Flop

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

That's exactly where we disagree. 4-23-2 deals with establishing legal guarding position. 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d) deal with how airborne players are treated differently. If defending an airborne player is no different than defending any other player, in regards to LGP, then why do the rules list an airborne player separately and change the wording to "legal position"? Again, you (and others) are adding the word "guarding" to those 2 rule sections where it doesn't exist. All those sections mention is "legal position", and we know there is a difference between those two terms. And, because of that, it doesn't allow for the same movement allowed by the LGP rules in 4-23-3.

I understand it doesn't "seem right" that a defender would not be allowed to move away from an airborne player, and it's probably not how it's called in practice. But that's not how the rule is written.

[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.