Legal guarding position

[ChuckElias]

Juulie, the toolbar is something you have to download from the google site. I'm guessing that it resides on your desktop after the download. I don't have it.

[tjchamp]

You can get the google toolbar at:
http://toolbar.google.com

It just slaps another bar at the top of you internet explorer and aids in quick searches as you don't need to go to google.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

Could have been the weekend before, I don't know for sure.

Anyway, maybe Geeno's big AAU win explains the riots in Stoors that weekend?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by tjchamp
You can get the google toolbar at:
http://toolbar.google.com

It just slaps another bar at the top of you internet explorer and aids in quick searches as you don't need to go to google.

Maybe that's the problem. I don't use Explorer, I use Opera.

[Camron Rust]

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.

This can't possibly be true.

As others have said...verticality applies ONLY to the defense. It's is only valid from a "Legal guarding position".

In the original play, it's a foul on A1 if they displace B1.

In the two plays MTDSr added (which are completely different from the original post), it's a foul on B1 for leaning over A1's body when contact occured. No way B1 could have been vertial in those cases.

[tjchamp]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Maybe that's the problem. I don't use Explorer, I use Opera.

You should still be able to search through google. Use the following link:

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

Type in your search words as usual, then look for the word Domain and enter officalforum.com.

[Edited by tjchamp on Apr 27th, 2004 at 01:38 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

This can't possibly be true.

As others have said...verticality applies ONLY to the defense. It's is only valid from a "Legal guarding position".

In the original play, it's a foul on A1 if they displace B1.

In the two plays MTDSr added (which are completely different from the original post), it's a foul on B1 for leaning over A1's body when contact occured. No way B1 could have been vertial in those cases.

The 2003-04 NFHS Rules Book definition of verticality is found in R4-S44, and it says:

“Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principal of
verticality are:

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 hand and arms of the defender may be raised with 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.”


While most of the articles in R4-S44 discuss the defensive aspects of verticality, the very first sentence in R4-S44 does not differentiate between offensive and defensive players. Just as a defensive player, who has acquired his/her position on the court in a legal manner, is protected per Articles Three and Four, so is the offensive player given the same protection for doing the same thing that the defensive player is allowed to do in those two articles of R4-A44, presuming that the offensive player has acquired his/her position in a legal manner.

I agree with the position that has been put forth that a player, offensive or defensive, cannot stick his /her arms horizontally from his/her body, taking a wider than normal stance with one’s feet or sticking a foot or leg out, puts the player in a position of liability if there is contact with an opponent. Having said that, from the description of the play in the original posting, I see where A1 has done anything that I have described in this paragraph. I propose that it is very possible that this is a play that one has to see to be able to make an informed decision.
I can see a situation where A1 is aggressively defended by B1. A1 is standing straight up with B1 in front of him/her. A1 does have a cylinder of verticality around him/her. A1 steps back eighteen to twenty inches with his/her non-pivot foot; this action would leave A1’s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1’s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1’s movement caused his/her weight distribution to become unevenly distributed between his/her two feet. A1 still has the right to regain his/her balance within her cylinder of verticality. If B1 moves forward to straddle A1’s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1’s cylinder of verticality and if A1 moves forward to regain his/her balance and there is contact between A1 and B1, B1 would be at risk for causing the contact. This reasoning for B1 being at risk for causing the contact is the same as I stated in the two plays that I described earlier in this thread.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The 2003-04 NFHS Rules Book definition of verticality is found in R4-S44, and it says:

“Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principal of
verticality are:

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 hand and arms of the defender may be raised with 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.”


While most of the articles in R4-S44 discuss the defensive aspects of verticality, the very first sentence in R4-S44 does not differentiate between offensive and defensive players. Just as a defensive player, who has acquired his/her position on the court in a legal manner, is protected per Articles Three and Four, so is the offensive player given the same protection for doing the same thing that the defensive player is allowed to do in those two articles of R4-A44, presuming that the offensive player has acquired his/her position in a legal manner.

I agree with the position that has been put forth that a player, offensive or defensive, cannot stick his /her arms horizontally from his/her body, taking a wider than normal stance with one’s feet or sticking a foot or leg out, puts the player in a position of liability if there is contact with an opponent. Having said that, from the description of the play in the original posting, I see where A1 has done anything that I have described in this paragraph. I propose that it is very possible that this is a play that one has to see to be able to make an informed decision.
I can see a situation where A1 is aggressively defended by B1. A1 is standing straight up with B1 in front of him/her. A1 does have a cylinder of verticality around him/her. A1 steps back eighteen to twenty inches with his/her non-pivot foot; this action would leave A1’s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1’s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1’s movement caused his/her weight distribution to become unevenly distributed between his/her two feet. A1 still has the right to regain his/her balance within her cylinder of verticality. If B1 moves forward to straddle A1’s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1’s cylinder of verticality and if A1 moves forward to regain his/her balance and there is contact between A1 and B1, B1 would be at risk for causing the contact. This reasoning for B1 being at risk for causing the contact is the same as I stated in the two plays that I described earlier in this thread.

So now you are saying that just because the first sentence does not specify just defense, we should ignore the fact that ALL seven articles apply to the defense. Verticality applies to the defense.

The two cases you bring up apply to LGP by B1 and B1 not maintaining verticality.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
While most of the articles in R4-S44 discuss the defensive aspects of verticality, the very first sentence in R4-S44 does not differentiate between offensive and defensive players. Just as a defensive player, who has acquired his/her position on the court in a legal manner, is protected per Articles Three and Four, so is the offensive player given the same protection for doing the same thing that the defensive player is allowed to do in those two articles of R4-A44, presuming that the offensive player has acquired his/her position in a legal manner.

I agree with the position that has been put forth that a player, offensive or defensive, cannot stick his /her arms horizontally from his/her body, taking a wider than normal stance with one’s feet or sticking a foot or leg out, puts the player in a position of liability if there is contact with an opponent. Having said that, from the description of the play in the original posting, I see where A1 has done anything that I have described in this paragraph. I propose that it is very possible that this is a play that one has to see to be able to make an informed decision.
I can see a situation where A1 is aggressively defended by B1. A1 is standing straight up with B1 in front of him/her. A1 does have a cylinder of verticality around him/her. A1 steps back eighteen to twenty inches with his/her non-pivot foot; this action would leave A1’s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1’s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1’s movement caused his/her weight distribution to become unevenly distributed between his/her two feet. A1 still has the right to regain his/her balance within her cylinder of verticality. If B1 moves forward to straddle A1’s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1’s cylinder of verticality and if A1 moves forward to regain his/her balance and there is contact between A1 and B1, B1 would be at risk for causing the contact. This reasoning for B1 being at risk for causing the contact is the same as I stated in the two plays that I described earlier in this thread.

Mark, this begs my question one more time. Are you saying that A1 has expanded his "cylinder of verticality" by losing his balance? I don't buy that. If he loses his balance, he loses his spot. I'm not going to expand his cylinder.
I'm also not going to allow B1 to plow into A1's torso while it is not over the original cylinder. Those would by my only two options under your definition above, from what I can see. Is there a third?
The simplest answer is that verticality applies only above the torso/pelvis. I see this rule of thumb as similar to the statement about the dribbler getting his head and shoulders past the defense on a block charge call. It's a good standard, but couldn't be used as a steadfast rule.

[Hawks Coach]

Mark
The lead in makes no reference to defense, that is clearly true. But it is only a lead-in to a set of conditions that must be met. The very first condition that must be met to even have a right to this principle of verticality is that you must have legal guarding position. that is the construct of the rule you cite.

So until you can show me where an offensive player can obtain legal guarding position, I am not inclined to believe that verticality applies to the offense. Verticality by it's nature belongs to the defense, when contact occurs and the defense has maintained verticality, the responsibility is on the offense. When the defense either has not achieved legal guarding position (therefore having no right to verticality) or leaves the vertical plane, then the responsibilty of the defense.

That is, and always has been, the way this rule is written and intended to be enforced.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

So now you are saying that just because the first sentence does not specify just defense, we should ignore the fact that ALL seven articles apply to the defense. Verticality applies to the defense.

The two cases you bring up apply to LGP by B1 and B1 not maintaining verticality.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that one should ignore Articles One thru Seven, just because six of these seven articles discuss the defense. It would be illogical to say that only the defense has verticality and the offense does not. As I have stated before, I really believe that this is a have to see the actual play to really make an informed ruling.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Mark
The lead in makes no reference to defense, that is clearly true. But it is only a lead-in to a set of conditions that must be met. The very first condition that must be met to even have a right to this principle of verticality is that you must have legal guarding position. that is the construct of the rule you cite.

So until you can show me where an offensive player can obtain legal guarding position, I am not inclined to believe that verticality applies to the offense. Verticality by it's nature belongs to the defense, when contact occurs and the defense has maintained verticality, the responsibility is on the offense. When the defense either has not achieved legal guarding position (therefore having no right to verticality) or leaves the vertical plane, then the responsibilty of the defense.

That is, and always has been, the way this rule is written and intended to be enforced.

According to your application of verticality:

A1 has legally reached a position on the court. A2 throws a pass to A1. A1 must jump straight up with his/her arms extended straight up to catch the ball. Since the principal of verticality does not apply to an offensive player, while A1 is in the air from his/her jump, B1 can push A1 out of the way so that he/she may intercept A2's pass.

I hope you really do not want B1 to be allowed to play this type of defense.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

According to your application of verticality:

A1 has legally reached a position on the court. A2 throws a pass to A1. A1 must jump straight up with his/her arms extended straight up to catch the ball. Since the principal of verticality does not apply to an offensive player, while A1 is in the air from his/her jump, B1 can push A1 out of the way so that he/she may intercept A2's pass.

I hope you really do not want B1 to be allowed to play this type of defense.

Since when does verticality apply to a simple run of the mill push? Are you telling us B1 can legally push A1 if A1 happens to not be vertical?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
... As I have stated before, I really believe that this is a have to see the actual play to really make an informed ruling.

Your original post simply stating the foul is on B1 notwithstanding I take it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Mark, this begs my question one more time. Are you saying that A1 has expanded his "cylinder of verticality" by losing his balance? I don't buy that. If he loses his balance, he loses his spot. I'm not going to expand his cylinder.
I'm also not going to allow B1 to plow into A1's torso while it is not over the original cylinder. Those would by my only two options under your definition above, from what I can see. Is there a third?
The simplest answer is that verticality applies only above the torso/pelvis. I see this rule of thumb as similar to the statement about the dribbler getting his head and shoulders past the defense on a block charge call. It's a good standard, but couldn't be used as a steadfast rule.

I cannot tell you how many times I have attended presentations on the Principal of Verticality and in none of them have I heard that it does not apply to a player's body below the waist nor have I ever heard that the Principal only applies to defensive players.