hitting on arms during rebound

[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now if we want to get serios about the semantics. Verticiality only applies to legal guarding position.

[/B]

Again, read the cite from Rule 10-6-1 above. That rule says something differently from what you're saying, Kelvin.It's telling you that verticality does apply to rebounders, and that extending the arms vertically when contact occurs is a legal act. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is an inconsistency between rule 10-6-1 and Rule 4

remember I posted 10-6 earlier in this discussion but Rule 4 where it defines verticality specifically states that you must have LGP.

My take ... once again the rule book is not as clear as it should be...

In one place it says you have to have LGP then in another place it says it can apply on rebounds. and we know that in rebounding the ball is loose with no team control. We know you can legally guard when a player does not have the ball, but can you legally guard when the ball is loose? Who is guarding who? who has to establish facing who? in whose path?
I would like to see the rules committee actually clean up the rules that are messed up instead of worrying about whether an intentional kick can occur above the knee. or worrying that the home team has to be in white uniforms, or worrying that the stripes now dont have to contrast
It's just like the path thing and will forever haunt us...

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now if we want to get serios about the semantics. Verticiality only applies to legal guarding position.

[/B]

Again, read the cite from Rule 10-6-1 above. That rule says something differently from what you're saying, Kelvin.It's telling you that verticality does apply to rebounders, and that extending the arms vertically when contact occurs is a legal act. [/B][/QUOTE]

10-6-1 is not redefining "verticality". It is stating what can be a foul in the cases of rebounding, etc. Verticality remains a part of LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ysong
I believe the rule implies that "verticality" applies to all players at all time, regardless they are defenders or not.

Is that right?

Thanks.

No. Verticality applies only to a player in LGP.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Interesting point. Not relevant at all to the discussion, I don't think, but an interesting point. How about "any contact other than deliberate, flagrant or unsporting contact that occurs in B1's vertical space can never result in a foul being called on B1". Can you argue that now, and back your argument up with a rules citation?

The rules as have already been cited listed exactly what B1 can do.

What can B1 legally do? B1 can jump or raise the arms up.

Where can B1 legally HAVE their arms? Anywhere in their vertical plane.

We have two very clear parts of this rule: where the arms can be and what the arms can do. To extend this to say they can do anything if the location is legal is adding more to the rule beyond what is there.

Nowhere does it say that B1 can sweep the arms around once they're up.

The only contact the defender can legally create is in the process of raising the arms or jumping. Any other contact created by the defender is a foul by the defender.

[Adam]

Camron,
In defining a foul, the rule JR cites states specifically that extending the arms "other than vertically" is a foul if it results in contact that hinders the normal movement of an opponent. It further states that this restriction includes rebounding. I really don't see why there is so much confusion on this.
I agree with Kelvin that perhaps this could be cleaned up a bit, but it still seems pretty straight forward to me. Contact (other than fighting, Lotto) cannot be penalized on the player who owns the air space in which it happens. If he's not completely vertical, then we're talking about international air space and verticality privileges no longer apply.

[Edited by Snaqwells on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 01:12 PM]

[Adam]

Originally posted by Kelvin green

Disagree. The only legal move here is extending his arms vertically by rule. Any other movement would probably be illegal. You have to remember that when hands are vertical it does not take much movement to move out side vertical area to front or side. If this player swats at the ball it will be more likely a foul than not (pretty hard to swat at balland keep it in the vertical plane) The arm movements would have to be normal guarding movement inside the vertical plane.

Now if we want to get serios about the semantics. Verticiality only applies to legal guarding position. So if we take this further. On a rebound who is guarding who? Ball is loose. Did B who was involved in this rebound face A? Was he in his path? If the answer is no then using all the definitions verticality doesnt even apply.

Would be apply the verticiality rule in that literal of a sense?

Where does it say that? It says a player can not be penalized for occupying the space in his verticality. It does not say his hands can only go up and down. If horizontal movement of the hands results in contact, yet the hands never left the confines of his air space (some would call this his cone of verticality even though it is shaped more like a cylinder), I've got a no-call. I have yet to see an exception to the verticality rule that tells me this can be called a defensive foul. This is all assuming that B1 is in LGP.
Verticality doesn't just mean the space directly above his shoulders, it applies to the space above his body. Of course, as all of the cone jokes indicate, the exact area protected is not really defined though most of us probably use the torso as a guide.

Adam

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

No. Verticality applies only to a player in LGP.

Can't agree with that either. Rule 4-44 states that verticality applies to a "legal position". It doesn't say a "legal guarding position". As far I know, the purpose and intent of this rule was to have it apply to any player- offense or defense- that takes up a legal position on the court. It certainly applies to a shooter. Go straight up and any contact is usually called on the defender. Don't go straight up and it could be called on either player. That's what R10-6-1 is implying also, imo.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

No one else indicated any such thing.

In fact, they did. Explicitly. Here's a quote from an earlier post:

If there is contact after a player reaches over a short player, and that contact occurs in the vertical space above the short player, then- by rule- the illegal contact is always called on the player going "over the back".

In the situation I described, a player reaches (with his body) over a short player, and contact occured in the vertical space above the short player. The above statement says the foul should be on the taller player.

My only point is that the principle of verticality does not absolutely absolve B1 from responsibility for contact in the vertical plane.

[Adam]

Lotto,
I think an assumption was made that the contact being discussed is game-related (ie not fighting). You could use a fight to show all sorts of exceptions to contact rules, but it would have no bearing on how normal contact is ruled with regard to verticality.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Camron,
Contact (other than fighting, Lotto) cannot be penalized on the player who owns the air space in which it happens. If he's not completely vertical, then we're talking about international air space and verticality privileges no longer apply.

Contact, in general, is a foul on the person that causes the contact (the one moving) unless there are overriding rules. Contact with and extended limb, in general, is a foul on the person who extends the limb.

There is an exception for a player hitting the hand of an opponent when that hand is on the ball.

The verticality rule grants an exception to a defender that allows them to raise their arms and perhaps cause contact while raising them. The verticality rule exempts arms that are in a raised position above the body from being liable for a foul.

The verticality rule does not permit any other contact such as might be had when the arms are swept side to side as in a football stop the clock signal.

The verticality rule doesn't grant the defender ownership of that space, only extended priviledges. I don't see anything that gives them freedom to knock an opponents arms out of that space unless it is through the raising of the arms.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

[/B]

The verticality rule does not permit any other contact such as might be had when the arms are swept side to side as in a football stop the clock signal.

The verticality rule doesn't grant the defender ownership of that space, only extended priviledges. I don't see anything that gives them freedom to knock an opponents arms out of that space unless it is through the raising of the arms.

[/B][/QUOTE]The above sounds fair to me. Even if you do have full ownership, you can't use that ownership to attain an advantage that wasn't intended originally by the rule. I think that that falls in line with the probable purpose and intent of the "verticality" rule.

[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Can't agree with that either. Rule 4-44 states that verticality applies to a "legal position". It doesn't say a "legal guarding position". As far I know, the purpose and intent of this rule was to have it apply to any player- offense or defense- that takes up a legal position on the court. It certainly applies to a shooter. Go straight up and any contact is usually called on the defender. Don't go straight up and it could be called on either player. That's what R10-6-1 is implying also, imo.

-The rule does state that one principle of verticality is legal guarding position! It must be attained and maintained.


from rule 4
Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle of verticality are:
a . Legal guarding position must be established and attained initially,
and movement thereafter must be legal.
b . From such position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and
occupy the space within his or her vertical plane.
c . The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his or her
vertical plane while the defender is on the playing court or in the a i r .
d . [/B]The defender shall not be penalized for leaving the playing court
vertically or having his or her hands and arms extended within the
vertical plane.[/B]
e . The offensive player, whether on the playing court or airborne, shall
not “clear out” or cause contact that is not incidental.
f . The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body
or [/B]arms to cause contact outside his or her vertical plane.[/B]
g . The player with the ball shall be given no more protection or consideration
than the defender in the judging of which, if either, player has
violated the principle of verticality.


Taken literally must be in LGP.

Taken literally arms cannot move because defender shall not be penalized for having hands/arms extended. Does not say anything about movement except that you cannot use arms outside of cyliner...

I agree with Adam that you may be able to move your arms some but given that torso is the guide.. a person's arms dont need to go out much either to the front or side to get them out of the cylinder. With hands above head in a comfortable position it is vertical. so if you moved hands in normal move to guard it may not be a foul... but once the extend past the torso it is a foul.

I would venture to guess that most of the time swats, lunges, movements for the ball will take the arms and hands outside the vertical cylinder

[Adam]

Kelvin, I think you're right. Given the physical limitations involved, as well as time constraints, this discussion is largely theoretical. Most movement, if it possesses sufficient force to gain an advantage, is going to go beyond the vertical space belonging to the defense.

Now, I'm still trying to figure out if it applies to rebounders. If not, all air is virtually international air space and first come first serve; regardless of body position.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Kelvin, I think you're right. Given the physical limitations involved, as well as time constraints, this discussion is largely theoretical. Most movement, if it possesses sufficient force to gain an advantage, is going to go beyond the vertical space belonging to the defense.

I can concoct a realistic scenario where there would be contact in the space defined by verticality...

The defenders arm are outside the vertical cylinder (horizontal) and are brought into the cylinder forcefully and subsequently make contact within the vertical space.

[Kelvin green]

See an exception to everything..

The scary part is that some of us have to use common sense and judgement in these kinds of plays.

Wh