Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.
|
So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.
|
This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.
|
Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.
You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."
Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.