Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
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.
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.
|
Your claim is that they may only have them raised, but the language of the book doesn't say that at all. The language of the book clearly says a defender may "raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane". It doesn't say they may only have thier hands in a raised position. The difference is fundamental and important. It allows them the action of raising them while in LGP, not just the position.
Also see rule 10-6-1:
Extending the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is not legal.
Again, the language here grants permsion for the action of extending the arms, not just the position of having them extended and it says that it is a foul if it is "other than vertically"...which, implies that doing so vertically is legal.
The fact that it "causes contact" is not relevant. Few fouls are based on who causes the contact but on who is doing something illegal when contact occurs.