Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Vertical does NOT mean perpendicular to the floor in this context. It means up in a natural position that is not extended out and over their opponent.
|
Thanks for your reply. I believe that & trust that it is the only way that verticality can be applied in a raised arms/hands situation. The reason I bring it up is that I so often see players stand there with their hands in the air, maintaining the posture they were in when they were called for a foul a couple seconds before & that posture is clearly leaning or angled - over what was the opponent's upward path. I think many times they are honestly puzzled as opposed to disingenuous about the call. There seems to be a real disconnect between what they perceive they were doing & the true angle of their arms. My sense of this is that the disconnect is qualitatively different than, say, a block-charge disagreement or a player not realizing he's moved his pivot foot. My conclusion - working conclusion or I wouldn't ask the question - is that the rule in this situation requires a defender to have arms/hands up in almost an unnatural (perhaps "exaggerated" is the word) manner in order to be in compliance. And it makes me wonder whether the rule essentially asks for too much from a defender. So, as a practical matter, how much leeway do you give a defender in these situations? Is it purely a judgment call or do you have some kind of more specific angle guideline that might be useful to players? Just trying to coach the kids to defend without fouling, you understand. Many thanks.
PS
Philosophically, and semi-ridiculously, why should verticality be required in this situation at all: why shouldn't a defender be able to close off the space above just as he can close off space horizontally by taking a charge? Does it just give too much advantage to a taller player?