Flop

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

It seems the only intent of the rule is to make sure a defender has gained a legal spot before the offensive player leaves the floor. Any other interp is just an assumption. Reasonable assumption, perhaps, but still an assumption without a specific case play or rule re-wording.

[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.

[Rich]

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...)

It could easily be a no call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yet here -- Defnder uncutting airborne shooter

you say:


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.

Except that B1 ALREADY had a position on the path, they didn't take a position on the path...there lies the fundamental difference.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Except that B1 ALREADY had a position on the path, they didn't take a position on the path...there lies the fundamental difference.

But the case play you quoted doesn't make that distinction:

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)

The only distinction being made in both cases is whether B1 obtained the position before or after A1 leaves the floor.

[Welpe]

OK giving this caseplay a closer look, I'm going to retract my previous post.

Here's where the rub is with that caseplay ruling. The ruling qualifies two things that make it a foul on B1, time and location.

The time is after A1 leaves the floor and the location is into A1's path from outside of A1's path.

In other words, from the ruling.

However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1.

The way this ruling is written, you need both of these conditions for the foul to be on B1.

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

Yes. Thank you.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

OK giving this caseplay a closer look, I'm going to retract my previous post.

Here's where the rub is with that caseplay ruling. The ruling qualifies two things that make it a foul on B1, time and location.

The time is after A1 leaves the floor and the location is into A1's path from outside of A1's path.

In other words, from the ruling.



The way this ruling is written, you need both of these conditions for the foul to be on B1.

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

Again, the wording of the first example in the case play ruling doesn't mention B1 being in the path, (yes, it's certainly assumed), only that B1 had a legal spot before A1 left the floor. The second play also mentions B1's position being obtained after A1 left the floor. In both cases, the rulings follow the wording of the rule, where the position of B1 is important based on whether it was obtained before or after A1 leaves the floor.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The second play also mentions B1's position being obtained after A1 left the floor. In both cases, the rulings follow the wording of the rule, where the position of B1 is important based on whether it was obtained before or after A1 leaves the floor.

But you're excluding one important piece of criteria from the ruling in 10.6.1 C and that is that B1 has to move INTO A1's path after A1 has left the floor.