Flop

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

So what if he had one in the same path that he moved along and doesn't change the fact A1's going to land on him?

I'm just rehashing the same argument at this point. I still do not believe that is the intent but I understand the rule argument even if I do not agree.

Admittedly I have yet to see this so it's all theoretical at this point but if I do I guess I'll grit my teeth and call it a block so that I can move up or not lose games.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Admittedly I have yet to see this so it's all theoretical at this point but if I do I guess I'll grit my teeth and call it a block so that I can move up or not lose games.

Don't do that, it's not good for your whistles, and grinding your teeth will make it harder to eat cookies later.

[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.