I don't know that I was picturing B3 as having LGP first. But let's say h/she does. Once A1 goes airborne, is B3 allowed to change that position and take away A1's landing?

B3 has LGP. A1 comes straight to him. B3 flops straight back. A1 may not have a place to land, but he wouldn't have had one without the flop, either.
No way is this a foul on B3.

Thats the one the added when they took the others out this year, right?

Your options are mutually exclusive.

If B3 had LGP, that means they are already in A1's path and falling back can't/doesn't change that.

If B3 changes position to get in airborne A1's path, B3 didn't have LGP.

The way I view it is that falling back is not changing position or moving into the path of the shooter if they are already in the path when A1 went airborne. Falling back only reduces the amount of impact relative to what would have occurred had B3 stood their ground. That can't be a foul on the defender to reduce the impact that was going to otherwise occur. If B3 falls away and still gets hit, it is even more likely that it is a PC foul, IMHO....B3 was just softening the blow.

If B3 makes it to the floor before contact, but were in the path before A1 was airborne, I see that essentially as ducking the contact (a permitted act). If they had stood their ground, A1 would have only hit them harder. If A1 lands on them, I still don't see how B3 did anything to cause the contact since they were legally in their path to start with and only moved away from the opponent.

If, however, B3 wasn't squared up and in the path and A1 was going to fly by B3 but the fall puts B3 into A1's path (or landing spot), then B3 never had LGP to start with and it will be a block.


One common misconception, A1 isn't entitled to a landing "spot", only a path until they land. If B gets in that path before A jumps and is not moving forward at the time of contact, that is all that B is required to do.

Thanks. That is what I was thinking too.

This is how I was picturing it...

And I like your explanation of the player not losing LGP status.

I'm convinced.

Geeze, you're getting easier to convince in your old age. ;)

Once a player establishes LgP they don't have to maintain it to take a charge. However a player cannot have LGP while on the floor. If a player falls to the floor with no contact and the airborne shooter lands on him I'm calling a block all day long.

NFHS rules specifically state that every player is entitled to a space on the floor provided they get there legally. However unlikely, if a defender gets to a spot on while on the floor, first and legally, then by rule if a player is to land on him, it wouldn't be a block. This is different than the NCAA rule if I recall correctly.

Please read the rules. This demonstrates either a lack of understanding of LGP or simply a miscommunication.

Groupthink works!

We've had this exact conversation pretty recently, and I will repeat my minority opinion. Regardless of whether B1 has LGP before A1 becomes airborne, once A1 becomes airborne, if B1 moves to a new position, B1 is responsible for any contact.

There is no way I'm allowing any player to move into an airborne player's landing spot AFTER that player becomes airborne.

Was about to post the same opinion. A1 goes airborne and B1 falls without contact and B1's new position on the floor causes disadvantageous contact to A1 then I'm going with a block.

So if B1 simply delays the moment that A1 initiates contact because he fell away, a PC foul is changed to a block? In my opinion, if A1 was going to go through B1 anyways, this is still a PC foul.

Maybe we're picturing this differently. If B1 fell away early enough that he is already on the floor, then I don't see how he would have LGP and I think a block is appropriate. If B1 is still falling and the contact is delayed only a second or two, I think we still have a PC foul.