Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.
|
So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?
Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".
|
The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.
[/B]
|
Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.
You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.
In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".
Finally, you're very fond of tossing this new terminology around but you have yet to define exactly how one determines a players "cylinder of verticality".
Wanna give it a shot now?
[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]