Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
In the two "under the front" threads, I quoted a series of rules that I think boil down to a basic proposition.
A is the airborne player, B has both feet on the court when A leaves ground. My proposition is that A has the right to come down on any piece of court that was open when A left the ground. B owns that space that B occupied at that same instant AND all vertical area over that space. If A comes down on B with B not leaving B's vertical plane, the fault lies with A regardless of where B was facing. Players cannot jump into other players. If B moves from that vertical plane after A is airborne and contact results, the fault lies with B. Players cannot move into a space under an airborne player and deny them the right to a safe landing. Granted not all contact requires a foul, and all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact - this only applies if you see the need to call a foul based on contact that occurs between A and B.
The one exception I conceive is B stepping in front of a driving A to take charge without establishing legal guarding position. I believe that the legal guarding position provisions are intended to address a player that moves to take a charge, not a stationary player that is run into by a moving player who is out of control. While this exception requires some subjective judgment, I think everyone knows what it looks like when a player steps in front to draw a foul rather than being stationary.
If you object to this interpretation of the rules, what rule and/or reasoning would you offer in support of an alternative reading?
|
Coach, you know I'm going to agree with MOST of what you said. However, COMMON SENSE (which to me is what most of officiating is all about) won't allow me to call a foul considering our previously discussed scenario.
In your statement, "...all violations of the vertical plane do not involve contact...", that is the part where I believe a subjective judgment should be made. Are you saying that these violations SHOULD be penalized? Or that they are the ones that need to be studied and penalized if the penalizing player gains an advantage? Or something else?
IN OUR PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EXAMPLE from another post, even though BACK violated FRONT's vertical space over FRONT's head, FRONT reached up after BACK (in my opinion, legally) gained control and hit BACK's arms and the ball came loose. As stated, at NO time did BACK ever touch FRONT. Your cited rules support a foul on BACK for violating FRONT's vertical space. However, my common sense pleads foul on FRONT.
[Edited by Indy_Ref on Jan 9th, 2001 at 01:42 PM]