Flop

[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.

[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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Art N

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.

OK, now I honestly believe that you aren't getting it. There has been a rule cited and a casebook play cited that both show that the defender moving after A1 has gone airborne is going to be a foul on the defender.

Silly car examples won't change that.

Where's my cookies, M&M???

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

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.

It doesn't specifically mention it, because it's not relevent to the ruling. If it did matter, wouldn't it be mentioned?

Originally Posted by Art N

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.

Unfortunately the driving references do not matter in this particular discussion unless we're talking about airborne cars like the General Lee.

Can we stick with the basketball rules - tell me why 4-23-4(b) is worded the way it is, and why it is separate from the LGP provisions?

[Art N]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It doesn't specifically mention it, because it's not relevent to the ruling. If it did matter, wouldn't it be mentioned?


Unfortunately the driving references do not matter in this particular discussion unless we're talking about airborne cars like the General Lee.

Can we stick with the basketball rules - tell me why 4-23-4(b) is worded the way it is, and why it is separate from the LGP provisions?

Sorry the car reference...I'm just going wee bit batty now!

I don't have my book with me, but it looks like you do. Can you look at the provision for LGP, legal position, and movement? That would be where I would start. Is the book on line anywhere that I can access it?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

Sorry the car reference...I'm just going wee bit batty now!

I don't have my book with me, but it looks like you do. Can you look at the provision for LGP, legal position, and movement? That would be where I would start. Is the book on line anywhere that I can access it?

Again, I've mentioned it several times here - the provisions of establishing initial LGP are in 4-23-2, and the provisions of maintaining LGP are in 4-23-3. The point Scrappy and I have been making is the provision involving an airborne player are specifically mentioned in the next section, 4-23-4: "Guarding an opponent with the ball:...(b) "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

The exact same wording is mentioned in 4-23-5, Guarding a moving opponent without the ball... (d) "If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor."

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.

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

[Welpe]

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.

Wait, A1 is contacting B1 isn't he? I know what you're saying and on this particular scenario if B1 fell so early that he is already on the floor then I agree.

But if B1 is still falling back because he fell early to absorb contact and the result is the contact between the two is simply delayed, as in A1 was going to go through B1 already then I cannot believe the intent of the rule is to bail A1 out of creating this contact. A1 went up knowing (or he should have anyways) that he was going to initiate contact with B1.

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

Why???? Why would that possibly be true? You're going to make a call based on what "would have happened" instead of what did happen???

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why???? Why would that possibly be true? You're going to make a call based on what "would have happened" instead of what did happen???

Relax Scrappy. Because to me this defines whether an actual change of position took place or not. How can you say that a change of position actually happened and that B1 took away A1's landing space if A1 was already going to create enough contact with B1 to result in a PC foul? If B1 is already in A1's path and begins falling backward, is this really the intent of the rule regarding an airborne player? I can't believe that it is.

The intent of the rule with the airborne player is to give him a chance to go up and land safely. Why should he have that acommodation if he's going up in a situation that he knows he is NOT going to land safely?

[Raymond]

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.
...

Originally Posted by Welpe

Wait, A1 is contacting B1 isn't he? I know what you're saying and on this particular scenario if B1 fell so early that he is already on the floor then I agree.

But if B1 is still falling back because he fell early to absorb contact and the result is the contact between the two is simply delayed, as in A1 was going to go through B1 already then I cannot believe the intent of the rule is to bail A1 out of creating this contact. A1 went up knowing (or he should have anyways) that he was going to initiate contact with B1.

Unless it is clear to me that A1 was going to go over B1 with little or maginal contact and B1's falling took away his landing space, I'm going PC.

Let's stick to the play. We're talking about a defender who has already fallen down when the contact occurred. I don't think anybody on either side of the debate is talking about a defender who bails out but still gets contacted while backing or falling away.

I really would love for someone to go to a camp and call a foul on A1 in this scenario.