I'm hanging my hat:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Apologies To Gomez Addams ...
 

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

I saw his original comments
-Good Positioning
-Referee the Defense
His additional comment was writen after my discussion with him about his statement that "the defender loses LGP when he leans back"

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.

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.)

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See post #56 of this thread.

See post #56 of this thread.

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.

Ummmm, so what? :confused:

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.

I would agree with this.

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?

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.

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.:)

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

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.

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

You have not yet addressed why this reasoning is incorrect.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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".

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.

Almost. See above...

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

I wonder if Scrapper was my evaluator? :eek:

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.:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
If I understand Scrapper, he's saying that by backing up WHILE THE OPPONENT IS AIRBORNE the defender loses LGP


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.

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?

Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse ...
 

Let's be careful here. You said "Old School" once. That's OK. Just don't say it three times in a row. Please.

http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/33740bbe5866015a

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.

Signed, Epstein's Mother ...
 

Juan didn't know that there would be geometry problems on the Forum today. May Juan please be excused?

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).

That's a clear blocking foul. There's a case book play which says so.

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.

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.:)