[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The 2003-04 NFHS Rules Book definition of verticality is found in R4-S44, and it says:

“Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principal of
verticality are:

ART. 1: Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and
movement thereafter must be legal.

ART. 2: From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and
occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.

ART. 3: The hand and arms of the defender may be raised with his/her
vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.

ART. 4: The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor
vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her
vertical plane.

ART. 5: The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not
“clear out” or cause contact within the defender’s vertical plane which is a
foul.

ART. 6: The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the
body or arms to cause contact outside his/her vertical plane which is a
foul.

ART. 7: The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or
consideration than the defender in judging which player has violated the
rules.”


While most of the articles in R4-S44 discuss the defensive aspects of verticality, the very first sentence in R4-S44 does not differentiate between offensive and defensive players. Just as a defensive player, who has acquired his/her position on the court in a legal manner, is protected per Articles Three and Four, so is the offensive player given the same protection for doing the same thing that the defensive player is allowed to do in those two articles of R4-A44, presuming that the offensive player has acquired his/her position in a legal manner.

I agree with the position that has been put forth that a player, offensive or defensive, cannot stick his /her arms horizontally from his/her body, taking a wider than normal stance with one’s feet or sticking a foot or leg out, puts the player in a position of liability if there is contact with an opponent. Having said that, from the description of the play in the original posting, I see where A1 has done anything that I have described in this paragraph. I propose that it is very possible that this is a play that one has to see to be able to make an informed decision.
I can see a situation where A1 is aggressively defended by B1. A1 is standing straight up with B1 in front of him/her. A1 does have a cylinder of verticality around him/her. A1 steps back eighteen to twenty inches with his/her non-pivot foot; this action would leave A1’s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1’s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1’s movement caused his/her weight distribution to become unevenly distributed between his/her two feet. A1 still has the right to regain his/her balance within her cylinder of verticality. If B1 moves forward to straddle A1’s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1’s cylinder of verticality and if A1 moves forward to regain his/her balance and there is contact between A1 and B1, B1 would be at risk for causing the contact. This reasoning for B1 being at risk for causing the contact is the same as I stated in the two plays that I described earlier in this thread.

So now you are saying that just because the first sentence does not specify just defense, we should ignore the fact that ALL seven articles apply to the defense. Verticality applies to the defense.

The two cases you bring up apply to LGP by B1 and B1 not maintaining verticality.