Or maybe issue a contradictory casebook play or POE...

HTBT. One of them was moving into, over or under the other one if there was contact. They certainly weren't parallel to each other. One way I see the play is B1 didn't have LGP and he was the one making contact or going under airborne A1's "flight path". If B1 was running parallel and straight ahead towards the hoop and he got to the spot on the floor before A1 went airborne, then you would have a PC foul depending on contact...

But they aren't falling away to absorb contact...the defender flopped trying to sucker us into calling a PC. That's where I am seeing the play differently than some of the others. In my mind - as the original OP was talking about - flopping is the defender throwing themselves down when there isn't really much of a chance of contact by the shooter in the first place. So defender lets out the big yell and throws him/herself down and then the shooter ends up not having any place to land.

But if you have cookies, I can be convinced to see it your way!:D

He didn't say parallel. He said the same path. A1 is following B1 and essentially runs him over.

I see what you're saying. I was not picturing a true flop. As I said earlier, I think we're all envisioning the play a little bit differently.

While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy :D), I understand where Scrapper is coming from. I believe the section of the rule he is basing his opinion is 4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." It doesn't say legal guarding position, only legal position. In other words, it appears it doesn't matter if the defender had legal guarding position established or not, or is maintaining it or not, only that the defender be in the landing spot before the offensive player leaves the ground.

In practice, this would have to be real obvious for me to call this. Was it absolutely obvious B1 ended up in the landing spot after A1 left the ground? Also, was the contact definitely before A1 landed (even with one foot)? Most of the similar plays I've seen involve the shooter landing, then tripping over the defender on the ground. In this case, 4-23-4(b) no longer applies, and we're left with "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent".

The one thing I know I'm against is the feeling that it should always be a block on B1 simply to "punish" the player for falling backwards without contact and not actually taking the charge, even if it was an attempt to draw the call. If it was truly that, we already have a penalty available to us - the T. If it's not T-worthy, then we're left with the other rules already in place.

What kind of cookies are we serving?

Good breakdown M&M, I can get onboard with that more or less.

Since 'tis the season, I was thinking thin mint.

I think you're reading way too much into this wording.

If the defender hasn't done anything illegal, and hasn't done anything to lose LGP, then I don't see how a block can be called.

The only thing we're talking about him doing illegal is potentially faking a foul. If it's that obvious, warn or call the T. If it's not obvious, then I'd say it's a PC or nothing.

If your local leadership wants a block as the warning for a flop, then do that, but let's not pretend there's rule backing. This is sort of like making the wrong OOB call to save a foul; do it if you must, but call it what it is.

What happens, if instead of falling, B1 simply steps backwards into A1's landing spot? A1 would not have landed on B1 otherwise (let's assume he was going to leap over the defender). How is this different than falling into it?

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;826587]While I'm all for "majority rules", (and especially for anything that helps make rocky grumpy :D), I understand where Scrapper is coming from. I believe the section of the rule he is basing his opinion is 4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor." It doesn't say legal guarding position, only legal position. In other words, it appears it doesn't matter if the defender had legal guarding position established or not, or is maintaining it or not, only that the defender be in the landing spot before the offensive player leaves the ground.

Nice job M&M bringing this into the discussion. If B1 was standing still near, under (NFHS)... the hoop and is NOT facing A1 and A1 goes airborne and crashes into B1 when landing, then I hope we call a PC foul. (I've spoken with some that think B1 needs to be facing A1, i.e. needs to LGP!).

Now to help clear this up to those NON-BELIEVERS :confused:, let's make a change to the OP. Let's say B1 has LGP AND she doesn't flop and fall on the floor but backs up (to avoid collision...) to the SAME spot where you pictured her laying on the floor. Now A1 lands on/into B1. What would you call? :confused:
PC foul I hope. Then why in the wide, wide world of sports wouldn't you call the same thing when she is on the floor and gets croaked? Because you think she's trying to get an Academy Award? I say "Nay-Nay, that's not a requirement." :D

Snags, You beat me to it. :rolleyes:
I got interrupted while typing. Dang day job! :eek:

Block. Once a player is airborne, if the defensive player moves to a new spot, the defender is responsible for the contact.

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

Once LGP is established, a player may....
Are you saying that doesn't apply, and that somehow their position becomes illegal even if they have LGP?

I'm saying that in order for it to be a legal position, you have to be in that position before the opponent becomes airborne.

I want to make sure we're picturing this the same; does your ruling require that A1 leap over the top of B1's initial position. IOW, if B1 hadn't moved, there would have been no contact.