Not necessarily, and you know that. Do the rules state specifically that a player cannot get down on all fours and bark like a dog to distract the other team? Do the rules specifically prohibit a player from putting the ball in their shirt, doing a hand stand, then walking on their hands on the court? Using your "basic principle of legal unless prohibited", these are legal plays.

All that aside, the rule about guarding an airborne player is pretty specific - the defender must get to a legal spot before the player is airborne. You and I disagree as to whether the defender can move after the player is airborne. Until we get definite direction, we will have to agree to disagree. The Elmer's truck is waiting for me.

Double poppycock.

What has been said is that once the player goes airborne the defender can't move to a new position. Putting a word like "flinching" in there is just being ridiculous.

Well, if that's your best rule reference, I'm feeling pretty good about my position. :D

As I mentioned to Camron, the rule on guarding an airborne player (with or without the ball) is specific - the defender must get to the legal spot before the player is airborne. Where we disagree is whether the defender can move after the player is airborne. Until we get another ruling or change in the case play(s), we won't know for sure which of us is correct.

In the meantime, I'm going to fix my dinner - deep-fried thin mints are sounding pretty tasty.

Yes, they do prohibit such actions for those that can comprehend concepts vs. needing an endless list random possibilities.

No, you can't change the word like like...nowhere does it say they must get "a spot". The rules say they must get a spot "into the path"/"in the path", not to "A" single spot.

I agree. That's the whole point. It is ridiculous. He can't move to a new position, but he can flinch? Exactly how much can he move?

If you're legal, and you move directly away from your opponent, there is no circumstance which makes you now illegal.

...sigh...Please quote me (the rules) 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d).

Also, please quote case play 10.6.1 Sit A.

This is the key. A legal spot, not the legal spot.

If you want to be that perfectly precise, the actual rule doesn't use either preposition.

Now what?

Do we really want to perpetuate the myth that a player must be "set" in order to take a charge? I know this isn't a rule argument, but I know of no other time when this is required, except for under this interpretation. Even a step backwards, away from the airborne shooter, is enough to turn an imminent charge into a block.

Nowhere is "legal position" defined, let alone as a "spot", that I can find, so I have to assume (yes, I know) it's defined as LGP. It's as close to a definition as I can find, and the wording is pretty close. I've taken enough swings at the equine, so I'll let it go for now.

To be precise, a and the are not prepositions. The point is the rule requires legal position, not that the defender already be at the position of the contact before the offensive player becomes airborne.

Had to take one more swing, eh?...

I get what you're trying to say, and it's a valid point. However I'm still not convinced "legal guarding position" and "legal position" are the same.

But try to look at it from this standpoint - we know the committee values freedom of player movement, both offensive and defensive, and there are time and distance requirements when it comes to guarding or screening an opponent to balance that difference. When an opponent guards or screens a stationary opponent, no time or distance is required because the opponent can easily move in a different direction. When the opponent is moving, time and distance become a factor, because the committee realizes the player cannot instantly change direction, so the rules allow the opportunity for the opponent's momentum to be slowed, so they can then change direction.

Finally, we also know the committee treats airborne players differently due to both the separate mention in the guarding rules, and airborne shooter rules when it comes to scoring and fouls. Combine the two thoughts, and it's easy to see how the rules would allow for a defender to get a position/spot before the player leaves the floor, because the player still has the opportunity to go another direction. However, once the player leaves the floor, there is no chance for that player to change direction or speed, so the intent would be that defender should not be allowed to move to another spot until the airborne player lands. Balance between offense and defense.

It's only my theory, and I'm not going to spend much time defending it, other than to say it seems (to me) to make as much sense as anyone else's.

B1 has legal position directly in A1's path. A1 becomes airborne, so he has no chance to change direction or speed. Contact is imminent. B1 takes a step back. Contact is still imminent, only slightly delayed. Nothing has changed. A1 is still responsible.

too late:D

Valid opinion. And that's how it is probably called most often in practice. But we still disagree as to whether the wording of 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d) allows for additional movement in any direction after the player is airborne.

Geeze, you got that right! :D