Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Nowhere in the rule defining verticality does it say anything about leaving the defender's vertical space. When you say "falling back", that certainly implies leaving a player's vertical space. Thus... not verticality.

Again, say it's legal in terms of LGP, and thus a legal move... fine. But unless you can point to a case play or interpretation from NFHS, then I don't see how it can be called as part of verticality.

Verticality is about moving into or extending part of your body into your opponents vertical space by not being vertical. Falling away is the opposite of violating verticality. It is neither moving into your opponents vertical space or extending any part of your body (e.g., arms) into a space you didn't have right to such that it leads to contact. In falling back, all of the movement by the defender is only reducing contact, not creating it or making it worse.

Now, if the opponent were behind the defender, falling backwards would be a violation verticality.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Verticality is about moving into or extending part of your body into your opponents vertical space by not being vertical. Falling away is the opposite of violating verticality. It is neither moving into your opponents vertical space or extending any part of your body (e.g., arms) into a space you didn't have right to such that it leads to contact. In falling back, all of the movement by the defender is only reducing contact, not creating it or making it worse.

Now, if the opponent were behind the defender, falling backwards would be a violation verticality.

I don't know what definition of verticality you're reading, but it's not there one in the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't know what definition of verticality you're reading, but it's not there one in the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

OK, what part of the verticality rule is a player leaning back violating if you think they are violating it?

SECTION 45 VERTICALITY
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.
ART. 2 . . . From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 3 . . . The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within 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 defender’s 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.

If you UNDERSTAND what verticality is about, you'll realize that leaning back has nothing to do with violating verticality. What it IS about is allowing a defender in LGP to execute movement which may appear to cause contact (by jumping up into a shooter's arms, e.g.) without it being a foul....that the defender isn't allowed to extend part of his/her body into the opponent from an otherwise legal position.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

OK, what part of the verticality rule is a player leaning back violating if you think they are violating it?



If you UNDERSTAND what verticality is about, you'll realize that leaning back has nothing to do with violating verticality. What it IS about is allowing a defender in LGP to execute movement which may appear to cause contact (by jumping up into a shooter's arms, e.g.) without it being a foul....that the defender isn't allowed to extend part of his/her body into the opponent from an otherwise legal position.

You need to read my post closer, because I said using verticality as a reason to call the foul is wrong, while talking in terms of LGP is the way.

Nowhere in the definition of verticality does it mention falling back. Bellying up...extending arms...yes. Why shoehorn in verticality when LGP is all you need?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

You need to read my post closer, because I said using verticality as a reason to call the foul is wrong, while talking in terms of LGP is the way.

Nowhere in the definition of verticality does it mention falling back. Bellying up...extending arms...yes. Why shoehorn in verticality when LGP is all you need?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Huh? You're the one that has been arguing that the player violated verticality.

In this case, the player has not violated either verticality or LGP.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Huh? You're the one that has been arguing that the player violated verticality.

In this case, the player has not violated either verticality or LGP.

No... I haven't. But why read?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk