Flop

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, it is what the rule says.

10.6.7 Comment: When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops.

So you think if, in this situation, B1 slows down in front of A1, all A1 has to do is become airborne and the foul is on B1?

A dribbler and an airborne player are treated differently in the rules, as per the separation within the guarding rules; that's why this comment doesn't apply.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

A dribbler and an airborne player are treated differently in the rules, as per the separation within the guarding rules; that's why this comment doesn't apply.

poppycock

So, word of advice to any dribbler, if you see you're about to run over the defender and can't stop, just launch yourself at him and hope that he flinches in any direction, and the foul can't be on you.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

poppycock

So, word of advice to any dribbler, if you see you're about to run over the defender and can't stop, just launch yourself at him and hope that he flinches in any direction, and the foul can't be on you.

Double poppycock.

What has been said is that once the player goes airborne the defender can't move to a new position. Putting a word like "flinching" in there is just being ridiculous.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Double poppycock.

What has been said is that once the player goes airborne the defender can't move to a new position. Putting a word like "flinching" in there is just being ridiculous.

I agree. That's the whole point. It is ridiculous. He can't move to a new position, but he can flinch? Exactly how much can he move?

If you're legal, and you move directly away from your opponent, there is no circumstance which makes you now illegal.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

poppycock

Well, if that's your best rule reference, I'm feeling pretty good about my position.

As I mentioned to Camron, the rule on guarding an airborne player (with or without the ball) is specific - the defender must get to the legal spot before the player is airborne. Where we disagree is whether the defender can move after the player is airborne. Until we get another ruling or change in the case play(s), we won't know for sure which of us is correct.

In the meantime, I'm going to fix my dinner - deep-fried thin mints are sounding pretty tasty.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

As I mentioned to Camron, the rule on guarding an airborne player (with or without the ball) is specific - the defender must get to the legal spot before the player is airborne. Where we disagree is whether the defender can move after the player is airborne. Until we get another ruling or change in the case play(s), we won't know for sure which of us is correct.

This is the key. A legal spot, not the legal spot.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is the key. A legal spot, not the legal spot.

If you want to be that perfectly precise, the actual rule doesn't use either preposition.

Now what?

[Adam]

Do we really want to perpetuate the myth that a player must be "set" in order to take a charge? I know this isn't a rule argument, but I know of no other time when this is required, except for under this interpretation. Even a step backwards, away from the airborne shooter, is enough to turn an imminent charge into a block.

Nowhere is "legal position" defined, let alone as a "spot", that I can find, so I have to assume (yes, I know) it's defined as LGP. It's as close to a definition as I can find, and the wording is pretty close. I've taken enough swings at the equine, so I'll let it go for now.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do we really want to perpetuate the myth that a player must be "set" in order to take a charge? I know this isn't a rule argument, but I know of no other time when this is required, except for under this interpretation. Even a step backwards, away from the airborne shooter, is enough to turn an imminent charge into a block.

Nowhere is "legal position" defined, let alone as a "spot", that I can find, so I have to assume (yes, I know) it's defined as LGP. It's as close to a definition as I can find, and the wording is pretty close. I've taken enough swings at the equine, so I'll let it go for now.

Had to take one more swing, eh?...

I get what you're trying to say, and it's a valid point. However I'm still not convinced "legal guarding position" and "legal position" are the same.

But try to look at it from this standpoint - we know the committee values freedom of player movement, both offensive and defensive, and there are time and distance requirements when it comes to guarding or screening an opponent to balance that difference. When an opponent guards or screens a stationary opponent, no time or distance is required because the opponent can easily move in a different direction. When the opponent is moving, time and distance become a factor, because the committee realizes the player cannot instantly change direction, so the rules allow the opportunity for the opponent's momentum to be slowed, so they can then change direction.

Finally, we also know the committee treats airborne players differently due to both the separate mention in the guarding rules, and airborne shooter rules when it comes to scoring and fouls. Combine the two thoughts, and it's easy to see how the rules would allow for a defender to get a position/spot before the player leaves the floor, because the player still has the opportunity to go another direction. However, once the player leaves the floor, there is no chance for that player to change direction or speed, so the intent would be that defender should not be allowed to move to another spot until the airborne player lands. Balance between offense and defense.

It's only my theory, and I'm not going to spend much time defending it, other than to say it seems (to me) to make as much sense as anyone else's.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you want to be that perfectly precise, the actual rule doesn't use either preposition.

Now what?

To be precise, a and the are not prepositions. The point is the rule requires legal position, not that the defender already be at the position of the contact before the offensive player becomes airborne.