Legal guarding position - Page 3

Dan_ref · #31 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 07:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
BTW, I always thought that vass a Chermaaahn ahksend, nein?)

Yes, yes. Oh, I can't believe I screwed that up. I thought I was being clever enough by coming up with the Bernie Kopell reference. I guess I gotta get out the TV Guide and find out when the re-runs are on!

Yep, Bernie Kopell was a good reference. Actually I think his accent was supposed to be "eastern Euro, bad guy generic, standard issue".

Anyway, since you refuse to play along I'll just have to get to the point myself:

Me: "...cone of silence..."
You "WHAT??"
Me "Don't tell me you can't hear me Chief"
You "I can't hear you Max"
Me: "I TOLD you not to tell me that..."

Geeze...with some people it's like pulling teeth...

BTW, wasn't there a HoF AAU thing this past weekend?

Did you work it?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #32 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When B1 stradles A1's leg, B1 is infringing upon A1's verticality cylinder. A1 has the right to stand straight up.

Lets look at two plays that are slightly different from the original play but where the principal of verticality is the applicable rule.

Play 1: A1 has control of the ball. A1 is standing and not dribbling. A1 is being guarded by B1 from behind. A1 bends over and B1 bends over A1's back. A1 then straightens back up and there is contact between A1 and B1. Foul on B1.

Play 2: A1 has control of the ball. A1 is standing and not dribbling. A1 is being guarded by B1 from behind. A1 has not yet established a pivot foot. A1 drops the ball. A1 steps forward with his/her left foot (his/her rigth foot is now his/her piviot foot) and bends over to pick-up the ball. B1 bends over A1. A1 regains control of the ball and moves his/her left foot back near his/her right foot while resuming a straight up (not bending over anymore) position. There is contact between A1 and B1. Foul on B1.

In both plays B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality.

In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

In neither of your "test cases" is the foot of A1 out of the cylinder of the rest of A1's body. That's a crucial distinction, I think. I'm pretty sure that the last time we discussed this, we agreed that the verticality cylinder went up and down from the pelvis. If B1 makes contact, I think it's still a push on B1, but A1 doesn't get that space back once he/she has surrendered it.

A player's cylinder of verticaltiy starts at the court where his/her feet are touching the floor and goes to the ceiling. It does not start at his/her pelvis.

rainmaker · #33 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When B1 stradles A1's leg, B1 is infringing upon A1's verticality cylinder. A1 has the right to stand straight up.

Lets look at two plays that are slightly different from the original play but where the principal of verticality is the applicable rule.

Play 1: A1 has control of the ball. A1 is standing and not dribbling. A1 is being guarded by B1 from behind. A1 bends over and B1 bends over A1's back. A1 then straightens back up and there is contact between A1 and B1. Foul on B1.

Play 2: A1 has control of the ball. A1 is standing and not dribbling. A1 is being guarded by B1 from behind. A1 has not yet established a pivot foot. A1 drops the ball. A1 steps forward with his/her left foot (his/her rigth foot is now his/her piviot foot) and bends over to pick-up the ball. B1 bends over A1. A1 regains control of the ball and moves his/her left foot back near his/her right foot while resuming a straight up (not bending over anymore) position. There is contact between A1 and B1. Foul on B1.

In both plays B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality.

In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

In neither of your "test cases" is the foot of A1 out of the cylinder of the rest of A1's body. That's a crucial distinction, I think. I'm pretty sure that the last time we discussed this, we agreed that the verticality cylinder went up and down from the pelvis. If B1 makes contact, I think it's still a push on B1, but A1 doesn't get that space back once he/she has surrendered it.

A player's cylinder of verticaltiy starts at the court where his/her feet are touching the floor and goes to the ceiling. It does not start at his/her pelvis.

Well, I'm having no luck at all with Google and this website. I put in "cylinder" and got nothing, not even this thread! But I remember specifically that this was the general opinion. I'm not exactly advocating the thing, just pointing out. I'd have a lot more credibility if I could find the darn other thread.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #34 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?

Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".

The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.

What is being debated is how the principal of verticality is to be applied. In the original play A1 has established a pivot foot and a legal position on the court. A player's cylinder of verticality starts at the floor and goes all the way to the ceiling. The diameter of a player's cylinder of verticality has to be include the players body. The rules also state that the defender cannot belly up on an offensive player and violate the offensive player's verticality.

Just because A1 has become slightly off-balance does not give B1 the right to infringe upon A1's cylinder of verticality. B1's stradling of A1's leg is a definite infringement of A1's cylinder of verticality.

rainmaker · #35 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Just because A1 has become slightly off-balance does not give B1 the right to infringe upon A1's cylinder of verticality. B1's stradling of A1's leg is a definite infringement of A1's cylinder of verticality.

So do you call this even when there's no contact? It's without question an advantage for B, and if it violates the cylinder it's illegal, right? So it's gotta be called? Even with no contact?

Dan_ref · #36 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:54pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?

Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".

The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.

Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.

You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.

In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #37 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 10:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Just because A1 has become slightly off-balance does not give B1 the right to infringe upon A1's cylinder of verticality. B1's stradling of A1's leg is a definite infringement of A1's cylinder of verticality.

So do you call this even when there's no contact? It's without question an advantage for B, and if it violates the cylinder it's illegal, right? So it's gotta be called? Even with no contact?

I never said that B1 was guilty of a foul if there was no contact, there always has to be contact for a personal foul to occur.

Dan_ref · #38 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 11:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?

Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".

The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.

[/B]

Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.

You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.

In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".

Finally, you're very fond of tossing this new terminology around but you have yet to define exactly how one determines a players "cylinder of verticality".

Wanna give it a shot now?

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #39 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?

Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".

The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.

Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.

You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.

In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

I have not "merely" extended anything. I agreed with you regarding the two plays that you described, in fact there are casebook plays that support your position on those plays. In your two plays, A1 is deliberately extended his/her leg or arms out to hinder an opponent from moving Point A to Point B.

Nothing in the original play being discussed gives the impression that A1 deliverately extended his pivot foot to meet the descriptions of your two plays. A1 is standing with his/her weight unevenly distributed between his/her two feet and there is nothing in A1's situation that causes her to forfeit his/her cylinder of verticality.

But I think that there is one thing that everybody that has participated in this thread will agree and that this is the type of play that one has to see to be able to make the call.

Dan:

On a personal note I am offended that you would describe my honest attempt to explain my reasoning for my interpretation as lame. Personal attacks have no place in this forum and I thought that you were above such nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

blindzebra · #40 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 26, 2004, 11:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...
In the original play B1 has infringed upon A1's cylinder of verticality by straddling A1's right leg. Even though A1 is in a somewhat off-balance position, A1 has the right to his/her cylinder of verticality.

So we can use this argument to say B1 has committed a foul as he runs by and trips over A1's outstretched leg, can't we? In fact, using your argument any player is perfectly entitled to stick his leg out and trip any other player whenever he likes, assuming time/distance constraints are met. If a player can outstrecth his legs to increase the size of this cylinder why can't he simply outstretch both arms to increase the size of his cylinder as well?

Anyway, even though it's not to be found in the rulebook I like your term - "cylinder of verticality". It reminds me of the "cone of silence".

The plays you describe in your first paragraph are already covered in the guarding and screening definitions and each case the foul would be on A1.

Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.

You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.

In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

I have not "merely" extended anything. I agreed with you regarding the two plays that you described, in fact there are casebook plays that support your position on those plays. In your two plays, A1 is deliberately extended his/her leg or arms out to hinder an opponent from moving Point A to Point B.

Nothing in the original play being discussed gives the impression that A1 deliverately extended his pivot foot to meet the descriptions of your two plays. A1 is standing with his/her weight unevenly distributed between his/her two feet and there is nothing in A1's situation that causes her to forfeit his/her cylinder of verticality.

But I think that there is one thing that everybody that has participated in this thread will agree and that this is the type of play that one has to see to be able to make the call.

Dan:

On a personal note I am offended that you would describe my honest attempt to explain my reasoning for my interpretation as lame. Personal attacks have no place in this forum and I thought that you were above such nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

Where in the rule book does it say anything about offensive
verticality 4-44 deals with what the defense can do within their vertical plane.

As I stated before in your cases B1 did not maintain LGP, but in the first situation B1 got and maintained LGP.

Dan_ref · #41 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 12:44am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Why? I deliberately qualified my play by saying a player legally "extended" his "cylinder" only if he adheres to screening & guarding principles - time & distance. You have merely extended those same guidelines by allowing a player to extend his arms/legs in an arbitrary fashion.

You'll need to do quite a bit better than this lame response to justify your claim that B1 is responsible for illegal contact in the original play.

In the original play A1 has no claim to a "vertical" position simply because he is not, in any manner, "vertical".

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 26th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

I have not "merely" extended anything. I agreed with you regarding the two plays that you described, in fact there are casebook plays that support your position on those plays. In your two plays, A1 is deliberately extended his/her leg or arms out to hinder an opponent from moving Point A to Point B.

Nothing in the original play being discussed gives the impression that A1 deliverately extended his pivot foot to meet the descriptions of your two plays. A1 is standing with his/her weight unevenly distributed between his/her two feet and there is nothing in A1's situation that causes her to forfeit his/her cylinder of verticality.

But I think that there is one thing that everybody that has participated in this thread will agree and that this is the type of play that one has to see to be able to make the call.

Dan:

On a personal note I am offended that you would describe my honest attempt to explain my reasoning for my interpretation as lame. Personal attacks have no place in this forum and I thought that you were above such nonsense.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]

Please Mark, we're all big boys & girls here. I have little tolerance these days for adults whining about being personally offended in the course of normal disourse.

If my use of the word lame in regards to your lame defense offends you then so be it.

As for "deliberate" movement: can you show us where in the rules a foul needs to be judged "deliberate" in order to be judged a common foul?

And I'm still waiting for you to define this vertical cylinder thing.

tjchamp · #42 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 07:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Well, I'm having no luck at all with Google and this website. I put in "cylinder" and got nothing, not even this thread! But I remember specifically that this was the general opinion. I'm not exactly advocating the thing, just pointing out. I'd have a lot more credibility if I could find the darn other thread.

Are you using the google toolbar? I got several hits on cylinder when I hit the "Search Site" button. Got several hits when I went to the google site too. You need to use the "advanced search" link, and specify the "officialforum.com" domain. You specify that at the bottome of the first blue outlined box.

ChuckElias · #43 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 07:50am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
BTW, wasn't there a HoF AAU thing this past weekend?

Did you work it?

There was a big AAU thing two weekends ago (17th/18th), which I worked 3 games. Not a competitive game in the bunch. The game immediately preceeding my first game featured Gino Auriemma as the coach for one of the teams. (His team was leading 41-8 when I arrived at the site. They won easily.)

If there was a HoF tourney this past weekend (25th), I didn't get a call. Considering my post-season last year, that's not really very surprising. Acutally, I couldn't have worked it anyway as I was in CT for my sister's birthday for much of the weekend.

Adam · #44 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 09:08am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A player's cylinder of verticaltiy starts at the court where his/her feet are touching the floor and goes to the ceiling. It does not start at his/her pelvis.

By what logic, Mark?
The way I picture the original play, A1's leg is abnormally extended beyond his vertical plane. A defensive player is not allowed to extend his cylinder by extending his foot further away from his body, why should an offensive player?
Furthermore, if A1 has his feet not quite underneath himself, can B1 then plow into the torso of A1 since his cylinder of verticality has not been infringed upon?

rainmaker · #45 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 09:10am

Quote:

Originally posted by tjchamp

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Well, I'm having no luck at all with Google and this website. I put in "cylinder" and got nothing, not even this thread! But I remember specifically that this was the general opinion. I'm not exactly advocating the thing, just pointing out. I'd have a lot more credibility if I could find the darn other thread.

Are you using the google toolbar? I got several hits on cylinder when I hit the "Search Site" button. Got several hits when I went to the google site too. You need to use the "advanced search" link, and specify the "officialforum.com" domain. You specify that at the bottome of the first blue outlined box.

Someone else asked me that earlier this week, and I still don't see a toolbar. I also used the advanced search link and it didn't work either.