Not even sure how to explain this one, but I will give it a whirl. Player A1 has ball, right leg is extended in front of body, and right foot is pivot. A1 has all weight on back foot. Defender B1 then straddles A1's right foot, but remains vertical. A1 then pivots her weight back onto the front foot causing contact with B1 sufficient that a foul should be called. Who should get the foul?

Player control foul.

If you ask yourself, "Who caused the contact?" The answer is easy.

If A1 has their foot out in front, and then puts their weight on their back foot. B1 then comes up and, the way I picture it, almost straddles A1's front leg, without causing contact. Since A1 had that front leg there first, are they entitled to the space above it because of verticality? Or does that not apply, since you could also say B1 is entitled to that space since they got there without fouling.

Also, but unrelated, how do I quote an earlier post? I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

Thank You.

You click on the quote icon under the post.

Verticality applies to a NORMAL body position above the body, being in the position described verticality has no bearing.

Would it be fair to say that verticality applies to the plane above your hips?

This topic comes up every now & then and you guys are over-thinking it, just as happens each time it's discussed. Who has the air rights above A1's leg really has nothing to do with how this play is called. Having said that B1 is perfectly entitled to straddle A1's leg in this play, as long as he does not push into A1 as he does so.

In this play I don't see how A1 can significantly displace B1 simply by trying to maintain his balance or shifting his weight back to his pivot foot. If B1 *is* displaced A1 more than likely PUSHED him, and pushed him hard - foul on A1. If A1 attempts to regain his balance and *incidentally* contacts B1 without displacing B1 from his position then we have nothing.

When I think of the principle of verticality I envision a situation where A1 is an airborn shooter and B1 jumps straight up to block the shot. There is contact for a foul to be called. If B1 is straight up, i.e., not leaning over to block the shot, even though there is contact, it is a PC foul. Otherwise, a block. Is this of which you are referring, Dan.

Foul by B1.

How is that a foul on B1, where does it say B can't straddle A1's leg? The rules do talk about a normal body position and what is described is not a normal position for A1. B1 has LGP, so all you could have is PC or nothing.

If B1 is not put at a disadvantage, there is no foul. If A1 causes contact over B1's vertical plane that cause the shot to be way off, no foul (in general). This contact could be relatively severe, IMO, without a foul.

If you microdot the rulebook on this one I think it is a mistake.
NBA - No call.. play on.
COLLEGE - Probably the same... unless someone gets knocked down pretty hard, or if an arm is extended.
HIGH SCHOOL - Look at the whole play to the finish.. see who was more overly aggressive and use your common sense on who was put at a disadvantage and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Probably the more you've seen this play... the more you'll have a chance to make a good judgement on it... and get it right.
My opinion.

Two points of judgment here. First, is B1 vertical? If so, does A1 put B1 at a disadvantage by virtue of the contact?

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.

So again I ask, does it make sense that veritcality applies to the area over the hips, as that is the NORMAL position referred to by blindzebra? If so, then foul in both situations described above go to B1, and foul on A1 in situation I originally described.

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".

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.

tjchamp, I'd say this is a good rule of thumb to go by. There may very well be an exception that I cannot anticipate, but I'd say it is generally a good way to go.

Perhaps MTD could show us where "cylinder of verticality" is defined in the rules book? Maybe rule 12-3-2-4-5-6-4-1?

Adam

No, in the origional play B1 MAINTAINED LGP in his/her VERTICAL CYLINDER, in your cases B1 did not.

Verticality is confined within the framework of the body, not the space above out-stretched arms or legs, so A1 had no right to the space above their outstretched leg as long as B1 got to that spot first and without contact.

"Cone of Silence" a mixed metaphor or mis-application of "Code of Silence"-- maybe. Equivalent to Dan's belief that Mark has inappropriately mixed "verticality" as covered in official books with "cylinder" as covered in camps/clinics etc. Both mis-applied/mixed. Am I right or wrong Dan?

Don't tell me you can't hear me Chief

Like I'm that Smart!

It was just the old "reference old TV comedy shows that most people are too young to remember to get a cheap laugh out of the geezers" trick.

:) ok, you got a big laugh out of me on that. I kinda liked my guess though.

[Edited by davidw on Apr 26th, 2004 at 02:45 PM]

I liked your guess too! :)

Hey Dan, I got it right away - I loved that show...as for all these guys who didn't catch it, well - I guess they all "Missed it by that much"...especially whoever it was that talked about the cylinder of verticality - what the heck is that???

Oh I can hear you as clear as Bernie Kopell's cheesy Russian accent.

I just couldn't find a jpeg of the cones in use!

Sigh...you're supposed to say "I can't hear you Max!"

Go ahead...say it already!

BTW

http://www.harpersferry.org/wireless.../csilence1.jpg

Very disappointing....

(BTW, I always thought that vass a Chermaaahn ahksend, nein?)

Way back in my early days in the Navy, we had a shop supervisor who would call you outside for a "discussion." We took to calling that the cone of silence, and it was about as silent as the TV show's cone. He caught on to our little joke, and would call somebody by name when he was po'd and say "Jones!!! CONE!!!" That was even funnier to us than having come up with the concept in the first place.

Don't know why I saw fit to mention it her, you just brought back old memories . . .

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... :rolleyes:

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

Did you work 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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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? ;)

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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]

You stated that verticality does not apply to the offense.

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.

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?

\

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

Oh, I get it. Yo momma <b>is</b> foul, but it ain't <b>her</b> foul. See, MTD Sr. <b>was</b> 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]

[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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

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.

Hear, hear!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

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.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dhodges007

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach 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. Yeah, she was cute after all the brown pops... ;)

Hear, hear to that too!!

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.

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

That's cold


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...

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. :D

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. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

TMI... :p

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!

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.

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.

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