Flop

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

Already done...go back and read them.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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.

[Rich]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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!

[Duffman]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is nothing in the rule that says they can no longer move once they have position.

Yet here -- Defnder uncutting airborne shooter

you say:

Originally Posted by Camron

An airborne shooter basically has established a path to a landing spot at the time they go airborne. Once they have done so, a defender may not move into a position on that path.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is exactly what we're discussing in this thread. B1 establishes LGP. A1 goes airborne. B1 moves directly backwards.

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...)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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...)

It could easily be a no call.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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?

[Welpe]

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.