Legal guarding position

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #1 (**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.