Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
A player's cylinder of verticaltiy starts at the court where his/her feet are touching the floor and goes to the ceiling. It does not start at his/her pelvis.
|
This can't possibly be true.
As others have said...verticality applies ONLY to the defense. It's is only valid from a "Legal guarding position".
In the original play, it's a foul on A1 if they displace B1.
In the two plays MTDSr added (which are completely different from the original post), it's a foul on B1 for leaning over A1's body when contact occured. No way B1 could have been vertial in those cases.
|
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 defenders 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 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.
|
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.
|
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that one should ignore Articles One thru Seven, just because six of these seven articles discuss the defense. It would be illogical to say that only the defense has verticality and the offense does not. As I have stated before, I really believe that this is a have to see the actual play to really make an informed ruling.
|
Okay, how does A1 in the origional play meet any of the 7 articles of verticality?
Art.1 LGP. Nope
Art.2 Jumping within plane. Nope
Art.3 Hands and arms raised inside plane. Nope
Art.4 Combines 2 and 3. Nope
Art.5 Offensive player may not clear out or cause contact within the DEFENDER'S vertical plane. DING, DING,DING we have a winner!
Art.6 Defender may not belly up or use lower body to cause contact. Nope
Art.7 Player with the ball is to be given no more protection. This fits.
A1 in the play in question does not have a vertical plane, she is leaning back on a diagonal plane. The space above the outstretched leg IS NOT a vertical plane it would be the base of a vertical plane of an UPRIGHT player.
Would you consider an outstretched knee or foot of a jumping defender part of B1's vertical cylinder?