|
Tue Nov 14, 2000, 12:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mick - this is a terrific question. I have seen this play before and always wondered about the best way to deal with it.
I have reiterated the Mick's question here: ************************************************ Red team has the ball in her front court and has picked up her dribble. Tenacious white defender gets right on Red with no contact, cuts off any passing lane possibility. Red panics and pivots with a big step, so that her "pivot leg" is at a 30 degree angle to the floor. Now, white takes a step closer and is now straddling the "pivot leg", with Red's pivot foot actually behind White. Red now trys to stand, while White maintains good verticality without reaching, but still straddling Red's leg. On the attempt to stand, Red bumps into White on Red's way up, loses her balance and moves her pivot foot. What'cha got? ************************************************* My gut instinct was that a foul should be assessed to the White player. However, upon reading relevant sections in the rulebook, I can not find any reason why White can not take the position she has. For example, Whiteplayer satisfies all of the conditions for legal guarding (see the Guarding definition under rule 4). Red, when trying to stand upright, bumps into White. If White is not displaced, I would consider this incidental contact. If White is displaced, foul on Red (see Art. 7 of Verticality definition in Rule 4) "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 Red moves her pivot, travelling violation should be called. If Red was a smart player, she would have moved toward White as White was moving towards her. Any contact at this point would have been on White. This is the reason why we tend not see this situation at higher levels - offensive player knows better than to get themselves in that position. Also, male players instinctively know better than to try this type of thing (if they want to father children ...)  Cheers, David 
|
|
Tue Nov 14, 2000, 01:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
she legally obtained. But this is getting off-topic. I think if we're going to find the "correct" answer for Mick then we have to determine who is responsible for the contact. If the player holding the ball does not "own" the vertical space extending above her leg in this case then we can't have a foul on the defender who maintains legal guarding position. NF 4-23-1 says, among other things: "...A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal position if contact occurs." But this refers to the defender. Certainly the defender did not "extend" a leg. 4-24-6 says "...The extenson of the elbows when the hands are on the hips or when the hands are held near the chest or when the arms are held more or less horizontally are examples of the illegal positions used." While this specifically refers to the use of hands/arms, it does imply players are entitled to vertical space that does not extend beyond the hips. I still think travel is the proper call but I'm willing to be talked out of it. This would make a great case book play.
|
|
Tue Nov 14, 2000, 01:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
....from Where-up?
Well, I was watching from the stands and unofficially evaluating the Officials in this first round District game.
The official called "Travel" on RED. RED Coach called Foul on WHITE.(Duh!) I had a Foul on WHITE from the stands, 20 feet away. This Official and I are almost always on the same page and we verbally replayed it last night. For my part, I am not sure if the verticality is from the shoulders-up ,or from the feet-up, from the "Elongated body-up", or from Where-up. So, I thought I would ask the BIG BOYS. mick
|
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000, 09:51am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[/B][/QUOTE]
I understand the argument that Red is entitled to her vertical space and White standing over Red's leg means that she no longer has legal guarding position. But I'm inclined to give white the benefit here since she has otherwise maintained a good position. If we say White has lost her legal position because she straddled Red's obviously outstretched leg .... [/B][/QUOTE] This is a great question because it happens quite often and obviously from the discussion, the rules aren't clear. I see a lot of this in Jr Hi ball. The questions are: Red is holding the ball with right hand on the right side of her body, and White comes up close to trap, Red moves right foot, thus leaning some toward right (or maybe leaning a lot!). Which space is Red entitled to? above the pivot foot? or above the non-pivot foot? Or part-way inbetween? Once White is in tight, but Red hasn't leaned yet, is that the only space White is entitled to? Once Red leans, if White can move closer to Red's torso without contact, is this new position legal guarding position? Or is Red still entitled to it, even though in leaning she has shifted her torso to the right somewhat? I like the question about if Red is on the floor. If she is lying on her back holding the ball, and White is straddling her, is Red entitled to the space she attains if she sits up? This is not travelling, so that's not an out. If sitting up would make contact with White, who is the foul on?
|
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000, 10:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
definition of verticality
In the definition of verticality (Rule 4), there is no mention of verticality with respect to the offensive player. That is, the rule clearly marks the vertical territory owned by the defensive player, but does not make any comment about vertical territory owned by the offensive player.
Am I missing something? Is there some place in the rule book that states that the principle of verticality is applied also to the offensive player???? Again - my gut instinct is that a blocking foul should be called - I would like to find a rule interpretation that supports this. So far, we have not found one ... Help! David
|
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000, 10:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rain,
If she sits up, and white makes contact I have a foul on white, she needs to allow red the space to sit up. If she tries to stand, travel, then all foul discussion is moot.
|
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000, 11:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe the NFHS assumes that we will know the offense has the right to their vertical space.
For Example: If we say that they (offense) does not have that right (because the book do not specifically outline it), then it would be legal for a defensive player to stadle someone on the floor (establish their defensive position), and any contact would then be a foul on the offense. I think most of us would disagree with that statement, unless there was flagrant conatact. That is why I am going to use common sense, and rule that the offense has the right to their own spot.
|
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000, 11:56am
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I agree the offense has a right to their vertical, but I can see a need for a more clear definition for offensive "space". The defensive definition is quite clear as I recall. mick
|
|
Thu Nov 16, 2000, 11:36am
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000, 12:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
His opinion is that the space the "ball-holder" is entitled to is the space above and below the hips. So when Red shifted her weight away from White, Red gave up that space, although she left her foot there. Now she is not entitled to move back into the spce that White usurped. He said in these situations, he looks hard for any little violation (such as your travelling!) which would help him avoid calling a foul. PS I am hoping I talked him into coming on-line, too. He would be a great resource!
|
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000, 03:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
Above and below the hips
Quote:
Defining that vertical space, as above and below the hips, is a pretty good place to start. But I would still like to see a deinition somewhere, before I am really comfortable. mick
|
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000, 09:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Red didn't make enough contact for a PC, from where I was sitting. Talk to ya tomorrow.mick
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
