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?

It is not clear to me which direction B1's arms are moving in the final scenario. Whatever you meant, if B1's arms are moving towards A1 (in any direction other than straight up from where they started) when the contact is made, it is a foul on B1. B1 doesn't get to bring them into the vertical plane if A1 is already there.

Agree with Camron. If B1's forward motion with her arms - even if it was from -25 degrees to straight up - causes contact which interfered with A1's shot, it sounds like a foul to me. B1 is initiating the contact in question - I've got a foul.

Same as when the defender has hands straight up, then pikes the arms down on the shooter, then goes straight up again - and gives you the shocked look when you call the foul :)

Rainmaker, rather than tell you whether or not I believe that a foul should be called on this specific play (which wouldn't really mean much since I wasn't there and didn't see it, nor would it help you become a better official in the long run), I am going to advise you to do some thinking about how you handle this type of play in general.

I say that because you have described a couple of situations that involve players going up in vertical planes and yet contact occurs.

I'll point out that if both players really are going straight up in their vertical planes there shouldn't be much contact if any at all. If this isn't true, then we know that someone is out of their vertical space.

These are the plays for which basketball officials earn their money. These are the plays in which our judgment is tested and an application of the advantage/disadvantage philosophy is needed. In short, these are the plays which separate the best from the rest.

In the cases in which A1 causes or initiates the contact, you seem to be quite fine ruling that the contact is incidental and not a foul on A1 (or B1). However, when B1 causes the contact, the fact that you posted this indicates that you are having trouble making that same determination.

Ask yourself, why you are allowing the player with the ball to cause contact and not calling a player control foul? I'm not saying that you should, but you need to have a good reason. Now ask yourself, if you are treating the defender the same way as the offensive player when the defender creates a similar amount of contact in these situations? Are you calling blocking or pushing fouls on the defender or are you still ruling the contact to be incidental?

However you rule, I hope that you are treating the offensive player and the defensive player equally.

Afterall, recall what is written in the Intent and Purpose of the Rules that appears near the beginning of each edition of the rules book:

"The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense."

Therefore, my advice for ruling on these contact situations is to strive to be fair to both players involved and not to give preference to the player with the ball just because they do have the ball. Whether you call fouls on the player who initates the contact or not is up to you, but having firmness in your convictions on these situations, which is of paramount importance, will allow you to apply a consistent standard and be seen as a quality official.

Well nothing more needs to be said.
I am going to borrow that one Nevada and use it with those younger officials I work with.
The check is in the mail.

Please do so, Rick. I appreciate the complement and the check. :)

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?

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.

Juulie, I agree with you that there can be considerable legal contact when both players maintain their own vertical space. Not only legal body contact, but more importantly legl arm contact.

As for your play - the way I envision this B1 is swatting at A1 and makes contact with A1's arms as she continues her swatting motion and before A1 releases the ball. I have a foul here. Look at the definition of verticality in the book, you'll see that B1 is essentially allowed to stand still and/or jump within her vertical plane. Moving her arms forward into her vertical plane (swatting) is not listed as legal action.

The phrase I see here that seems definitive to me is "maintains her own vertical space." In my play, when B1 moves her arms backward, she gives up her legal right to that space directly above her own head. B1 can maintain that space, but can't regain it once A1 uses it. Eh?

4.45 Art. 5 & Art. 7

[Edited by just another ref on Dec 28th, 2005 at 02:10 PM]

LGP is not the only factor in determining a foul. In fact, LGP is only relevant for block/charge. A player may have LGP and remain entirely in their vertical plane and commit other types of fouls. Wherever shooter A1's arm's are (in A1's plane, over B1, to the side, etc.), B1 may not move their arms to create contact with A1 in any way other than raising them straight up as in a jump.

Another example: If B1's arms were straight up and shoulder width apart with A1 shooting between them, B1 may not collapse them together to create contact with the shooter's arms. If they do, it is a foul.

Hmmm..... I'll have to think about that.

You're over-thinking this type of play imo.

If you think the defender initiated the contact, call the foul on him/her.

If you think the shooter is initiating the contact, then it's a PC foul or no-call.

If you don't think anyone is getting an advantage through the contact, simply let it go.

It's a judgement call- always. Don't over-analyze it, just call it.

Jmo.

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.

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.

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...:p

From where I sit . . .
 

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.

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

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.

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.)

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 . . . <font color = red>The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his/her hands and arms extended within his/her vertical plane.</font>
ART. 5 . . . The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne, may not “clear out” or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane <font color = red>which is a foul</font>.
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 . . . <font color = red>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.</font>

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?

I think you make an interesting point
 

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.

Re: I think you make an interesting point
 

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.

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.

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

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!"

Re: Re: I think you make an interesting point
 

'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.

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.

I think you need to be a little careful here on what you consider "fair" to both players. I agree that both players have equal right to a spot on the floor, etc. However, whether the player has the ball or not makes a HUGE difference in assessing the advantage or disadvantage that comes from the contact. For example: moving a player's arm slightly can cause a player who has the ball to miss while having no impact on a player without the ball.

This is why in many cases a foul is not called on a player who is successfully screened and who may cause some contact on the screener. The goal of the screener was to screen the defender and so when they are successful there may very likely be some contact which is the "fault" of the defender. The same amount of contact if it occurred on a ball carrier would constitute a foul.

So while all players need to be treated equally you have to look at what their goals and what advantage/disadvantage is caused by the contact. The player with the ball will have decidedly different goals and the A/D will be different with the same contact.

Picture the 7'guy guarding the 5'4" guy. The big guy leans over the little guy with arms extended to the point that when the little guy looks straight up he sees the big guy's elbows. The little guy, fortunately for him, has a 48" vertical leap. He leaps straight up to shoot, and his arm smacks into the 7' guy's arm. Would you call this a player control foul? I don't think so.

However, whether the player has the ball or not makes a HUGE difference in assessing the advantage or disadvantage that comes from the contact.

So while all players need to be treated equally you have to look at what their goals and what advantage/disadvantage is caused by the contact. The player with the ball will have decidedly different goals and the A/D will be different with the same contact. [/B][/QUOTE]Am I missing something here?

In one breath you're saying that the player with the ball should get the advantage if contact is made. In the next breath, you're saying treat players <b>equally</b>.

Why should the player with the ball have contact called using different criteria than the defender?

Sotry, podner, the rules don't work that way.

Consider the same situation, but diring a rebound -- teh 5'4" guy blocking out the 7' guy. The 7' guy reaches over the 5'4" guy and grabs for the ball. Just as the ball reaches the 7' guy's hands, the 5'4" guy goes straight up and contacts the 7' guy's hands. The ball bounces away.

Absent any contact, the 7' guy would have had the rebound. Absent the "reaching over" the 5'4" guy would have had a rebound. (iow, there's a definite disadvantage cause by the contact) Who is the foul on?

My answer is the same as when I read the first post on this thread: I'd have to see it. We can debate plays like this on paper for days, (and we do) but an infinite number of basketball situations (like this one) cannot be done justice by a written description.