Foul, or Legal?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

My opinion too - just call it.

I look at it this way: if the defender swats and the ball is not blocked it's a foul. If you no-call these then you'll have players on both ends swatting at everything. [/B][/QUOTE]And if you call it consistently at both ends, then most players (if they got any smarts at all) will stop swatting at trhe ball and try to go straight up with the arms on D instead.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by rainmaker

My play isn't the same at all. When the defender "pikes the arms down on the shooter", the defender is violating the shooter's space. In my play the defender never reaches her arms out of her own space, never violates the shooter's space. So you're comparing apples to asparagus.

Comparing the defender's arm actions, not the verticality. So not apples and apples - but definitely closer than asparagus.

Hmmm, think I'll have a snack...

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Nevada, this isn't true at all in my experience. It's easy to have full-body contact if both players sort of ease into their positions so gradually and so gently that there's no foul to be called. Then when they go up, if that contact continues, there's no foul without displacement and the sitch I'm describing involves no displacement.


Okay, it's clear that I didn't describe that last scenario very well. I'll try again.

First, some factoids. B1 never moves into A1's space. There is no displacement by either player. A1 may move arms or hands into B1's space a little bit, but not enough to call a PC. The contact at the end of the play is not enough to call a foul, if that contact is continuous, but it isn't. It is sudden and sharp.

Think of a person standing flat-footed facing away from a wall, with heels about six inches away. Her body is parallel to the wall, but her arms reach backward so that her fingers touch the wall. Conversely, think of a person with her nose and toes touching the wall, but arms backward so that her hands are about a foot from the wall.

That is the position B1 has before the questionable contact. A1 and B1 have full body contact, but B1's arms are in the backward "locked and loaded" position. A1's arms are almost fully extended with the ball nearly leaving the grip. Just as A1 pushes and shoots the ball, she reaches a little forward to guide the ball toward the basket, so that her arms and hands are slightly into B1's space. At that same moment, B1 snaps her arms forward so that they meet A1's arms sharply, but entirely above B1's head, and never out of B1's plane.

My point here is that B1 never loses LGP, and never violates A1's space. Yet the contact is a hit, so it has the appearance of a foul, and it affects the ball. But it's A1 into B1's space, not the other way around. But it looks like a foul because B1 "initiates" contact, and clearly hits A1's arms, but in B1's own space. So I guess the philosophical question is, how sacrosanct is B1's space?

If A1's shooting motion brings A1's arms into B1's space . . . it's an player control foul that you're not going to call, provided it isn't an out and out karate chop.

There are lots of players whose shooting technique brings this on - perhaps most prominently in recent years Wayne Turner, Kentucky point guard on a National Championship team.

[chrs_schuster]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I'm gonna try to describe this play the best I can, I'm just not sure I'll get it across.

First, imagine B1, defending the ball-handler, standing with arms straight up, completely legal. A1 jumps to shoot, B1 jumps a little, goes straight up. There's a little contact as A1 moves her arms and the ball toward the basket, but nowhere near enough contact to call a foul.

Now, imagine the same play, with B1 still completely legal, but there's a lot of contact before A1 goes up. The contact was created by A1, and it's judged incidental. We've all seen this play, haven't we? When A1 goes to shoot, B1 goes up completely in her plane. Both players stay in their own space (the proverbial cones of verticality), and although there's continuous contact all the way up and all the way down, it's all legal, and there's no foul.

Now, here's the questionable play. B1 has complete legal position while A1 is "shaking and baking". As A1 is setting up to shoot, B1 moves her arms backward to about 25 degrees from straight up. Still legal. There's quite a bit of body contact, but it's incidental. As A1 jumps and moves her arms and the ball up and toward the basket (completely legally) staying in her plane, B1 moves her arms quickly back to straight up. There's quite a bit of contact, sudden contact. But B1 never left LGP, and never moved out of her "cone of verticality." B1 didn't flip her hands forward as many hapless guards do in that situation.

The same amount of contact would be completely incidental, if it was continuous as A1 jumped to shoot. But now the contact is sudden, and it's all created by B1, but is it a foul?

I too can get a little crazy rainmaker, apology accepted and I apologize myself

[refnrev]

Juulie, Did you actually see this play, or did you just think this up? Because if you just thought this up, I'm wondering how? And when? And what other kinds of scenarios are floating around in your head?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by refnrev
Juulie, Did you actually see this play, or did you just think this up? Because if you just thought this up, I'm wondering how? And when? And what other kinds of scenarios are floating around in your head?

Rev, you should know better than to encourage the fevered imaginations of the walking wounded! But I didn't actually think it up, it's a play some of us were discussing. This time of year, a tournament can take on the atmosphere of a camp, with refs hanging around before and after their own games, chatting, commenting, commentating. One player tried this a couple of times and the ref called it. The player didn't agree about the interp, of course, and several of us were weighing the various considerations. Most said they'd call it, but I thought the arguements against the call were interesting.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by chrs_schuster
I too can get a little crazy rainmaker, apology accepted and I apologize myself

Thank goodness. Kumbayah sounds a lot better when it's more than just me singing. (actually, almost anything sounds better when there are enough people to drown me out.)

[Nevadaref]

I believe that this thread has provided a worthwhile discussion so far. The only thing that I wish to add is the text of the actual definition of verticality. I've highlighted some parts which we've touched upon so far. Every once in a while it is good to put some of these phrases at the forefront of our minds. I have two games this evening and I know that I'll go into them thinking about this.

For me the crucial question is does the defender have to position or extend his arms into the vertical space prior to the offensive player putting his arms there in order to be protected from being charged with a foul by the principle of verticality?

Perhaps more directly stated, is it a foul for the defender to wait until the offensive player has extended his arms into the vertical space above the defender and then shoot his arms up into that space thereby making contact with the offensive player?

The way I read the rule below, my answer is yes to both.



RULE 4
SECTION 45 VERTICALITY
Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle 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 hands and arms of the defender may be raised within 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.

[Stan]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
is it a foul for the defender to wait until the offensive player has extended his arms into the vertical space above the defender and then shoot his arms up into that space thereby making contact with the offensive player?

The way I read the rule below, my answer is yes.



RULE 4
SECTION 45 VERTICALITY
Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle 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 hands and arms of the defender may be raised within 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.

Nevada, I don't see what the defender did wrong. #3 says he can raise his hands within his vetical plane and #7 says not to give the player with the ball more protection than the defender. What am I missing?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I believe that this thread has provided a worthwhile discussion so far. The only thing that I wish to add is the text of the actual definition of verticality. I've highlighted some parts which we've touched upon so far. Every once in a while it is good to put some of these phrases at the forefront of our minds. I have two games this evening and I know that I'll go into them thinking about this.

For me the crucial question is does the defender have to position or extend his arms into the vertical space prior to the offensive player putting his arms there in order to be protected from being charged with a foul by the principle of verticality?

Perhaps more directly stated, is it a foul for the defender to wait until the offensive player has extended his arms into the vertical space above the defender and then shoot his arms up into that space thereby making contact with the offensive player?

The way I read the rule below, my answer is yes to both.



RULE 4
SECTION 45 VERTICALITY
Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle 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 hands and arms of the defender may be raised within 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.

I think you make an interesting point based on the language of 4-45-1. One could infer that there is some timing component to 'legal guarding position' of the arms - but, wouldn't you agree, 4-45-1 is really the rule which sets the standard for feet and torso?

Other than that, I don't see a basis for, and see every reason against, allowing an offensive player to 'invade' the defender's space - anymore than, when a defender leans over an offensive player, I call the foul on the player who wants to straighten up.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Other than that, I don't see a basis for, and see every reason against, allowing an offensive player to 'invade' the defender's space - anymore than, when a defender leans over an offensive player, I call the foul on the player who wants to straighten up.

This seems like a contradiction to me. a) you don't see a basis for allowing an offensive player to invade the defenders space, but b) when a player leans over another one (invades the space) you call the foul on the one underneath.

[SeanFitzRef]

Just as a point of reference on this topic, I have two questions....

1) Can you have a foul without contact?
My answer: No

2) Is the initiator of the contact the one responsible/ causing the foul?
My Answer: yes

In the situation described by Juulie, B1 initiated the contact with the swatting of the arms. A1, although technically in B1's "space", has not initiated or caused any contact or displacement of B1. B1 gained an advantage and caused contact which did not touch the ball and affected the shot of A1. This is similar to the touch on the elbow of the shooter, which is very light yet will cause the shooter to miss the shot.

[refnrev]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Rev, you should know better than to encourage the fevered imaginations of the walking wounded! But I didn't actually think it up, it's a play some of us were discussing. This time of year, a tournament can take on the atmosphere of a camp, with refs hanging around before and after their own games, chatting, commenting, commentating. One player tried this a couple of times and the ref called it. The player didn't agree about the interp, of course, and several of us were weighing the various considerations. Most said they'd call it, but I thought the arguements against the call were interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad this really happened. I was thinking of a variation of a Christmas classic...

"And Rainmaker was nestled all snug in her bed
As visions of strange, complicated, and rarely to be seen basketball violations danced in her head!"

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This seems like a contradiction to me. a) you don't see a basis for allowing an offensive player to invade the defenders space, but b) when a player leans over another one (invades the space) you call the foul on the one underneath.

'any more than . . . I call the foul on the player who wants to straighten up.' means I don't call it on the player who wants to straighten up.

[Texas Aggie]

I haven't read all the replys, but the way I understand the play is, looking at it from the side, B1 is straight up, with his arms back at like a one o'clock position (must be flexible!!). At some point, he moves his arms back to a 12:00 position either right when or right before A1 has a body part in that area.

If that's the correct situation, you've got nothing, unless B1 is fouled (which he probably won't be). He still has the right to verticality even if he isn't using it at the time the other player breaks his verticle plane.

Now, if he moves his BODY back, then moves back forward, he will likely be the one who initiates contact and should be called for a foul, if any.