Again, I've mentioned it several times here - the provisions of establishing initial LGP are in 4-23-2, and the provisions of maintaining LGP are in 4-23-3. The point Scrappy and I have been making is the provision involving an airborne player are specifically mentioned in the next section, 4-23-4: "Guarding an opponent with the ball:...(b) "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

The exact same wording is mentioned in 4-23-5, Guarding a moving opponent without the ball... (d) "If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

In both cases, it does not say legal guarding position. Both sections specifically mention airborne players (with and without the ball), and are separate from the sections involving LGP. This tells me airborne players are handled differently than under "normal" LGP rules.

That is not the impression I have but if so, I will happily concede. I was basing my analysis on the OP which seemed vague to me as how far B1 had fallen by the time she was contacted.

M&M you have any cookies left?

If B1 is still falling back, then he hasn't moved to a new spot on the floor while A1 is airborne - which is the focal point of all this discussion, imho.

I'm going off this response which is what got this debate started:

I don't want any cookies, I wan't M&M's.

I see, that still isn't clear to me that B1 is already on the floor but maybe it is implied by "flops". That's neither here nor there, I'm glad in toto we agree and the disagreement was a misunderstanding. Gotta run now, I've got to queue up my next Phil Collins video.

Have you tried the new Dark Chocolate Raspberry M&M's? Yum-o! ;) :D

My only disagreements in this thread have with those that would call a block on B1 solely because they flopped (like the OP,...remember that?...), or those that would call a PC when B1 moved and contacted A1 while they were still in the air.

But, other than that, I like cookies too.

Just how do you contact someone you're moving away from? It seems to me the shooter caused the contact.

Or it tells you the writer of the rule didn't write it any better than many other rules. Even so, it doesn't even matter. (See 10.6.9 where the term "legal position" is used in the context of talking about legal guarding position and what a defender may do after obtaining it).

Simply put, did the defender have a legal position (in the path) at the time the opponent jumped? Yes or No. If they did (in the path), then they satisfied the rule. There is nothing in the rule that says they can no longer move once they have position.

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."

"If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal
position before the opponent left the floor."

The rule mentions nothing about landing spots....it is all about being in the path. If they are not in the path, they do not have legal position and any movement to get in the path of an airborne opponent would be illegal.

The case play being cited to counter this is not relevant...that case is implying the player is not in the path and moves to a new position that puts them in the path after the opponent is airborne. It is not talking about moving in the same path and direction....which is what we have here.


Check out this case....

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)

Hmmm...sounds like "path" is the key.

For the timing yes, but the action being restricted is moving INTO THE PATH....not all movement.

Um, how else would there be contact if B1 didn't end up in A1'a path somewhere along the way?

In the first part of the case play, B1 was in A1's path too, it's just that it was deemed legal because he was there before A1 left the floor.

Camron, I know you like to argue, er, discuss, (:))but I'm not sure what it is you are advocating? The rule is very clear, and your only response is they must've written it wrong? Maybe, but I can sure come up with a LOT of wonderful (but very incorrect) rulings if I always use that approach.

The comment about the writing of the rule was not my point, just a side note.

The rule is clear that timing of entry to the path is all that matters. There is nothing in the rule or any case play that prohibits movement. No one has yet shown any rule or case that says anything close to it being a foul for a player who is legally in the path before the opponent is airborne to then move away from their opponent. You're adding your own requirements above what the rule requires to get to that conclusion.

+1

What Camron said? That!

I'm thinking that some of these guys that strongly say otherwise wouldn't actually call a foul on a defender for moving away from his opponent. It's just a great example of a play that does not translate well to the written word.

What do you mean, my requirements? In fact, you are the one inserting the terms "guarding", or "into the path" into the actual wording of the rule.

Please quote me 4-23-4(b), and 4-23-5(d), and tell me why those were listed separately from 4-23-3, if airborne players were not to be treated any different than other players when it comes to LGP?

No cookies for you!

(Billy will be along shortly to insert a pic of the soup nazi.)

I have a Rick Roll queued up.

I am this close to withdrawing permission.

Isn't there a statute of limitations?

4-23-3 deals with what one can do after obtaining LGP.

4-23-4b and 4-23-5d deal with obtaining LGP.

".......the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

In the situation at hand the guard had met this requirement. Any movement away from his airborne opponent does not make his position illegal.

Already done...go back and read them.

Once your laying on the floor how are you still moving away?

I'm waiting for someone to tell me that they have in their career called a PC/Charging foul on A1 when landing on prone B1, who has flopped to the floor of his volition.

I whacked a kid last year who threw himself backwards with a loud shout (like he was shot) as he flung himself to the floor. Never came within 3 feet of contact. Coach was beside himself. Not a call I've made more than, umm, once.

Answering the question above, I'd never have a PC foul in that situation. And I do believe based on my reading of the rules and case plays that the airborne shooter is absolutely protected -- there's no changing spots (even backwards) after the player goes airborne -- not unless the defender wants to pick up a foul. Clearly some great minds agree *and* disagree on this.

No squirrel nuts posted this time.

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.

Excellent! Your new batch of cookies is in the mail!:p

Snaq, I understand your point, and it's foundation in the rules. A player does not have to be in an LGP to take a charge, provided he got to his place on the floor legally. I agree with you. I agree that a player is entitled to any position on the court provided he is stationary. Where I believe we disagree is in whether or not we think B1 (who went to the floor without contact) got there legally, what position he's legally entitled to, and whether the said player is stationary.

A player is entitled to their space within the frame of their feet from the floor vertically to the ceiling of the building. That doesn’t change when a player is falling backwards to the floor. The space they are entitled to is that directly above their feet. Any contact that that occurs outside that the defense is responsible for as it is contact that occurs outside of the space the defender is entitled to and puts the offense a disadvantage. It doesn’t matter whether that contact is in front of the player, to either side, or in this instance behind him.

It is no different than a player who’s feet are stationary that holds his arm out perpendicular to his body, or reaches straight forward and contacts a driving or shooting player. We wouldn’t allow a defender who’s feet are motionless to gain an advantage while turning his shoulders and placing his arms in the landing area him of an airborne shooter while he’s being completely jumped over (unbelievably unlikely I know but it’s a good example), why would we allow the same defender to fall down backwards and essentially do the same thing?

In the event a player got to that position on the floor (for any reason at all) prior to an airborne shooter taking off I would not hesitate in calling a PC, provided the defender remained in their original position.

Yet here -- http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post826875

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.

Well, crap, I may never be ready for baseball season. :p

OK forget falling away and let's look at this. Let's say that B1 takes a single step backwards after A1 is airborne. So instead of A1 making significant contact (enough to be a PC in anyone's book) with B1's head, shoulder area, he makes contact with B1's lower torso or legs.

Are you saying that because B1 moved, this turns into a blocking foul on B1?

(I'm about two steps away from breaking out stick figure images to see if we can illustrate these points any better...)

The contact doesn't have to be a foul, it can also be incidental contact.

It could easily be a no call.

That I can see but I'm having a hard time seeing a block if A1 was already going to contact B1.

Don't get too hung up on "what might've happened". Let's say A1 is dribbling full speed into the lane, right at B1. B1, seeing A1 outweighs him by 40 lbs., decides to step out of the way at the last moment, but then grabs A1 on the arm as he goes by. Do you still feel bad calling a foul on B1, even though A1 was definitely going to make contact before B1 moved?

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.

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

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.

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? :D

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Yes. Thank you.

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.

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.

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

Just saying.

Cookie time!

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

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.

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

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?

I agree the wording may not fully satisfy either one of us, but at least 10.6.1 Sit A uses the same wording as the rule - "moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne". The wording 10.6.1(c) means the same thing - moving into the path is the same as moving from one spot to another - while the wording in 10.6.1 Sit A cannot always be the same - moving from one spot to another is not always the same as moving into the path.

I agree, it may be time to bury the poor equine.

Depends on the type of cookies. My generosity is only exceeded by my selfishness. :D

So it seems. Maybe the NFHS will issue an interpretation one day that has one of us gnashing our teeth and the other saying "See I told you so!" :D

Now fork over the thin mints and nobody gets hurt.

Oh no way...

I didn't send him the thin mints. Those stay right here with me.

I sent him those weird things with the graham cracker base and the marshmallow middle all covered with chocolate. He can have those.:mad:

To summarize: B1 is jogging up the court to take his defensive position, unaware of what is going on behind him. Dribbler A1, moving rapidly, approaches from behind. As both players continue in the same path, A1 jumps to release a pass, then lands on B1. Ruling: blocking foul on B1, because he moved to a new position while A1 was airborne.

It has happened to all of us. B1 flops to the floor without contact and A1 lands hitting some part of B1's body.

Still waiting for someone to say they have called a foul on A1 for landing on B1.

Nope, it doesn't have to be a blocking foul; it could be incidental contact. But, if there's a foul, by rule, B1 moved to a different spot while A1 was airborne, so it would be a foul on B1. I agree, it doesn't feel right. And if you called the foul on A1, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1, while dribbling, slightly mis-handles the dribble, and it bounces up just over shoulder height, while A1 keeps their hand on top of the ball. It doesn't feel right to let it go. If you called a carry, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1, while dribbling up the floor, loses control of the dribble, and takes several steps while trying to regain control. It doesn't feel right to let it go. If you called a travel, no one would argue. But that's not what the rule says.

A1 drives into the lane and there is contact with B1. The T blows their whistle and signals a blocking foul, while the L blows their whistle and signals a PC foul. It doesn't seem right that 2 fouls have to be charged on one play. And if the officials got together and came out with one call, hardly anyone would argue that 2 fouls have to be charged on that play. But that's not what the rule says.

To summarize: Just because a ruling doesn't feel right on a play, doesn't mean we are to ignore the rule.

I've got another glue recipie I need to try.

I haven't but I'm not work at a level yet where I'm as likely to see this. :o

Ignoring rules is one thing but if one feels they are applying the rule correctly...

I think the Elmer's truck is coming around the corner. :)

May I please just take a moment to say how happy and proud I am that there have been 145+ posts since I went public with my "minority opinion"? :D

Yes you may.

Now, shut up.

:D

Actually, it is what the rule says.

10.6.7 Comment: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

So you think if, in this situation, B1 slows down in front of A1, all A1 has to do is become airborne and the foul is on B1?

Scrappy gets an agitator medal me thinks.

Good discussion all, I for one, appreciate it.

One fundamental point....if the rule doesn't say you can't do it, then it is legal. The only thing the rule (and related cases) prohibits is moving into the path. It places no further restrictions on the defender. The only way you get to that is to add a stipulation where there is none. But under the basic principle of legal unless prohibited, you can't do that.

A dribbler and an airborne player are treated differently in the rules, as per the separation within the guarding rules; that's why this comment doesn't apply.

poppycock

So, word of advice to any dribbler, if you see you're about to run over the defender and can't stop, just launch yourself at him and hope that he flinches in any direction, and the foul can't be on you.

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

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.

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.

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

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:

:)