Flop

[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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Excellent! Your new batch of cookies is in the mail!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Excellent! Your new batch of cookies is in the mail!

Well, crap, I may never be ready for baseball season.

[Duffman]

Snaq, I understand your point, and it's foundation in the rules. A player does not have to be in an LGP to take a charge, provided he got to his place on the floor legally. I agree with you. I agree that a player is entitled to any position on the court provided he is stationary. Where I believe we disagree is in whether or not we think B1 (who went to the floor without contact) got there legally, what position he's legally entitled to, and whether the said player is stationary.

A player is entitled to their space within the frame of their feet from the floor vertically to the ceiling of the building. That doesn’t change when a player is falling backwards to the floor. The space they are entitled to is that directly above their feet. Any contact that that occurs outside that the defense is responsible for as it is contact that occurs outside of the space the defender is entitled to and puts the offense a disadvantage. It doesn’t matter whether that contact is in front of the player, to either side, or in this instance behind him.

It is no different than a player who’s feet are stationary that holds his arm out perpendicular to his body, or reaches straight forward and contacts a driving or shooting player. We wouldn’t allow a defender who’s feet are motionless to gain an advantage while turning his shoulders and placing his arms in the landing area him of an airborne shooter while he’s being completely jumped over (unbelievably unlikely I know but it’s a good example), why would we allow the same defender to fall down backwards and essentially do the same thing?

In the event a player got to that position on the floor (for any reason at all) prior to an airborne shooter taking off I would not hesitate in calling a PC, provided the defender remained in their original position.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

It is possible to have a legal position and not have legal guarding position. It is not possible to have legal guarding position without have a legal position. In the OP the defender has both. But even if he doesn't, if he is standing with his back to A1, it is not possible for him to commit a foul by retreating after A1 becomes airborne.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is possible to have a legal position and not have legal guarding position. It is not possible to have legal guarding position without have a legal position. In the OP the defender has both. But even if he doesn't, if he is standing with his back to A1, it is not possible for him to commit a foul by retreating after A1 becomes airborne.

Don't confuse the difference between a legal position, and legal guarding position. A player is entitled to a spot on the floor (even laying on the ground in NFHS) - that's a legal position. But there are no additional rights given to that player to move, other than to avoid contact with other players. Legal guarding position does give the player additional rights to move/maintain position. So a player that has a legal position/spot, does NOT have the same rights to move as a player with LGP.

In the rule, 4-23-4(b) or 4-23-5(d), the defender is given the specific right to a legal spot on the floor, not LGP, because it involves an airborne player. Because of that, the defender doesn't gain the additional rights to move through LGP.

[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.