Flop

[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!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Art N

"is the horse dead yet?" I know we have beat the heck out of it!

I know that I have a rule citation for my position, and you have not provided one for yours. :shrug:

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I know that I have a rule citation for my position, and you have not provided one for yours. :shrug:

Point taken.
I don't have my book at work today, but some others have given quotes on it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

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.

Where is the direction of B1 mentioned in 4-24-4(b)?