Legal guarding position

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Hear, hear!!!

[dhodges007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

What do you think all the brown pops were for?!?

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dhodges007

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Yeah, she was cute after all the brown pops...

Hear, hear to that too!!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by dhodges007

What do you think all the brown pops were for?!?

An a capella group from Conn. College did a great parody of Simon and Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence" called "The Walk of Shame." The last stanza is about a girl who comes back to her room, only to find her roommate there with a random guy, and sings:

"And I wonder how thick my roommate's beer goggles must have been,
To sleep with him."


Truly a classic song.

[Camron Rust]

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!!!

But it's so much fun to see how he's going to ingore and twist the rules to prove his point!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rockyroad

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

That's cold

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


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.

It's only embarrasing if you don't...err...well if you don't.

Of course if you do there's the next morning to get through...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

[/B]

It's only embarrasing if you don't...err...well if you don't.

Of course if you do there's the next morning to get through...

[/B][/QUOTE]Hey, in college, as long as what I woke up to could loosely be called a mammal and was still alive, then I was happy. Ask Dexter if anything's changed.

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It's only embarrasing if you don't...err...well if you don't.

Of course if you do there's the next morning to get through...

[/B]

Hey, in college, as long as what I woke up to could loosely be called a mammal and was still alive, then I was happy. Ask Dexter if anything's changed. [/B][/QUOTE]

TMI...

[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.

Lets look at the following two plays:


Play #1: A1 has control of the ball. B1 is guarding A1. A1 fakes going up for a jump shot. B1 goes with the fake and jumps straight up the air. A1 steps with his non-pivot foot under B1. B1 comes down on A1. RULING: A1 is charged with a blocking foul, a player control foul to be exact.

Play #2: A1 is being guarded by B1. A1 jumps straight up to catch a pass from A2. While A1 is in the air, B1 steps under A1 and A1 comes down B1. RULING: B1 is charged with a blocking foul.


The reason A1 is charged with a foul in Play #1 is the same reason B1 is charged with a foul in Play #2. And that reason is verticality. In Play #1, A1 violated B1's verticality and caused contact. In Play #2, B1 violated A1's verticality and caused contact.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Lets look at the following two plays:


Play #1: A1 has control of the ball. B1 is guarding A1. A1 fakes going up for a jump shot. B1 goes with the fake and jumps straight up the air. A1 steps with his non-pivot foot under B1. B1 comes down on A1. RULING: A1 is charged with a blocking foul, a player control foul to be exact.

Play #2: A1 is being guarded by B1. A1 jumps straight up to catch a pass from A2. While A1 is in the air, B1 steps under A1 and A1 comes down B1. RULING: B1 is charged with a blocking foul.


The reason A1 is charged with a foul in Play #1 is the same reason B1 is charged with a foul in Play #2. And that reason is verticality. In Play #1, A1 violated B1's verticality and caused contact. In Play #2, B1 violated A1's verticality and caused contact.

Neither play has anything to do with the play we are arguing about because of one big difference, in these plays the player had VERTICALITY...you said it yourself, they went straight up...in the first play A1 was NOT VERTICAL, you can't be vertical if you are leaning back on a diagonal plane with your leg extended.

For once, just admit you are 100% wrong about this play!

[Adam]

MTD,
Your two plays have nothing to do with verticality. It has everything to do with the players jumping and being allowed to land at their destination without a new impediment.
Change your plays to have the players jumping slightly horizontally. Many officials will call a foul on B1 in the first play because he wasn't vertical. None I know of would call it on A1 in the 2nd for not being vertical.
We all agree that if A1 has verticality in the original play, he's clear. However, you seem to be the only one saying that his vertical space includes the area above his extended leg.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have been thinking all day how I should respond to blindzebra's declaration that I am 100% wrong and that I should admit that I am wrong.

[mick]

Exaggerated body position offers no solice.
Extending and bending can be offending.