Flop

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Geeze, you're getting easier to convince in your old age.

Groupthink works!

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

Was about to post the same opinion. A1 goes airborne and B1 falls without contact and B1's new position on the floor causes disadvantageous contact to A1 then I'm going with a block.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Was about to post the same opinion. A1 goes airborne and B1 falls without contact and B1's new position on the floor causes disadvantageous contact to A1 then I'm going with a block.

Maybe we're picturing this differently. If B1 fell away early enough that he is already on the floor, then I don't see how he would have LGP and I think a block is appropriate. If B1 is still falling and the contact is delayed only a second or two, I think we still have a PC foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There is no way I'm allowing any player to move into an airborne player's landing spot AFTER that player becomes airborne.

So if B1 simply delays the moment that A1 initiates contact because he fell away, a PC foul is changed to a block? In my opinion, if A1 was going to go through B1 anyways, this is still a PC foul.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

In my opinion, if A1 was going to go through B1 anyways, this is still a PC foul.

But A1 didn't go through B1. B1 changed his position while A1 was airborne and put A1 at a disadvantage.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But A1 didn't go through B1. B1 changed his position while A1 was airborne and put A1 at a disadvantage.

Maybe, if A1 would have jumped OVER B1, but I don't see too many players capable of this.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But A1 didn't go through B1.

We're picturing the play differently then.

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But A1 didn't go through B1. B1 changed his position while A1 was airborne and put A1 at a disadvantage.

What? How did you come up with this conclusion? B1 avoids initial contact and now somehow is to blame for A1 landing on her?????? How come you are not placing any responsibility on A1 for going airborne when she wouldn't have had any place to land.

So if you swing at me and I duck and you hit the wall behind me, it would be my fault right, because I didn't stay in front of the potential violent contact?
I know it is NOT the same thing, but you get the gist of it.

[Raymond]

I think what we are getting at is the spirit and intent of LGP as it relates to airborne shooters.

I personally don't think the powers-that-be intended for us to call PC/Charging when a defender purposely falls down without contact and the airborne shooter lands on them. And I don't think that what coaches want either.

[Adam]

Then they should change the rule, or issue a power point.

[Zoochy]

B1 and A1 are running in the same direction and same path. B1 is ahead of and moving away from A1. A1 is running/dribbling faster. Now A1 jumps for a lay-up, shoots and proceeds to land on B1.
I saw this play on Monday. Did B1 do anything wrong?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

B1 and A1 are running in the same direction and same path. B1 is ahead of and moving away from A1. A1 is running/dribbling faster. Now A1 jumps for a lay-up, shoots and proceeds to land on B1.
I saw this play on Monday. Did B1 do anything wrong?

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...

[Adam]

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

[rockyroad]

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.

OK, now I am back to where I was at before...you have unconvinced me.

Stupid groupthink.

Stupid old age.

Stupid M&M Guy.