Over the back, ON the back RM article
 

Did anyone see the article on verticality by Tim Sloan in the Feb 2009 issue of RM?

I have to disagree with several of his statements and rulings. :(

I read it this morning. Out of curiosity, what did you disagree with? I am simply asking because I don't know any better myself. :)

His ruling on play #2 was the first thing that caught my attention. :eek:

Tim Sloan's rulings in Play #2 are completely wrong. His ruling show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the definitions of guarding and screening as well as the priniciple of verticality.

MTD, Sr.

Can you post a link?

No, I'm not a subscriber nor do I even have a copy of the article.
Perhaps someone else will post some extracts for our bashing pleasure.

:D

Don't beat around the bush Mark. Please give us your honest opinion of the article. :D

By the way, I'd like to read the ruling if anyone could post it as well.

Everyone knows you are the Masterbasher.

My opinion is that it is total garbage. :mad:
I don't think that the author is qualified to work freshmen games. :eek:

Is that clear enough for you? :D

I'll read it again tonight and see if I can spot what is wrong with it. ;)

Play 2
 

Play 2
A3 takes a leaning jump shot from the lane over B3. B3 is standing upright, but facing the basket with her hands extended straight upward. A3 makes contact with B3's hands and misses the shot.

Ruling 2: Foul by B3. While B3 was in a legally vertical position, she was not in a legal guarding position because she wasn't facing her opponent and should be called for blocking. Sadly, that concept is lost on the BCF.

A similar situation occurs when A3 drives the lane, picks up her dribble and then contacts B3, who is standing in the lane with her hands raised straight above her head. If B3 is facing A3, that is a charge. If B3 is not facing A3, even if she's turned away covering another player, it's a block by B3.

I can see maybe if B3 jumped in play 2, but only maybe.
The block call, however, that's just stupid.

How does he know that B3 wasn't initially facing A3 (which establishes LGP) and then turned around (which maintains LGP)? :cool:

So with that logic on ruling 2, If I'm recklessly motoring down the court and displace an opposing B player who has his back to me standing still, guarding another player B gets called for the foul?

A bit related, but not ... just for confirmation:

What would you have if A1 drives the lane, takes off with a forward-jumping bank shot and plows into stationary B2, who for some reason while guarding A2 on the wing is totally oblivious to the drive? B2 is not in LGP but rather perpendicular/sideways to A1.

Book-learning says it's a block (right?), but common sense seems to say B2 was there by her innocent self first and A1 should have avoided the contact.

Book says this is a PC. Every player is entitled to his/her spot on the floor. If B2 wasn't moving, it's an easy call. If, however, B2 was moving and had never established LGP, it's a block.

... and that's why my boss hates this site more than anything else in his world right now (whether he knows it or not). Keeps otherwise good workers returning time after time, getting at least a little smarter each day. Thanks, Snaq. (Amazing what one reads in that little ol' book and forgets sometimes.)

Amesman:

"Book-learning" says it is a charge, no common sense needed.

MTD, Sr.

Looking at the rule on guarding and LGP, it appears the author of the article has a point.

RULE 4 SECTION 23 GUARDING
<DD>ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the bodyin the path of an offensive opponent. .....<DD>ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained: </DD><DD>c. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane. </DD>

The rule basically says that the right to the the space above you depends on having LGP. If you don't have LGP, you can't extend your arms upward or jump and be protected from committing a foul in that space.

Whether you call it a block or illegal use of hands is a different issue, but the rule does support the authors claim that the defender doesn't get verticality if they don't have LGP.

But what about the very next section - 4-24-1: "It is legal to extend the arms vertically above the shoulders and need not be lowered to avoid contact with an opponent when the action of the opponent cause contact."

That does seem to directly contradict the author.

Which is directly followed by ...

This legal use of the arms and hands usually occurs when guarding the player making a throw-in, the player with the ball in pressing tactics and a player with the ball who is maneuvering to try for goal by pivoting, jumping, etc.

I see the possible distinction between the two rules as the timing of the action. If the arm are up and have been up, it is legal to leave them there...no requirement to get them out of the way. However, a defender will not be allowed to raise them at the time of contact without LGP while a guard with LGP can raise them or jump simply by having LGP without risking a foul.

"Usually", but not "limited to".

I understand the specific principle is listed in the "Guarding" section, but given the fact that verticality is also mentioned in the "Hands and Arms" section, I've been under the impression the principle of verticality applied to all players, not simply limited to ones that have obtained LGP.

What would you have, for example, in this play: A1 has inside position on a rebound, B1 is behind A1. B1 reaches for the ball over the top of A1, without displacement, and A1 reaches straight up and contacts B1's arms, knocking the ball loose from B1. Would you have a foul on A1?

Did you read someone else's copy? How the hell do you know the author is wrong if you don't even have a copy of the article? just going by what one of your buddies told you?:confused:

Yes, i would.

The difference is that one section talks about the right to actively raise them within the vertical plane if the player has LGP without jeopardy for a foul while the other talks about having them in the vertical plane without jeopardy for a foul.

Camron:

I beg to differ with you concerning verticality. And I beg the indulgence of the readers my post for allowing me a somewhat lengthy disertation.


NFHS R4-S24 (Hands and Arms, Legal and Illegal Use):
Article 1: "It is legal to extend the arms vertically above the shoulders and need not be lowered to avoid contact with an opponent when the action of the opponent causes contact. This legal use of the arms and hands usually occurs when guarding the player making a throw-in, the player with the ball in pressing tactics and a player with the ball who is maneuvering to try for goal by pivoting, jumping, etc."

NCAA R4-S36 (Hands and Arms, Use of):
Article 1: "The arms may be extended vertically above one’s shoulder and need not be lowered to avoid contact with an opponent when the action of the opponent causes contact."


NFHS R4-S37 (Rebounding):
Article 3: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

NCAA R4-S55 (Rebounding):
Article 3: "Every player shall be entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided that such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."


NFHS R4-S40 (Screen):
Article 2d: "To establish a legal screening position The screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart."

NCAA R4-S59 (Screen):
Article 2a: "In establishing and maintaining legal screening tactics, the screener shall stay within his or her vertical plane with a stance no wider than shoulder width apart and shall not lean into the path of an opponent or extend hips into that path, even though the feet are stationary."


FIBA R6 (Fouls):
Article 33 (Contact: General Principles):
33.1 (Cylinder Principle): "The cylinder principle is defined as the space within an imaginary cylinder occupied by a player on the floor. It includes the space above the player and is limited to:
• The front by the palms of the hands,
• The rear by the buttocks, and
• The sides by the outside edge of the arms and legs.
The hands and arms may be extended in front of the torso no further than the
position of the feet, with the arms bent at the elbows so that the forearms and hands are raised. The distance between his feet will vary according to his height."

33.2 (Principle of Verticality): "During the game, each player has the right to occupy any position (cylinder) on the playing court not already occupied by an opponent. This principle protects the space on the floor which he occupies and the space above him when he jumps vertically within that space. As soon as the player leaves his vertical position (cylinder) and body contact occurs with an opponent who had already established his own vertical position (cylinder), the player who left his vertical position (cylinder) is responsible for the contact. The defensive player must not be penalised for leaving the floor vertically (within his cylinder) or having his hands and arms extended above him within his own cylinder. The offensive player, whether on the floor or airborne, shall not cause contact with the defensive player in a legal guarding position by:
• Using his arms to create additional space for himself (clear-out).
• Spreading his legs or arms to cause contact during or immediately after a shot for a field goal."

33.3 (Legal Guarding Position): Same as NFHS and NCAA.

33.4 (Guarding a player who controls the ball): Same as NFHS and NCAA.

33.5 (Guarding a player who does not control the ball): Same as NFHS and NCAA.

33.6 (A player who is in the air): Same as NFHS and NCAA.

33.7 (Screening: Legal and illegal): Same as NFHS and NCAA.


I quote the FIBA definition of verticality because the interpretation and philosophy of the NBCUSC (Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada), NFHS, NCAA, and NAGWS (Nat'l. Assn. of Girls and Women in Sports) has been the same as the FIBA defintion for well over 45 years. And that is a player is entitled to his spot on the court from the floor to the ceiling as long as he accuires that spot on the court legally with respect to the other players on the court.

While B3 had not obtained (NFHS)/estalished (NCAA/FIBA) a LGP against A3, she had set a legal screen against A3. Let us tweak the play just slightly. Instead of A3 leaning in during a field goal attempt, A3 is jumping to secure a rebound. B3 has a legal position on the court and A3 can not displace B3 in order to occupy that sport on the court. If A3 contacts B3's vertically extended arms and the contact causes B3 to not secure the ball, then A3 has committed a foul.

MTD, Sr.

Yes, while sitting next to a buddy at a meeting.

I think some folks in here are choosing to ignore what Legal Guarding Position is. In some cases you may choose to have a no-call, but it is certainly not a charge if you don't have LGP established.

My two cents. Bad ruling. If the only contact is with the defender's hands, which are vertical, no way am I calling a foul on the defender.

And what is BCF? :confused:

case in point
 

Game situation was very similar this last Friday. Blue 33 is driving hard to the basket and a bit out of control. White 21 was standing with her back to the Blue 33. Blue 33 had the time and distance to stop and change direction. Blue 33 ran over White 21. My partner called a foul on White 21. He said she was not guarding her and therefore caused the foul.

After the game, I asked him if White 21 has a right to be anywhere on the floor if she gets there first and does not have a knee or elbow or hip sticking out and does not cause contact with another opposing player by getting there first. He said yes. Then I asked him if Blue 33 had the time and distance to stop or change direction. He said yes more than enough. Then why should White 21 be charged with a blocking foul. If White 21 was standing there because she was watching cutters through the lane or guarding another opponent or if she was just there waiting to see what to do next, Blue 33 initiated the contact, especially being out of control. He said he never thought about those things. He thought she had to be guarding the player. He said it may have been a PCF instead.

You can clearly have a PC foul without the defender having LGP. The LGP just gives the defender additional rights (the right to move to mainitain position).

Brotherhood of Clueless Fans.

An attempt at humor by the author of the article.

Please consult 4-19-6 on page 51 and 6-7-7 on pages 82 and 83 of the 2007-08 NFHS Simplified & Illustrated book.

The accompanying pictures have the defender facing away from the offensive player. The defender is said to have "legal position on the court" and the ruling is a player control foul.

LGP has nothing to do with it. Both you and the author of the RM article are failing to grasp that.

I was going to take you to task for not understanding the rules, but NevadaRef did that for me already.

MTD, Sr.