Flop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...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.

Why do you want me to site rules that support my point of view? Funny way to debate.

I agree with those. They, however, say nothing about what the defender is or is not allowed to do after they obtain a legal position. You seem to think they do but I see no words in them that restrict movement once the guard has obtained a legal position before the opponent is airborne....and if it is not specified as being illegal, it is legal.

And don't point to that case, you and everyone else knows what it is talking about and it is not what you're claiming.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I am with just another ref on this one. I think the point is to prevent the defense from undercutting an airborne shooter by moving into their path after they are airborne. If the defense is in their path when they become airborne and move backwards in the same path it still should be PC. Moving backwards should not change the defense's rights. If he moved forward, that would be one thing but straight backwards, STILL IN THE PATH of the shooter should be shooters responsibility.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why do you want me to site rules that support my point of view? Funny way to debate.

I agree with those. They, however, say nothing about what the defender is or is not allowed to do after they obtain a legal position. You seem to think they do but I see no words in them that restrict movement once the guard has obtained a legal position before the opponent is airborne....and if it is not specified as being illegal, it is legal.

And don't point to that case, you and everyone else knows what it is talking about and it is not what you're claiming.

C'mon Camron, now you're starting to get silly. I was directly responding to this:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Since you won't quote the rules, or the specific case play, I wil (yet again):
4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must've obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor".
4-23-5(d): "If the opponent is airborne, the guard must've obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor".
10.6.1 Sit A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

The case play you keep referencing as the most important in this discussion lists 4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; and 10 Penalty 2, 5a as references. These involve airborne shooters, fouls on or by airborne shooters, and how many FT's are involved. Those are the issues that case play is addressing.

10.6.1 Sit A lists only 4-23-5(d) as the reference, which is the very rule we are discussing. That's why it's more important in the discussion. (b) specifically only mentions moving to a new spot, without specifiying "into the path", "remaining in the path", or any such language, and that, in spite of the movement, the foul is on A1 because A1 is no longer airborne.

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

Ok, now I'm done. Until something more concrete becomes available.

[Adam]

To further beat this horse:

What if:

What if A1, with the ball, is following B1, who is running towards A's basket. Same path. A1 takes off from the FT line, and before B1 even knows what's going on, A1 crashes through B1, who is still running towards the basket. Are you calling B1 for the block?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To further beat this horse:

What if:

What if A1, with the ball, is following B1, who is running towards A's basket. Same path. A1 takes off from the FT line, and before B1 even knows what's going on, A1 crashes through B1, who is still running towards the basket. Are you calling B1 for the block?

See below:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

Ok, now I'm done. Until something more concrete becomes available.

[Adam]

Very well, then.

[M&M Guy]

Ok then.



(Of course, I'm not sure which one us this applies to.)

[Adam]

I almost went that route, but we're not talking about the arrow.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I almost went that route, but we're not talking about the arrow.

Wait is somebody getting rid of the arrow?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Wait is somebody getting rid of the arrow?

Nope, different arrow discussion.

[Welpe]

Ah must have missed that one. Is it in relation to violations during an AP throw in?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Ah must have missed that one. Is it in relation to violations during an AP throw in?

Since M&M has already posted the picture, I may as well....

It's my belief that the rule should be changed so that the arrow is switched as soon as the ball is at the disposal of the thrower. I am alone in this belief, though, so I don't expect it will ever get changed.

[Welpe]

Got it.

I say get rid of the arrow.

A little more chum in the water ought to do it...

[Art N]

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

I've been reading but not responding the last few days trying to make the room stop spinning. I guess the horse is still kicking! The glue factory will have to wait.

You hit the nail on the head. I think this IS where the two sides have been divided.
You and your supporters are reading the movement by B in regards to an airborne shooter is NOT legal PERIOD!
The others, which I agree with, say that the wording of moving pertains to B moving into a spot like an undercutting.
The NCAA wording you mentioned is more along the lines that I have been thinking. i.e. how could they be allowing an airborne shooter to "fly into" a player backing up and yet not allow a dribbler (or any player for that matter) run over, into or through a defender who is moving backwards?
BTW, I've sent an email to IAABO to see if Mr Webb, etal can shed some light on this. I thought about calling board's interpreter, but I didn't think that would carrier enough weight since we are talking about the written words in the rules book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok then.



(Of course, I'm not sure which one us this applies to.)

Blarges?