Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 826948)

Yet here -- http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post826875

you say:


This is exactly what we're discussing in this thread. B1 establishes LGP. A1 goes airborne. B1 moves directly backwards.

A1 is airborne. Did B1 move? Yes. Did B1 take a position "on that path" (your words, not mine)? Yes. According to your own post, this is not legal.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 826999)

I see your point but the difference in this case is that if A1 was already going to land on B1, B1's stepping back does not change that fact. I cannot see how A1 was disadvantaged or put at any greater risk by B1's action and I do not believe that is the intent of the rule.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 827006)

It seems the only intent of the rule is to make sure a defender has gained a legal spot before the offensive player leaves the floor.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 827000)

Except that B1 ALREADY had a position on the path, they didn't take a position on the path...there lies the fundamental difference.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 827008)

Admittedly I have yet to see this so it's all theoretical at this point but if I do I guess I'll grit my teeth and call it a block so that I can move up or not lose games.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 827019)

Don't do that, it's not good for your whistles, and grinding your teeth will make it harder to eat cookies later.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 826914)

That's exactly where we disagree. 4-23-2 deals with establishing legal guarding position. 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d) deal with how airborne players are treated differently. If defending an airborne player is no different than defending any other player, in regards to LGP, then why do the rules list an airborne player separately and change the wording to "legal position"? Again, you (and others) are adding the word "guarding" to those 2 rule sections where it doesn't exist. All those sections mention is "legal position", and we know there is a difference between those two terms. And, because of that, it doesn't allow for the same movement allowed by the LGP rules in 4-23-3.

I understand it doesn't "seem right" that a defender would not be allowed to move away from an airborne player, and it's probably not how it's called in practice. But that's not how the rule is written.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 827022)

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 826982)

if A1 was already going to contact B1.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 827000)

Except that B1 ALREADY had a position on the path, they didn't take a position on the path...there lies the fundamental difference.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 827011)

But the case play you quoted doesn't make that distinction:

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before
A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor..... However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. .... (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

The only distinction being made in both cases is whether B1 obtained the position before or after A1 leaves the floor.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 827040)

There is no difference. He moved to a spot in A1's path. The fact that he started in A1's path does not change the fact that he MOVED to a spot IN A1's PATH.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 827022)

OK giving this caseplay a closer look, I'm going to retract my previous post.

Here's where the rub is with that caseplay ruling. The ruling qualifies two things that make it a foul on B1, time and location.

The time is after A1 leaves the floor and the location is into A1's path from outside of A1's path.

In other words, from the ruling.



The way this ruling is written, you need both of these conditions for the foul to be on B1.

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 827044)

The caseplay does not say IN the path, it says INTO.