Flop

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I will repeat that that I do not believe it is the spirit and intent of the rules for B1, with initial LGP, to fall down of his own volition and contact airborne A1.

And I have NEVER had an observer or supervisor or evaluator or mentor ever tell me or anyone I know that this play is a PC/Charging foul.

HS BV and above, if you call this a foul on A1 your creditibility is going to take a hit.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Hmmm...sounds like before or after leaving the floor is the key.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmmm...sounds like before or after leaving the floor is the key.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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


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.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by scrapper1

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.

+1

[Adam]

What Camron said? That!

[just another ref]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What Camron said? That!

No cookies for you!

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No cookies for you!

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

I have a Rick Roll queued up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No cookies for you!

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

I am this close to withdrawing permission.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I am this close to withdrawing permission.

Isn't there a statute of limitations?