That is NOT the only distinction....see the highlight...it clearly says that the movement newly puts B1 into A1's path.

Be "in the path" vs. move "into the path". :p:p

But you're excluding one important piece of criteria from the ruling in 10.6.1 C and that is that B1 has to move INTO A1's path after A1 has left the floor.

Don't confuse the difference between a legal position, and legal guarding position. A player is entitled to a spot on the floor (even laying on the ground in NFHS) - that's a legal position. But there are no additional rights given to that player to move, other than to avoid contact with other players. Legal guarding position does give the player additional rights to move/maintain position. So a player that has a legal position/spot, does NOT have the same rights to move as a player with LGP.

In the rule, 4-23-4(b) or 4-23-5(d), the defender is given the specific right to a legal spot on the floor, not LGP, because it involves an airborne player. Because of that, the defender doesn't gain the additional rights to move through LGP.

In that particular example, no it's not the only distinction. But the distinction made in both examples has to do with whether B1 obtained their spot before or after A1 has left the floor. Since that particular distinction is made in both examples, that tells me whether A1 is airborne is the important distinction, not just the path.

As above, I'm not ignoring it, only discounting it as the important piece of information in the ruling. The important piece, since it's mentioned in both rulings, is whether B1 got to the spot before A1 became airborne.

In fact, check out rocky's play - 10.6.1 Sit A (b). It doesn't mention anything about whether B1 is in the path, moved into the path, moved out of the path, etc., only that B1 moved to a new spot. But since A1 was no longer airborne, it was a foul on A1.

This is what decided it for me...and so the flip side must be true. If A1 was still airborne, it would be a foul on B1 because he/she moved to a new spot after A1 was airborne.

Exactly, no mention of moving into, or continuing to be in A1's path, only B1 being in a spot, and moving to another spot.

So if the two plays are different, why are you choosing to interpolate the less specific one to apply to fit your argument instead of the more specific one which fits ours?

Both case plays involve 4 different scenarios, and each one fits the rule as written. Your interpretation about A1's path being important is only mentioned in 1 out of the 4. In fact, 10.6.1 Sit A specifically mentions 4-23-5(d) as the reference, the rule I keep refering back to. So that actually makes it more specific.

What do you think then is the purpose of the phrase in the ruling 10.6.1 C ruling:

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

And if moving INTO the path is irrelevant, why did they explicitly include it as one of the two requirements for this to be a foul on B1? If their intent was to penalize B1 for changing positions at all while A1 is airborne, wouldn't they have written it as

"However, if B1 changes position after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1."

10.6.1 A does reference the exact rule but it never specifically says that any movement to a new position by B1 is a foul on B1. In fact, it is explaining what is a foul on A1. Hence why I said 10.6.1 C is more specific and more applicable to this now pulverized equine masquerading as a play.

Shouldn't that be "pulverized deceased equine"??

It doesn't say "if B1 moves within the path" or "if B1 moves to a new spot" or "if B1 changes the point of contact." It simply says "moves into the path." To move into the path, you have to have been out of that path.

Yes, we agree! Have any cookies left? :)

Nope...sent them all to that jerk M&M Guy.

Think he will share any of them with you?