Flop

[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

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.

B1 has legal position directly in A1's path. A1 becomes airborne, so he has no chance to change direction or speed. Contact is imminent. B1 takes a step back. Contact is still imminent, only slightly delayed. Nothing has changed. A1 is still responsible.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

B1 has legal position directly in A1's path. A1 becomes airborne, so he has no chance to change direction or speed. Contact is imminent. B1 takes a step back. Contact is still imminent, only slightly delayed. Nothing has changed. A1 is still responsible.

Valid opinion. And that's how it is probably called most often in practice. But we still disagree as to whether the wording of 4-23-4(b) and 4-23-5(d) allows for additional movement in any direction after the player is airborne.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

B1 has legal position directly in A1's path. A1 becomes airborne, so he has no chance to change direction or speed. Contact is imminent. B1 takes a step back. Contact is still imminent, only slightly delayed. Nothing has changed. A1 is still responsible.

I am with just another ref on this one. I think the point is to prevent the defense from undercutting an airborne shooter by moving into their path after they are airborne. If the defense is in their path when they become airborne and move backwards in the same path it still should be PC. Moving backwards should not change the defense's rights. If he moved forward, that would be one thing but straight backwards, STILL IN THE PATH of the shooter should be shooters responsibility.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It's only my theory, and I'm not going to spend much time defending it.....

too late

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

too late

Geeze, you got that right!

[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.