Flop

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

You don't have to picture anything. If you move to a different position after I'm airborne, you're responsible for any contact that occurs.

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

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You don't have to picture anything. If you move to a different position after I'm airborne, you're responsible for any contact that occurs.

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

Not true. I can back up and be moving and if you croak me, there better be a PC foul. If I'm the defensive coach, I am getting a T called on me if you call that a block b/c you kicked the call big time and my player could have gotten hurt as well.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Art N

If A1 is driving to the hoop and goes airborne and B1, who is in front of him and had LGP, then moves backwards and gets croaked (even if B1 is moving) it is a PC foul all the way.

Originally Posted by Art N

Not true. I can back up and be moving and if you croak me, there better be a PC foul.

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:

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

When guarding an airborne player, you have to be at the point of contact BEFORE the player leaves the ground,

It doesn't say that.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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 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.

[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!