Flop

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It doesn't say that.

It doesn't use that particular wording, but that's what it means. You have to be in "position" before the player goes airborne. The rule only comes into play if there is a point of contact, so that's why I worded it that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It doesn't use that particular wording, but that's what it means. You have to be in "position" before the player goes airborne. The rule only comes into play if there is a point of contact, so that's why I worded it that way.

The rule says the player must be in legal position; the only place that's even close to being defined is LGP. I respectfully disagree that stepping backwards, within the path of A1, means a loss of legal position.

[Art N]

When guarding an airborne player, you have to be at the point of contact BEFORE the player leaves the ground, even if that point of contact is directly backwards from where you were before the opponent left the ground.[/QUOTE]

You are not reading the rule correctly.
You would be incorrect giving a block to a player who is backing up, even if his new spot is two feet behind where he was standing prior to A1 "taking off" (Air Jordan!)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You keep saying this same thing over and over. (I especially like the croaking part. ) And if we are talking about a dribbler or a stationary player, then you'd be right. But the rule specifically says:


When guarding an airborne player, you have to be at the point of contact BEFORE the player leaves the ground, even if that point of contact is directly backwards from where you were before the opponent left the ground.

No you don't. You have to be IN THE PATH and NOT MOVE FORWARD. Moving backwards, possibly to the point were A1 will land, doesn't change the result....the defender has satisfied all the requirements of LGP and is legally moving to maintain it.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule says the player must be in legal position; the only place that's even close to being defined is LGP. I respectfully disagree that stepping backwards, within the path of A1, means a loss of legal position.

Right on Snags!
Legal position is just his spot on the floor.
I also respectfully disagree with him as well.
This can't be a blocking call on B1.
That would be a miscarriage of justice!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No you don't. You have to be IN THE PATH and NOT MOVE FORWARD. Moving backwards, possibly to the point were A1 will land, doesn't change the result....the defender has satisfied all the requirements of LGP and is legally moving to maintain it.

While correct in terms of LGP, and all the points listed in 4-23-3, how does that correspond with the rule regarding an airborne player with the ball, 4-23-4?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No you don't. You have to be IN THE PATH and NOT MOVE FORWARD. Moving backwards, possibly to the point were A1 will land, doesn't change the result....the defender has satisfied all the requirements of LGP and is legally moving to maintain it.

you beat me to it Cam.
I don't think he is getting the concept of "moving" as being legal for defenders. He must have games with all zone defenses and the players just stand still!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

the defender has satisfied all the requirements of LGP and is legally moving to maintain it.

This is where we disagree, as is obvious by now. I think the rule does not allow the defender to move after the opponent has become airborne. I understand why you and Art, inter alia, disagree. I simply don't believe that it's the intent of the rules to allow a player to move to a spot under an airborne player.

[rockyroad]

From the casebook:


10.6.1 SITUATION 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 whileA1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a)and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Reading between the lines here...in Sit. (b), it became a foul on A1 because he LANDED on one foot and THEN charged into B1...so while it may not spell it out, if B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne and A1 lands on B1, that's a foul on B1.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is where we disagree, as is obvious by now. I think the rule does not allow the defender to move after the opponent has become airborne. I understand why you and Art, inter alia, disagree. I simply don't believe that it's the intent of the rules to allow a player to move to a spot under an airborne player.

You are partially correct in this statement. The intent is to not allow B1, who is not in the path...of A1, to SLIDE under the airborne A1. That we can agree on. You are taking it a step further when you apply it to the situation we have been discussing with B1 who established LGP and then backs up.

"is the horse dead yet?" I know we have beat the heck out of it!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule says the player must be in legal position; the only place that's even close to being defined is LGP. I respectfully disagree that stepping backwards, within the path of A1, means a loss of legal position.

Don't fall into the trap of confusing LGP with a legal position. I know you know the difference. The obvious example is B2 standing there, looking at and guarding A2, while having their back to A1. A1, seeing this, simply runs into the back of B2 looking to draw the foul. After all, B2 never met the requirements of establishing initial LGP, since B2 was never facing A1. Would you call the foul on B2? Of course not; B2 never had LGP, by rule, but still had a legal position on the court, and still can draw a PC foul.

I believe the committee had the intent of making the airborne player an exception to the LGP provisions, since they mention it specifically in a different section of the rules.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Art N

I don't think he is getting the concept of "moving" as being legal for defenders. He must have games with all zone defenses and the players just stand still!

Without trying to sound self-important, I can assure you that is not the case.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Art N

"is the horse dead yet?" I know we have beat the heck out of it!

I know that I have a rule citation for my position, and you have not provided one for yours. :shrug:

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

You are partially correct in this statement. The intent is to not allow B1, who is not in the path...of A1, to SLIDE under the airborne A1. That we can agree on. You are taking it a step further when you apply it to the situation we have been discussing with B1 who established LGP and then backs up.

Where is the direction of B1 mentioned in 4-24-4(b)?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

From the casebook:


10.6.1 SITUATION 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 whileA1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a)and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

Reading between the lines here...in Sit. (b), it became a foul on A1 because he LANDED on one foot and THEN charged into B1...so while it may not spell it out, if B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne and A1 lands on B1, that's a foul on B1.

The plays above are slightly different than our post because it just says B1 moves AND as you pointed out says A1 landed (no time and distance needed). It doesn't say B is backing up, which is LEGAL.

Your car is stopped at the light. The car in front of you makes a right turn, so you pull up. While you are pulling up or after you pull up, a car coming behind not noticing you (because it is a teenager texting) rears end you. He would have hit you in either spot. Unless you put it in reverse he would be at fault.