Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra
No, I'm not wrong. To have verticality legal guarding position must be obtained.
Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the
principle of verticality:
ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement
thereafter must be legal.
The definition of guarding is "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."
So in order in order to guard someone you must be on defense. The principle of verticality says legal guarding position must be obtained. The offense can't obtain legal guarding position so the prinicple of verticality only applies to the defense.
4-45-5 deals with the defender maintaining verticality and being fouled. It doesn't say anything about verticality applying to the offense.
Then how can there be goaltending or basket interference on the offensive team? Team control is not the same as being on offense. You obviously didn't read my post as I said that the rules should be changed to correct these problems.
And you might not want to argue with me about definitions anymore. Last week you didn't know the difference between a common foul and a personal foul and then now you don't know the definition of verticality nor the guarding definition.
That is what I was saying. The rule states that a player cannot violate verticality and be in a legal guarding position. This is a problem under the rules as there is no team control during rebounding action so neither team is on offense or defense.
Offense and defensive teams need to be defined. The legal rebounding position needs to be changed to remove "verticality" and replace it with something about the vertical plane. The verticality prinicple could be changed instead but it would probably be easier to change the legal rebounding position rule.
|
I'll stick with my original assessment. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you really think that verticality doesn't apply to rebounding situations where LGP isn't and never was a factor, then I doubt very much that it's worthwhile trying to explain anything further to you. Especially when you come up with a statement such as the one highlighted above in red. When you have an explicit rule that has already been cited (NFHS rules 4-45-5 and 4-45-7) that definitively state that verticality does apply to offensive players, and you still insist that the principle of verticality still only applies to the defense, it's kinda hard to take anything that you say seriously.
PS..it might also be a good idea to get somebody to read POE #5 in this year's rulebook to you, specifically 5E& 5G.