verticality/loose ball incidental contact

[CiscoKid]

Hi,

I have a question that hopefully you can answer with specific rule citations.

Situation:
1) No one has possession of a ball that is high in the air,
2) Two opposing players jump to get it, but both make contact with each other in their effort to reach it.

Player A
Jumps for the ball at an angle to intercept the ball with a reasonable chance of not contacting Player B at the time his feet have left the ground.

Player B
Jumps for the ball vertically after Player A's feet have left the ground.

Player A gets the ball. Player B calls a foul.

Player B claims they own the vertical space above their head whether in the air or on the ground and any contact made by the person entering their vertical space is always assumed to be the one who has commited the foul.

Player A claims the principle of verticality shouldn't apply as Player B wasn't guarding Player A nor did he establish a legal guarding position initially as he jumped after Player A did. He claims it was incidental contact reaching for a loose ball which is not always assumed to be a foul.

Does Player B have a legitimate claim to call the foul based on the principle of verticality?

Thanks

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by CiscoKid
Hi,

I have a question that hopefully you can answer with specific rule citations.

Situation:
1) No one has possession of a ball that is high in the air,
2) Two opposing players jump to get it, but both make contact with each other in their effort to reach it.

Player A
Jumps for the ball at an angle to intercept the ball with a reasonable chance of not contacting Player B at the time his feet have left the ground.

Player B
Jumps for the ball vertically after Player A's feet have left the ground.

Player A gets the ball. Player B calls a foul.

Player B claims they own the vertical space above their head whether in the air or on the ground and any contact made by the person entering their vertical space is always assumed to be the one who has commited the foul.

Player A claims the principle of verticality shouldn't apply as Player B wasn't guarding Player A nor did he establish a legal guarding position initially as he jumped after Player A did. He claims it was incidental contact reaching for a loose ball which is not always assumed to be a foul.

Does Player B have a legitimate claim to call the foul based on the principle of verticality?

Thanks

I can't answer your verticality question, but you get bonus points for spelling "principle" correctly!

[mick]

Originally posted by CiscoKid


Player A
Jumps for the ball at an angle to intercept the ball with a reasonable chance of not contacting Player B at the time his feet have left the ground.

Player B
Jumps for the ball vertically after Player A's feet have left the ground.

Player A gets the ball. Player B calls a foul.

Welcome to the board, Duncan Renaldo.
You write a decent sitch, but I am confused :

If the contact was because Player B was vertical, it seems to me that the only reasonably good chance of avoiding Player B is to go over Player B.
mick

[Jimgolf]

Contact does not automatically mean a foul. The severity of the contact has to be considered. Each player has a right to the ball, but each player also has a right to occupy space on the floor and the space above himself. If player A displaces player B, or contacts player B severely, we have a foul. If the contact is incidental, there is no foul. Basketball is a contact sport.

From your description, it appears that you are discussing a pickup game where you call your own fouls. If this is the case, the principle is honor the call or go hire a ref. If player B calls a foul, it's a foul. If you're going to argue the call, there's no point in even playing.

[icallfouls]

Originally posted by CiscoKid
Hi,

I have a question that hopefully you can answer with specific rule citations.

Situation:
1) No one has possession of a ball that is high in the air,
2) Two opposing players jump to get it, but both make contact with each other in their effort to reach it.

Player A
Jumps for the ball at an angle to intercept the ball with a reasonable chance of not contacting Player B at the time his feet have left the ground.

Player B
Jumps for the ball vertically after Player A's feet have left the ground.

Player A gets the ball. Player B calls a foul.

Player B claims they own the vertical space above their head whether in the air or on the ground and any contact made by the person entering their vertical space is always assumed to be the one who has commited the foul.

Player A claims the principle of verticality shouldn't apply as Player B wasn't guarding Player A nor did he establish a legal guarding position initially as he jumped after Player A did. He claims it was incidental contact reaching for a loose ball which is not always assumed to be a foul.

Does Player B have a legitimate claim to call the foul based on the principle of verticality?

Thanks

Sounds like the good ol' days. If you are calling your own fouls then honor the call. But if you believe the call is a load of ####, you get to make a call the next time. To me, it sounds like it would have been a "play on" situation, and Player A is just calling a cheap foul. The next time they are even near me and I miss the shot, I call one on them. This is usually followed by some sort of groan from the rest of the players, but you can bet that his next call will be strong.

By the way, its a pick up game! You get what you get when you play in a pick up game.

[Edited by icallfouls on Jun 30th, 2004 at 05:35 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

You will always end up honoring the call, but the more questionable the call, the more time you get to spend telling them what a &^%($#%$ call it is that they just made, and "that ain't a %^$&*ing foul." Then check the ball in and play on.