Legal guarding position - Page 5

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #61 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 10:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

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.

Based upon the original post, I would charge B1 with the foul, but based upon the amount and content of discussion that this post has generated leads me to believe that this type of play is a have to see it to make the call.

Hawks Coach · #62 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 11:01pm

Quote:

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.

No - I am not saying that B1 can push A1. For B1 to push A1, he would not maintain verticality - verticality is a rule B1 must follow. There is contact, and as I laid it out, the contact is B1's responsibility. What in my post would lead to an alternate conclusion?

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Apr 28th, 2004 at 12:05 AM]

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #63 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 11:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
No - I am not saying that B1 can push A1. For B1 to push A1, he would not maintain verticality - verticality is a rule B1 must follow. There is contact, and as I laid it out, the contact is B1's responsibility. What in my post would lead to an alternate conclusion?

You stated that verticality does not apply to the offense.

Dan_ref · #64 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 27, 2004, 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

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.

Based upon the original post, I would charge B1 with the foul, but based upon the amount and content of discussion that this post has generated leads me to believe that this type of play is a have to see it to make the call.

So A1 rocks back on her non-pivot foot enticing B1 to occupy the space she has abandoned. She does so without contact. A1 has a change of heart and pushes B1 to the floor as she attempts to retake that space that B1 now occupies.

Foul on B1 because she has violated an undefined "cylinder of verticality"?

Nah, I don't think so. Having assumed a NONvertical position A1 cannot expect to be protected by a concept that requires that she is vertical.

blindzebra · #65 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 01:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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.

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 defenders 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 ones 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 A1s pivot foot in a forward position. From this position A1s cylinder of verticality would still surround him/her, even if A1s 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 A1s forward leg, B1 has infringed upon A1s 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.

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.

Okay, how does A1 in the origional play meet any of the 7 articles of verticality?

Art.1 LGP. Nope

Art.2 Jumping within plane. Nope

Art.3 Hands and arms raised inside plane. Nope

Art.4 Combines 2 and 3. Nope

Art.5 Offensive player may not clear out or cause contact within the DEFENDER'S vertical plane. DING, DING,DING we have a winner!

Art.6 Defender may not belly up or use lower body to cause contact. Nope

Art.7 Player with the ball is to be given no more protection. This fits.

A1 in the play in question does not have a vertical plane, she is leaning back on a diagonal plane. The space above the outstretched leg IS NOT a vertical plane it would be the base of a vertical plane of an UPRIGHT player.

Would you consider an outstretched knee or foot of a jumping defender part of B1's vertical cylinder?

Hawks Coach · #66 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 11:08am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
No - I am not saying that B1 can push A1. For B1 to push A1, he would not maintain verticality - verticality is a rule B1 must follow. There is contact, and as I laid it out, the contact is B1's responsibility. What in my post would lead to an alternate conclusion?

You stated that verticality does not apply to the offense.

\

IT DOESN'T!!! Where did I say that it did? If B1 pushes A1, B1 has not maintained verticality (B1 departed his "cylinder of verticality" to push A1). B1 is therefore responsible for contact that occurred between A1 and B1, the contact was illegal - foul on B1.

Where does A1's verticality enter into this call? A1 has no responsibility to maintain verticality - B1 does have that responsibilty, did not meet that responsiblity, made contact, and was called for a foul.

rainmaker · #67 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 11:20am

Mark --

It appears to me that you're thinking that A1 is entitled to the space above his extended foot, which is his pivot foot, but not the space the rest of him is in. Is that you position?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #68 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 12:21pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Mark --

It appears to me that you're thinking that A1 is entitled to the space above his extended foot, which is his pivot foot, but not the space the rest of him is in. Is that you position?

You are almost there. A1 is entitled to the space above his/her foot as well as his/her body. From the description in the original post, A1 was not described a pivoting about his/her pivot foot, which if this were the case and A1 made contact with B1 who had a legal guarding position, then the foul would be charged to A1.

Dan_ref · #69 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 12:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Mark --

It appears to me that you're thinking that A1 is entitled to the space above his extended foot, which is his pivot foot, but not the space the rest of him is in. Is that you position?

You are almost there. A1 is entitled to the space above his/her foot as well as his/her body. From the description in the original post, A1 was not described a pivoting about his/her pivot foot, which if this were the case and A1 made contact with B1 who had a legal guarding position, then the foul would be charged to A1.

You too are almost there.

A1 is not entitled to any space above her extended foot in this play. She is only entitled to that space when the rest of her body occupies it.

blindzebra · #70 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Mark --

It appears to me that you're thinking that A1 is entitled to the space above his extended foot, which is his pivot foot, but not the space the rest of him is in. Is that you position?

You are almost there. A1 is entitled to the space above his/her foot as well as his/her body. From the description in the original post, A1 was not described a pivoting about his/her pivot foot, which if this were the case and A1 made contact with B1 who had a legal guarding position, then the foul would be charged to A1.

Mark, if the defense can not use their lower body to cause contact...you know EXTEND IT BEYOND THEIR VERTICAL PLANE...why is A1 given that space when NONE of A1's body is VERTICAL in this play.

To take that further, let's say B1 has LGP and is vertical they then lean back and are no longer vertical, as they lean back A1 occupies that space, now B1 leans forward BEYOND a vertical position and contacts A1. By your logic A1 has committed a PC foul because they entered the UNOCCUPIED space above B1's foot then got PUSHED by B1.

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 28th, 2004 at 01:53 PM]

rockyroad · #71 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 12:59pm

Holy crap!!! How bout we all lean back over our pivot feet and let this one go...you aren't gonna convince him, and he isn't gonn admit it, so let's all join hands and sing "Kum by Yah" round the old campfire...JR's bringing the beverages!!!

Dan_ref · #72 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 01:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Holy crap!!! How bout we all lean back over our pivot feet and let this one go...you aren't gonna convince him, and he isn't gonn admit it, so let's all join hands and sing "Kum by Yah" round the old campfire...JR's bringing the beverages!!!

Yeah, I agree...got anymore yo momma jokes?

Here's one:

Yo momma is so fat the entire gym fits in her cylinder of verticality.

rockyroad · #73 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 01:54pm

How bout Yo momma is so fat, her cylinder of verticality is the same size standing or laying down...

Jurassic Referee · #74 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Holy crap!!! How bout we all lean back over our pivot feet and let this one go...you aren't gonna convince him, and he isn't gonn admit it, so let's all join hands and sing "Kum by Yah" round the old campfire...JR's bringing the beverages!!!

Yeah, I agree...got anymore yo momma jokes?

Here's one:

Yo momma is so fat the entire gym fits in her cylinder of verticality.

Oh, I get it. Yo momma is foul, but it ain't her foul. See, MTD Sr. was right all along.

Notice that I didn't get anywhere near this thread. I got about 18 brain cells left, and I'm doing my damndest to try to keep them.

PS- Rocky- in college many, many years ago, I actually sat around a campfire, pretty well blitzed with beverages of the brown persuasion, while some goof with a guitar actually was strumming away while all of us sang Kumbaya. What you won't go through to get laid when you're a young'un. Kinda embarrasing to think about it now, to be honest.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 28th, 2004 at 02:59 PM]

Hawks Coach · #75 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 28, 2004, 02:56pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

What you won't go through to get laid when you're a young'un. Kinda embarrasing to think about it now, to be honest.

Not if she was cute. Nothing about that would be embarrassing.