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?

a mess.

Sounds like traveling. I'd have to see it.

If White made no contact, I have a travel on Red.

I wonder if the coach thought of using a timeout. :)

If a player is allowed the space vertically above her, how can White occupy that space and not be called for a foul?

If a player bends over at the waist, isn't she still entitle to the space vertically above her? White wouldn't be allowed to put her arms in that space? If Red straightened up, White would be responsible for the contact.

I agree that if there was contact and that cause the violation a foul must be called on the defense. However having no contact, i would probably have a travel.

Once a player establishes their position on the floor, are they not entitled to that position. Most times its about 1 meter(+or-) in width, seeing that the defender moved into the space of offense i would probably call a defensive foul. But as other messages have said its something i would like to see.

SH
keep smiling

With the usual "I would have to see it" disclaimer, it sounds like the defender broke the dribblers vertical space. When the dribbler tried to stand and made contact, foul on the defense and one hot, irritable coach, but the right call.

Even if there was no contact, if a travel occured because the dribblers vertical space was violated, I probably would still call a foul.

I don't believe sticking your leg out gives you the vertical space above your leg. Example: if a screener sticks out her leg and the defender, in an effort to stay with a dribbler going around the screen, runs into the leg sticking out, are you going to call a foul on the defender?

I've seen situations similar to this one and wondered what to do. I am gonna ask a question here, not because I'm committed to the position it implies, but just for the sake of arguement. I can't let seven posts go by with no disagreement!!

If the defender (White) achieved her position legally, with no contact, and is completely vertical, how can she be responsible for the foul? Isn't she entitled to her space? Red was in that space, but left it,and isn't she in a different space now? I'm assuning that in moving her non-pivot foot, and leaving her "pivot leg" at a 30 deg angle Red shifted her center of balance. Now hasn't she moved some and surrendered that spot? Note she isn't vertical anymore.

What if Red was standing, White came in tight, both vertical, no contact, and now Red sort of slides her foot forward between White's legs, so once again White is straddling Red's leg with no contact. Who is entitled to the space White is in?

Again, we are not seeing it, but I think your pivot foot entitles you to that vertical space. It doesn't sound like she "moved", just bent over. Now, if it was her other foot(non-pivot) that the defender stood over, too bad I would let it go because the defender is entitled to that spot.

Now, if Red slides her foot into whites space and makes any contact or an attempt to "clear out" the defender then it is a PC foul on her.

After reading the other posts I think that I would have to
go with a travel on Red. 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 then what do
we call when Red's leg is not so obviously outstretched?
(Brian's case). Similarly, what if Red is down on
the floor with White over her. Do we call a foul if Red stands up & knocks White down in the process?
Good one Mick!

The dribbler didn't stick her leg out. That's an entirely different situation. In this case, the leg had the pivot foot on the end of it. The dribbler has the right and the responsibility to maintain that pivot foot. And she is entitled to the space above it. Could the defender straddle her head while she leaned over at mick's 30 degree angle?

If red is on the floor, and white is standing over her, yes it is a foul if white preventing or delaying her from getting up, that is clear Ad/Dis (my guess it would be a hold or a push) call. I am assuming in that case that red does NOT have the ball.


If red had the ball, and then stood up....well that is just too obvious regardless if white is standing over her or not.

Yes, Red does not have the ball. And yes, if white
*prevents* red from standing (actively or passively)
we have a hold (both trivial cases). But if there's
a free-for-all-for the ball (for instance) and white just
happens to be standing over red can we say that white is responsible for contact?

I think a scrum or "free -for- all" is a different story altogether. In that case no one really has possession or floor postiion and you just have to referee the contact the best you can.

I think it is similar to one of those "oops" fouls when a defender falls to the floor or otherwise trips the offense unintentionally ... so the call would be a foul on the defense.

The defender likely approached the offensive player from behind, encroaching upon the offensive player's position on the court (as established by the pivot foot). From that position, it would have been nearly impossible for the defender to make a play on the ball, so IMHO the defender initiated the contact (NFHS 4-27-5)

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

Hmmm, every player is entitled to the position on the floor
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.

....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

[/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?

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

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.

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.

Brian,
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

I was the guy who made the travel call.

It was a good discussion with Mick post game and a great discussion on this board.

What a great tool this is!

So do you still think you made the right call?

I think I kicked it because white violated verticality over the pivot foot

I asked the teacher of our class about this situation, and he said that if White makes no contact while getting into position straddling, and then stays completely vertical and doesn't move toward Red at all, it should be PC.

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!

Above and below the hips
 

Rainmaker,
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

Rainmaker

Thanks for the excellent response. Red didn't make any contact, so no PC, but she did more her pivot foot so travelling was my call.

Jim,
Red didn't make<u> enough contact</u> for a PC, from where I was sitting. :) Talk to ya tomorrow.
mick