The Official Forum - View Single Post

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #60 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 10:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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 ones 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 A1s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1s 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 A1s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1s 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.

Mark, this begs my question one more time. Are you saying that A1 has expanded his "cylinder of verticality" by losing his balance? I don't buy that. If he loses his balance, he loses his spot. I'm not going to expand his cylinder.
I'm also not going to allow B1 to plow into A1's torso while it is not over the original cylinder. Those would by my only two options under your definition above, from what I can see. Is there a third?
The simplest answer is that verticality applies only above the torso/pelvis. I see this rule of thumb as similar to the statement about the dribbler getting his head and shoulders past the defense on a block charge call. It's a good standard, but couldn't be used as a steadfast rule.

I cannot tell you how many times I have attended presentations on the Principal of Verticality and in none of them have I heard that it does not apply to a player's body below the waist nor have I ever heard that the Principal only applies to defensive players.