when both A1 and B1 go for rebound, if A1 grabs the ball with on hand but before A1 is able to secure it with 2 hands, B1, while also goes for the ball, hit A1's arm (accidentally or not) and A1 lose the ball. Is this contact legal in the following scenarios:

1. A1's arm is in his vertical plane.
2. A1's arm is in B1's vertical plane.
3. A1's arm is in neither. (Nor B1's arm).

Alos are there any ruling differences in NCAA, NBA and FIBA?

Thanks for your help to clarify this for me.

ysong

Hitting the arm on a rebound to prevent the other player from securing the ball woould be a foul. If they are tangled up and the ball is loose you may have incidental.

Based on the three scenarios you called. It would be a foul.

But if A1's arm (that with the ball) is in B1's vertical plane, I think B1 is absovled from any responsibitity of the contact, is that right?

Thanks.

ysong

No...

Verticality applies to players jumping up, defending etc.

and just because there is a body part in a "person's verticality" does not geive the person free license to create contact... I am reaching for a ball getting near your vertical space, does not give you free reign to knock my hand away

A player who is taller grabs ball above another player clearly in vertical space... that does not give the right to that person to knock ball away unfettered.

Dont read too much into verticality. Making contact and causing a disadvantage is a foul on another player.

Kelvin, I think that you need to re-read NFHS rule 4-44. Especially 4-44-2,3,4& 5.

Rule 4-44-2 - <i>"From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane".</i>
Rule 4-42-3- <i>"The hands or arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air".</i>
Rule 4-42-4- <i>"The defender should NOT be penalized for leaving the floor vertically OR HAVING HIS/HER HANDS WITHIN HIS/HER VERTICAL PLANE".</i>
Rule 4-42-5- <i>"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."</i>

Once you've established LGP, you OWN the air above you.

You also own that cone around you.;)

It doesn't say that.

It says you can jump or raise your arms. It doesn't say you can knock someone else's arms out of that area.

Disagree. It certainly does say that in the cites above. The defender can jump vertically and then legally occupy the space within his/her vertical plane. Not some of the space, Camron. All of the space. It also says the defender should NOT be penalized for having his/her hands within his/her vertical plane, but you're saying that maybe a defensive player can be penalized for knocking an opponent's arm(s) out of their vertical plane. That's a direct contravention of that cite. The offensive player is also the one causing contact in the defender's vertical plane by being where they aren't legally allowed to be. Pretty specific language, I think.

You also own that cone around you.;)

[/B][/QUOTE]Vertical cone, not horizontal cone. Or oblique cone? :D

Thanks Jurassic Referee for clarifying this.

If the player owns his vertical space and he is entitled the right to raise his arms in this space to initiate contact without penalty, does that means a shooter is allowed to raise his non-shooting arm *within his vertical plane* to fend off defender's blocking arm?

the NCAA rules does not mention "vertical right" at all in this artical:

Personal Fouls
Section 18. By Players
Art. 5. A player shall not use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent from attacking the ball during a dribble or when trying for goal.

Thanks.

What did I miss here? My post stated that verticlaity has to do with jumping up and playing defense. Never once did I say that defense should be penalized for having arms raised in vertical plane.

What I did say is that just because you are entitled to verticality does not give you the free reign to do what ever you want. Like Hit the arm of a player who is in your space just because it is there.

Look at Rule 4-42-5- where is says "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."... Does not say anything about A grabbing the ball and getting hit. it just says A cannot contact!.

If there is no contact there is no foul so I can reach into your cone or verticality.

So the next time a A1 reaches out over a short defender I now have to call "over the back" since A1 violated B's verticality. In fact when B1 then grabs A's arms that are a foot above B's head and knocks the ball lose. I will need to call the intentional foul on A1 for intentionally violating B1's space and give B 2 shots and the ball since A had no right to grab the ball in the protected cone/cylinder.

as a player is holding the ball above his head or close to his body and defender reaches out into the cone/vertical and ties up a player we now have a foul on the defense, and in fact A can use a reasonable method to ensure that B doesnt reach into his vertical space and grab the ball

If that what the rules states then I guess I do need to go back and reread the rule. I guess the Iraqi sun made me sort of like crazy or something.

The citation that you are using above usually refers to a dribbler or shooter using their off-arm outside of their "verticality" to gain an advantage by keeping a defender away from the ball. If the defender reaches into the vertical space directly over the top of a player with the ball, then any subsequent contact- if called- would be on the defender. It all falls in line with the concept that every player on the court who has established a legal position, including the player with the ball, has an equal right to be unhindered in the space directly above them.

1) If there is no contact there is no foul so I can reach into your cone or verticality.

2) So the next time a A1 reaches out over a short defender I now have to call "over the back" since A1 violated B's verticality.

3) as a player is holding the ball above his head or close to his body and defender reaches out into the cone/vertical and ties up a player we now have a foul on the defense, and in fact A can use a reasonable method to ensure that B doesnt reach into his vertical space and grab the ball

[/B][/QUOTE]1) Any player can reach into any other's players vertical space above that player any time that they want to. No contact = no foul. Contact = foul ( or no call) on the player reaching into the other player's vertical space.

2)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". The foul isn't for "over the back" with no contact involved; the foul is for any illegal contact that occurs in the short player's vertical space.

3) If a defender legally ties up the ball, it is a jump ball- no matter where the hands are. If the defender makes illegal contact while trying to tie up the ball, it is a foul on the defender- again no matter where the hands are.

Nothing's changed on this rule that I know of. Been called this way for many years.

Thanks to Jurassic Referee for your convicing explanation.

would you please help me with one of my other recent posts too: "why post player backing-in toward basket is legal in NBA?"

I believe "backing-in" is illegal in NCAA or FIBA, is that right?

Thanks in advance.

So then Jurassic Ref, put in other words, are you saying that if an offensive rebounder jumps into the vertical cone of a denfensive rebounder to grab a rebound, then the defensive rebounder has THE RIGHT to use his hands in his vertical cone to hit the offensive rebounder's rebounding arm(s) in order and with the express intention to knock the ball loose out of his hands?




[Edited by ShoeBall on Jun 21st, 2004 at 05:42 PM]

Shoeball

My point exactly!

I dont disagree with anything JR stated. It has been calle that way for years. If a player is in anothers vertical space and not making contact, that player does not have the right to foul to get at ball. It has been that way for years!

Still disagree. It says the defender can raise them above their head. It says the defender can have their hands above their head. It says they may occupy the space above them. It says they may jump. It says the opponent can't cause contact in that space. It doesn't say that they are permitted additional rights once they are there. It doesn't say that the player can cause contact outside of the act of jumping or raising the arms.

Just as the example posted above so clearly stated: if the opponent has caught the ball cleanly, the player (now defender) can NOT sweep the arms sideways, even within the vertical plane, to knock the opponents arms off the ball.

Yup, and I've quoted the rules citations that will back it up. Please go back and carefully read Rule 4-44-2,3,4 and 5 as written above. Do you have a rules citation - any rules citation- that will refute those citations?

To sum up- again:
- Article #2 says that the defensive rebounder may legally rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his vertical plane.
- Article #3 says the hands and arms of the defensive rebounder may be legally raised within his vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.
- Article #4 says that you CAN'T penalize a defender for leaving the floor vertically OR HAVING HIS HANDS EXTENDED WITHIN HIS VERTICAL PLANE!!!! NOTE: <font color = red>"CAN'T PENALIZE"!</font>
- Article #5 says that the offensive rebounder, whether on the floor OR AIRBORNE,MAY NOT ...CAUSE CONTACT WITHIN THE VERTICAL PLANE WHICH IS A FOUL.

Seems pretty straightforward language to me. I'm open-minded though, if you can find anything anywhere in the rules that will refute these specific, written rules that I cited.

Disagree. It certainly does say that in the cites above. The defender can jump vertically and then legally occupy the space within his/her vertical plane. Not some of the space, Camron. All of the space. It also says the defender should NOT be penalized for having his/her hands within his/her vertical plane, but you're saying that maybe a defensive player can be penalized for knocking an opponent's arm(s) out of their vertical plane. That's a direct contravention of that cite. The offensive player is also the one causing contact in the defender's vertical plane by being where they aren't legally allowed to be. Pretty specific language, I think. [/B][/QUOTE]

Still disagree. It says the defender can raise them above their head. It says the defender can have their hands above their head. It says they may occupy the space above them. It says they may jump. It says the opponent can't cause contact in that space. It doesn't say that they are permitted additional rights once they are there. It doesn't say that the player can cause contact outside of the act of jumping or raising the arms.

Just as the example posted above so clearly stated: if the opponent has caught the ball cleanly, the player (now defender) can NOT sweep the arms sideways, even within the vertical plane, to knock the opponents arms off the ball.
[/B][/QUOTE]Camron, what rule says that the defensive rebounder can't legally move their arms within their vertical plane? There isn't one that I know of. On the contrary, the rules that I cited state the exact opposite. And where in the citations that I gave are there any restrictions as to WHEN the defensive rebounder can raise his arms either? Again, I don't know of any rule that lays out any restrictions regarding timing.

The example posted above may have been clearly stated. Unfortunately, the conclusion reached in that clearly stated example isn't backed by any rule that I've ever heard of.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 21st, 2004 at 07:24 PM]

The rulebook really doesn't address "backing in" as it isn't a rulebook term. It's a foul to illegally contact an opponent and displace him. But the thing you have to remember about the NBA is that most of these defenders are pushing just as hard as the offensive player is. If they'll establsih there position and hold their ground, they'll get the call. But if the attempt to jockey for position, they're not going to get the call.

You have to remember that the NBA is not the NFHS or the NCAA. The players are bigger, stronger, and quicker. You can't officiate a couple of 300 lb. seven footers like you do a couple of HS kids. It's a different game.

Agreed.

Thanks Jurassic Ref. You've pretty much convinced me.


There is however one small point that still bothers me:

Rule 4-42-5- "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."



The word "cause" is what bothers me. Is the offensive player's simply being in the opponents vertical plane enough to put the "cause" of ANY ensuing contact whatsoever within the vertical plane squarely on the offensive player?

Thanks,
Andrew


[Edited by ShoeBall on Jun 21st, 2004 at 10:14 PM]

[Quote]Rule 4-42-4- "The defender should NOT be penalized for leaving the floor vertically OR HAVING HIS/HER HANDS WITHIN HIS/HER VERTICAL PLANE".[Quote]

I agree with this statement...if the offensive player does not have the ball.
If the offensive player has the ball then all bets are off, IMO.
This isn't some sort of "foul free zone" is it?...and since the rule dosen't state one way or the other, we are stuck with that darned ol' common sense thing aren't we?

JR,
In your opinion, if the defender has a LGP with his hands at his side, and an offensive player is making a try that extends their arms over the defender, can the defender then raise his arms within his verticality to contact the offensive players arms? The timing is such that the defensive player raising their arms is subsequent to the offensive player's arm being within the defensive players verticality.

IMO - I have no foul if the defensive player's hands are vertical before the offensive player puts his hands or arms within the defensive player's vertical space, but am not sure in the scenario I just described.

Im willing to bite and throw a monkey wrench in the works
(as if I have not stirred the pot already)

Take a look at Article 1. Verticality only has to do with legal guarding position.. and legal guarding position must be maintained.

In a rebound situation as first described. Who is guarding who? Did they establish and maintain LGP?

Rule 10 Section 6 Article 1 Extending the arms ... other than vertically so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with arms occurs is not legal... The positions are employed in rebounding, screening, and various aspects of postplay.

I might buy that if someone actually raised their arms straight up and hit the arm there may not be a foul. However if they do anything but raise their hands or arms vertically would still be a foul.

As said before just because a player is in their space it does not give the player free reign to foul to get ball.

Here's a scenario for those of you who don't think it is a foul to hit a player's arm who has the ball in "your" verticality.

A1, who is 7 foot, is holding the ball directly above B1's head, who is 5 foot.
By rule, can B1 now jump up and hit A1's arm to try and knock the ball loose? (Remember, A1 is in B1's verticality cone)

You can quote rules all day long...but, common sense tells me this is a foul.

Well, that sure isn't a monkeywrench. All Rule 10-6-1 is doing is repeating the exact same concepts that are contained in Rule 4-44. It's legal to put your arms straight up (vertically) when rebounding. If they aren't straight up, of course there could be a foul called on that person.

By rule, B1 sureashell can. The exact rule is written above a coupla times, and I ain't writing it again. Can you cite me a rule that states that B1 CAN'T legally raise his arms vertically above his head in SOME instances? If A1 is shooting a jumper over B1, and his hands follow through into the space directly overhead of B1 in front of him, is it a foul on B1 if the shooter makes contact with B1's arms that are straight up over his head? If B1 is in the act of putting his arms STRAIGHT UP when the contact with the shooter's arms occur over top of the defender's head, is your common sense also telling you that this now becomes a foul on the defender? Same concept, Dude.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 04:34 AM]

Andrew, transfer the same rules concepts of "verticality" to a defender/rebounder putting his arm out horizontally to the side, instead of vertically directly over his head. If an opponent runs into that arm, the foul(if you call a foul) is gonna be on the defender/rebounder now, isn't it? And it doesn't matter whether the defender/rebounder's arm is motionless(already there) or in the act of going out to the side when the contact occurs, does it? Even though the defender/rebounder's arm might be motionless horizontally when the contact occurs, that defender/rebounder has still caused the illegal contact.

Sam, read the replies that I gave to the Dude and Andrew, and tell me what you think. Same concept is used throughout.

Apples and Oranges my friend...
In your scenario A1, jumper, made or initiated contact with B1 who had his hands "straight up over his head".
No foul on B1 here.

In my scenario, B1 is the one who made or initiated contact with A1's arm, trying to knock the ball loose.
Foul on B1 here...at least in the games I call.

JR, you can probably quote the rule book backwards and forwards...but me thinks you are reading to much in to this particular rule...this one smells like a foul to me...like a rotten apple.

Apples and Oranges my friend...

JR, you can probably quote the rule book backwards and forwards...but me thinks you are reading to much in to this particular rule...this one smells like a foul to me...like a rotten apple.

[/B][/QUOTE]Not apples and oranges, Dude. Just a very plain and explicitly written rule that covers all circumstances with no exceptions that I know of- including the exceptions that you guys are trying to read into it but still don't exist in writing. Please feel free to cite a rule- any rule- that would refute anything that I have written to date.

Methinks somehow that your "methinks" unfortunately aren't enough to negate any written rule, Dude.

7 ft tall A1 standing next to 5 ft tall B1. A1 is bent slightly so that his head is directly above B1's head. B1 deliberately and viciously punches A1 in the face. B1's arm (and fist) never leave the vertical space above his body.

Foul or no foul? On whom?

For crying out loud, Lotto. This is a fight and the verticality isn't even relevant.

This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed. Deliberately and viciously punching an opponent is always a foul. It doesn't have anything to do with verticality.

Kelvin,
No one is saying it's a foul to violate the air space above another player. Only that contact in someone's air space is the responsibility of the player who does not own that particular air space.
If A1 is shooting a jump shot and his arms are in B2's air space, any contact would be the responsibility of A1, and B2 cannot be penalized for it. Per rule.
The rule was not written to allow B2 to wave his arms sans contact. That's already allowed. It was written to allow B2 to make contact in his own air space without penalty.
There is no provision that states his arms must already be there. Therefore, it looks to me that he may actually initiate the contact as long the contact is made in his own air space.

My point exactly. My reading of some of the opinions expressed above was that any contact that occurs in the vertical space above B1 cannot result in a foul called on B1. This example was intended to show that that is not the case.

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?

I think maybe we're missing a key element here.....


4-12-5: Team control does not exist during a jump ball or the touching of a rebound, but is re-established when a player secures control.

Since there is no longer team control once the ball leaves the shooter's hands on a try or tap for goal (4-12-3-a), it follows that all players on the floor are, at that point, of equal standing - there is no offense or defense, just like with a jump ball to start the game.

This being the case, none of the rules references citing verticality of the defender, etc. would apply, since there is by specific rule definition no offensive or defensive team status.

Personally I treat it like I would a jump ball situation at the beginning of the game. IHMO, the key is the principle of advantage/disadvantaqe - two or more players going for the ball at the same time & contact is incidental - no call, play on. But if one player gets to it first & an opponent then reaches in or up & whacks him on the arm it creates a definite disadvantage - call the foul.

Just my $.02........

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?

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

Is that right?

Thanks.

Rule 10-6-1 (already cited above) says <i>"Extending the arms fully or partially OTHER THAN VERTICALLY so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is NOT legal. These positions are employed when REBOUNDING, screening or in various aspects pf post play".</i>

Iow, this rule specifically says that the concept of verticality DOES apply to rebounding.

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

[/B][/QUOTE]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.

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.


[/B][/QUOTE]I certainly agree with you that any other movement than vertically could be illegal. The call is judgement all the way anyway. If you think that the arms are straight up, probably not a foul on the defender. If they aren't completely straight up, or if they move around, possibly could be foul on the defender. Also a no-call a lot of times too. Each case is different and unique, and is usually called that way.

No one else indicated any such thing.

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...

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.

No. Verticality applies only to a player in LGP.

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.

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

-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

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.

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.

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

What exactly is the exception to the rules of verticality that are you talking about? Just wanna make sure that I understand. No matter what, you still can't call a foul on a player if he's just raising his hands within his vertical plane. Even if he contacts an opponent. That's a given, by rule. There is NO common sense or judgement attached to that call, and there is no RULE saying otherwise.

My comment was specifically to Cameron..

Ok thank you very much Jurassic. You've fully convinced me now with that rationale.


So defensive rebounders have a nice little trick "up their sleeves" if in a rebounding bind, eh? I don't think too many players are very aware of this possibility available to them to secure a defensive/offensive rebound! Or at least make sure the opponent doesn't get the board!

Question is, what proportion of refs will support his tactic? Anybody care to estimate a proportion?



[Edited by ShoeBall on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 11:55 PM]

So defensive rebounders have a nice little trick "up their sleeves" if in a rebounding bind, eh? I don't think too many players are very aware of this possibility available to them to secure a defensive/offensive rebound! Or at least make sure the opponent doesn't get the board!

[/B][/QUOTE]I doubt very much that you would see this play very often.I'd say about 99.9% of the time the contact would be on the torso(back) first, but if it was up top, it's usually off to the side somewhat, and not directly above a rebounder.

Does this vertical "cone" concept overide the principle that the person occupied this space first?

Rick
Yes., the verticality concept does not really care whether A was over B before B went up. Think of the rule reversed, where B is blocking A's shot. IF B extends his hads horizontally over A's shoulders, B could prevent A from jumping by the "B got there first" concept. But clearly, if B extends arms over a and A jumps, the contact is B's fault.

In reality, most contact is the fault of the defender unless they stay within their vertical space. Offense can have every space but that space, and can even have that space without contact. Pretty much, as soon as there is contact, and one person stayed in their vertical space and engaged in normal basketball movements (jumping, reaching up, etc.), the other is at fault.

Hawk,
Your point is well taken. However, how about A1 drives to the basket, elevates and extends his over B1. B1 cannot elevate straight up and hit that arm in the act of shooting and have that not be called a foul. IMHO the principal of verticality protects the defender when the offensive player is responsible for the contact, but if the defender is responsible, you as a coach surely wants that call, and I believe you deserve it.

Rickref,
It most certainly can happen without B being called for a foul, and it should be called/not called that way. The player whether they be offense or defense is entitled to the space above them, no matter when or how they choose to use that space. If there is contact in that space it is the resposibility of the player who is not entitled to be there.

Rick,
The way the rule is worded, this is not a foul on B1. It's exactly what the rule is for.

You can no-call that as well. I am sure that if my player gets hit on the arm, I want a call (I am a coach!). However, reading the rules, I am not convinced that is justified. It does seem in the case that you outline that the defensive player is late and therefore responsible for the contact, but not by any rule you can cite.

In reality, if the arms are completely down, I doubt they will be raised and always remain within the vertical plane. So you may not have such a difficult moral dilemma :)

Coach,
The more typical situation has B1 standing with his hands slightly above his shoulders and raising them; initiating contact with an offensive player violating his air space. The rule doesn't state that his arms have to be stationary, just like his feet don't have to be stationary to draw a pc foul. To me, it seems reasonable that some movement is allowed in conjunction with contact; movement up and down or side to side, so long as contact is never made outside of his vertical plane (cylinder, if you will).
To me, the point is where the contact is made. If the contact is outside the vertical, foul on B1. If the contact is within the vertical; no call or PC (rare.)