Flop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Or it tells you the writer of the rule didn't write it any better than many other rules. Even so, it doesn't even matter. (See 10.6.9 where the term "legal position" is used in the context of talking about legal guarding position and what a defender may do after obtaining it).

Simply put, did the defender have a legal position (in the path) at the time the opponent jumped? Yes or No. If they did (in the path), then they satisfied the rule. There is nothing in the rule that says they can no longer move once they have position.

"Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."

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

The rule mentions nothing about landing spots....it is all about being in the path. If they are not in the path, they do not have legal position and any movement to get in the path of an airborne opponent would be illegal.

The case play being cited to counter this is not relevant...that case is implying the player is not in the path and moves to a new position that puts them in the path after the opponent is airborne. It is not talking about moving in the same path and direction....which is what we have here.


Check out this case....

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before
A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor..... However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. .... (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

Hmmm...sounds like "path" is the key.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Check out this case....

10.6.1 SITUATION C: B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before
A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor..... However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1. .... (4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

Hmmm...sounds like "path" is the key.

Hmmm...sounds like before or after leaving the floor is the key.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmmm...sounds like before or after leaving the floor is the key.

For the timing yes, but the action being restricted is moving INTO THE PATH....not all movement.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

For the timing yes, but the action being restricted is moving INTO THE PATH....not all movement.

Um, how else would there be contact if B1 didn't end up in A1'a path somewhere along the way?

In the first part of the case play, B1 was in A1's path too, it's just that it was deemed legal because he was there before A1 left the floor.

Camron, I know you like to argue, er, discuss, ()but I'm not sure what it is you are advocating? The rule is very clear, and your only response is they must've written it wrong? Maybe, but I can sure come up with a LOT of wonderful (but very incorrect) rulings if I always use that approach.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Um, how else would there be contact if B1 didn't end up in A1'a path somewhere along the way?


Camron, I know you like to argue, er, discuss, ()but I'm not sure what it is you are advocating? The rule is very clear, and your only response is they must've written it wrong? Maybe, but I can sure come up with a LOT of wonderful (but very incorrect) rulings if I always use that approach.

The comment about the writing of the rule was not my point, just a side note.

The rule is clear that timing of entry to the path is all that matters. There is nothing in the rule or any case play that prohibits movement. No one has yet shown any rule or case that says anything close to it being a foul for a player who is legally in the path before the opponent is airborne to then move away from their opponent. You're adding your own requirements above what the rule requires to get to that conclusion.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The comment about the writing of the rule was not my point, just a side note.

The rule is clear that timing of entry to the path is all that matters. There is nothing rule or any case play that prohibits movement. No one has yet shown any rule or case that says anything close to it being a foul for a player who is legally in the path before the opponent is airborne to then move away from their opponent. You're adding your own requirements above what the rule requires to get to that conclusion.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

if A1 was already going to contact B1.

You have to stop thinking about it in these terms. It is completely and 100% irrelevant what it was GOING to be. It only matters what it IS. And what it IS is a defender who moves to a spot in A1's path after A1 is airborne. So the defender IS responsible for the contact.