Flop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yet here -- Defnder uncutting airborne shooter

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.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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. Any other interp is just an assumption. Reasonable assumption, perhaps, but still an assumption without a specific case play or rule re-wording.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

So what if he had one in the same path that he moved along and doesn't change the fact A1's going to land on him?

I'm just rehashing the same argument at this point. I still do not believe that is the intent but I understand the rule argument even if I do not agree.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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

[Welpe]

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.

However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Heh, I bit right through a Fox40 at the end of last season during a youth game. Guess the rec league moms were getting to be too much.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

It is possible to have a legal position and not have legal guarding position. It is not possible to have legal guarding position without have a legal position. In the OP the defender has both. But even if he doesn't, if he is standing with his back to A1, it is not possible for him to commit a foul by retreating after A1 becomes airborne.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

Yes. Thank you.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

if A1 was already going to contact B1.

You have to stop thinking about it in these terms. It is completely and 100% irrelevant what it was GOING to be. It only matters what it IS. And what it IS is a defender who moves to a spot in A1's path after A1 is airborne. So the defender IS responsible for the contact.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

10.6.1 Situation A is a better case book play to use in this discussion...

Just saying.

Cookie time!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

Again, the wording of the first example in the case play ruling doesn't mention B1 being in the path, (yes, it's certainly assumed), only that B1 had a legal spot before A1 left the floor. The second play also mentions B1's position being obtained after A1 left the floor. In both cases, the rulings follow the wording of the rule, where the position of B1 is important based on whether it was obtained before or after A1 leaves the floor.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

I know, but Camron said "in the path", and that's better for my argument, so that's what I'm going with.