[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Seriously? You're still trying to say I said verticality applies?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That is what you keep arguing.....your words saying the player didn't have verticality....

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Falling back is not part of verticality. Rule 4-45, which defines verticality, says nothing about falling back. In fact, you can read the opposite in that, because falling backwards means the defender is leaving their verticality.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Nowhere in the rule defining verticality does it say anything about leaving the defender's vertical space. When you say "falling back", that certainly implies leaving a player's vertical space. Thus... not verticality.

Again, say it's legal in terms of LGP, and thus a legal move... fine. But unless you can point to a case play or interpretation from NFHS, then I don't see how it can be called as part of verticality.