Flop

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Not necessarily, and you know that. Do the rules state specifically that a player cannot get down on all fours and bark like a dog to distract the other team? Do the rules specifically prohibit a player from putting the ball in their shirt, doing a hand stand, then walking on their hands on the court? Using your "basic principle of legal unless prohibited", these are legal plays.

Yes, they do prohibit such actions for those that can comprehend concepts vs. needing an endless list random possibilities.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

All that aside, the rule about guarding an airborne player is pretty specific - the defender must get to a legal spot before the player is airborne. You and I disagree as to whether the defender can move after the player is airborne. Until we get definite direction, we will have to agree to disagree. The Elmer's truck is waiting for me.

No, you can't change the word like like...nowhere does it say they must get "a spot". The rules say they must get a spot "into the path"/"in the path", not to "A" single spot.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, you can't change the word like like...nowhere does it say they must get "a spot". The rules say they must get a spot "into the path"/"in the path", not to "A" single spot.

...sigh...Please quote me (the rules) 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d).

Also, please quote case play 10.6.1 Sit A.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...sigh...Please quote me (the rules) 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d).

Also, please quote case play 10.6.1 Sit A.

Why do you want me to site rules that support my point of view? Funny way to debate.

I agree with those. They, however, say nothing about what the defender is or is not allowed to do after they obtain a legal position. You seem to think they do but I see no words in them that restrict movement once the guard has obtained a legal position before the opponent is airborne....and if it is not specified as being illegal, it is legal.

And don't point to that case, you and everyone else knows what it is talking about and it is not what you're claiming.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why do you want me to site rules that support my point of view? Funny way to debate.

I agree with those. They, however, say nothing about what the defender is or is not allowed to do after they obtain a legal position. You seem to think they do but I see no words in them that restrict movement once the guard has obtained a legal position before the opponent is airborne....and if it is not specified as being illegal, it is legal.

And don't point to that case, you and everyone else knows what it is talking about and it is not what you're claiming.

C'mon Camron, now you're starting to get silly. I was directly responding to this:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, you can't change the word like like...nowhere does it say they must get "a spot". The rules say they must get a spot "into the path"/"in the path", not to "A" single spot.

Since you won't quote the rules, or the specific case play, I wil (yet again):
4-23-4(b): "If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must've obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor".
4-23-5(d): "If the opponent is airborne, the guard must've obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor".
10.6.1 Sit A: B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

The case play you keep referencing as the most important in this discussion lists 4-19-1, 6; 6-7-4; and 10 Penalty 2, 5a as references. These involve airborne shooters, fouls on or by airborne shooters, and how many FT's are involved. Those are the issues that case play is addressing.

10.6.1 Sit A lists only 4-23-5(d) as the reference, which is the very rule we are discussing. That's why it's more important in the discussion. (b) specifically only mentions moving to a new spot, without specifiying "into the path", "remaining in the path", or any such language, and that, in spite of the movement, the foul is on A1 because A1 is no longer airborne.

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

Ok, now I'm done. Until something more concrete becomes available.

[Art N]

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

I've been reading but not responding the last few days trying to make the room stop spinning. I guess the horse is still kicking! The glue factory will have to wait.

You hit the nail on the head. I think this IS where the two sides have been divided.
You and your supporters are reading the movement by B in regards to an airborne shooter is NOT legal PERIOD!
The others, which I agree with, say that the wording of moving pertains to B moving into a spot like an undercutting.
The NCAA wording you mentioned is more along the lines that I have been thinking. i.e. how could they be allowing an airborne shooter to "fly into" a player backing up and yet not allow a dribbler (or any player for that matter) run over, into or through a defender who is moving backwards?
BTW, I've sent an email to IAABO to see if Mr Webb, etal can shed some light on this. I thought about calling board's interpreter, but I didn't think that would carrier enough weight since we are talking about the written words in the rules book.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Art N

BTW, I've sent an email to IAABO to see if Mr Webb, etal can shed some light on this. I thought about calling board's interpreter, but I didn't think that would carrier enough weight since we are talking about the written words in the rules book.

Art - appreciate your understanding of the position, and your attempt to get another opinion. My only comment would be that while Mr. Webb may very well have an excellent understanding of the rules, it would still be just another opinion. I wouldn't consider him the final authority on the matter (even if he agrees with me ), because it's the NFHS rules we're dealing with. I will accept something from an NFHS rules committee menmber.

Just FYI, one of the people that agrees with my position is also a respected IAABO rules interpreter. Again, that doesn't make it correct, just that the opinion carries a little more weight.

[Adam]

To further beat this horse:

What if:

What if A1, with the ball, is following B1, who is running towards A's basket. Same path. A1 takes off from the FT line, and before B1 even knows what's going on, A1 crashes through B1, who is still running towards the basket. Are you calling B1 for the block?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To further beat this horse:

What if:

What if A1, with the ball, is following B1, who is running towards A's basket. Same path. A1 takes off from the FT line, and before B1 even knows what's going on, A1 crashes through B1, who is still running towards the basket. Are you calling B1 for the block?

See below:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

FWIW, NCAA rules do not include the equivalent of 4-23-4 and 4-23-5, so there is no real distinction between guarding dribblers and airborne players, and a defender can legally move laterally or obliquely after LGP was established. This follows everyone's impression that it should also apply here. But since the rules are written differently, we cannot automatically assume the same principles apply.

Ok, now I'm done. Until something more concrete becomes available.

[Adam]

Very well, then.

[M&M Guy]

Ok then.



(Of course, I'm not sure which one us this applies to.)

[Art N]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To further beat this horse:

What if:

What if A1, with the ball, is following B1, who is running towards A's basket. Same path. A1 takes off from the FT line, and before B1 even knows what's going on, A1 crashes through B1, who is still running towards the basket. Are you calling B1 for the block?

I'm with you brother! Great example. This seems crystal clear to me. I was originally shocked when we had others say it would be a block!!!
Forget even a player with the ball! Would we let ANY player jump in the air and then land on the back of the slower moving player in front of them? I would hope not.
I do understand their point of view better now, but I know both sides are reading it differently.