Over the back, ON the back RM article

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Welpe]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

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

[Nevadaref]

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

Is that clear enough for you?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

[referee99]

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.

[Adam]

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

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by referee99

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by referee99

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.

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

RULE 4 SECTION 23 GUARDING

ART. 1 . . . Guarding is the act of legally placing the bodyin the path of an offensive opponent. .....

ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

c. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by referee99

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.

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?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Can you post a link?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps someone else will post some extracts for our bashing pleasure.

Everyone knows you are the Masterbasher.