L of a play

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Amesman

A1 shoots and A2, who is significantly taller than B2, closes down for an over the back -- but not ON the back -- rebound. Success, but A2 is now effectively an 'L' shape over B2 upon gathering the ball. B2, who was leaning forward, now straightens up and maybe even raises arms straight up. Lots of contact. In B2's airspace.

Whaddya got?

Most often, it's fleeting contact because A2 is pulling out of the fire or on the move, so I got nothing. But what of it if A2, aka "the 'L' " lingers, and even takes a shot, with plenty of contact made in B2's own airspace?

To pre-empt a possible Padgett inquiry, a trip into OT is not on the line.

This is a foul on B2. While he is entitled to his vertical space, he must put his body parts in it first and without illegally contacting his opponent. He failed to do that here.

There is no rule against A2 invading the vertical space of B2 without initiating contact. What A2 did on this play is perfectly fine. It was B2 who now caused the contact by getting into his position late.

Think of it this way, if A2 were driving and taking a shot and jumped into the air while extending his arms over B2's head, would you allow B2 to extend his arms straight up and smack the arms of A2 while he attempts his try? Obviously not.

People seem to forget that verticality demands that the player doesn't cause contact with the opponent. That is different from the opponent contacting him.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is a foul on B2. While he is entitled to his vertical space, he must put his body parts in it first and without illegally contacting his opponent. He failed to do that here.

There is no rule against A2 invading the vertical space of B2 without initiating contact. What A2 did on this play is perfectly fine. It was B2 who now caused the contact by getting into his position late.

Think of it this way, if A2 were driving and taking a shot and jumped into the air while extending his arms over B2's head, would you allow B2 to extend his arms straight up and smack the arms of A2 while he attempts his try? Obviously not.

People seem to forget that verticality demands that the player doesn't cause contact with the opponent. That is different from the opponent contacting him.

The only foul supported by the rules in this play would be on A2. B2 has only done what the rules expressly permit him to do.

4-23-3d. The guard may raise hands or jump with his/her own vertical space.

It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact. It doesn't say they can only do so as long as no opponent has extended their arms over them. It means that as long as they have LGP, they can legally jump and/or extend their arms straight up....even if it results in contact.

Imagine rebounding action where B2 has his arms over A1 when A1 jumps up for the rebound. Do we call that foul on A1? No. B2 was in A1's vertical space and fouled A1 by having his arms extended in outside of his own vertical space where contact occurred. We call the foul on B2 even if his arms where there first.

Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It means that as long as they have LGP, they can legally jump and/or extend their arms straight up....even if it results in contact.

I don't believe there was LGP in the OP. B2 never faced A2.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I don't believe there was LGP in the OP. B2 never faced A2.

ok, so he can't jump, but certainly can raise his arms and he can definitively stand straight up without a call.

And in Nevada's alternate play, LGP was established. And to answer his question, yes I'm going to allow B1 in that case to raise his arms into the shooter's arms.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And in Nevada's alternate play, LGP was established. And to answer his question, yes I'm going to allow B1 in that case to raise his arms into the shooter's arms.

Picture George Gervin leaping into the air and extending his arm horizontally as he executes a finger-roll lay-up above the head of an opponent. Now you are going to allow this opponent to thrust his hands and arms straight up into Gervin's extended arm and cause him to miss the shot?

I suggest that you rethink your opinion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only foul supported by the rules in this play would be on A2. B2 has only done what the rules expressly permit him to do.

4-23-3d. The guard may raise hands or jump with his/her own vertical space.

It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact. It doesn't say they can only do so as long as no opponent has extended their arms over them. It means that as long as they have LGP, they can legally jump and/or extend their arms straight up....even if it results in contact.

Imagine rebounding action where B2 has his arms over A1 when A1 jumps up for the rebound. Do we call that foul on A1? No. B2 was in A1's vertical space and fouled A1 by having his arms extended in outside of his own vertical space where contact occurred. We call the foul on B2 even if his arms where there first.

Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs.

Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.

1. LGP is not a factor in the rebounding play, so you can't cite a rule discussing that to support your opinion.

2. Use "you" instead of "we" because I certainly don't call a foul on B2 in your example.

3. Even if the play involved LGP, such as the example that I gave, you are still in error because you believe this, [referring to 4-23-3d] "It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact," and this, "Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs."

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

4-23-1 "... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

That's the guiding principle. (There are exceptions for airborne and fast moving players.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.

1. LGP is not a factor in the rebounding play, so you can't cite a rule discussing that to support your opinion.

I was addressing your drive play...it is fully relevant...and by extension to demonstrate that the rebounding play is a foul on the player who is invading another player's space.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. Use "you" instead of "we" because I certainly don't call a foul on B2 in your example.

Let me rephrase...we, the referees who make the correct call,....

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Even if the play involved LGP, such as the example that I gave, you are still in error because you believe this, [referring to 4-23-3d] "It doesn't say they can do so as long as there is no contact," and this, "Who causes the contact is irrelevant, it is about who is in an illegal position when contact occurs."

You are failing to understand that 4-23-3d must be taken in the context of what is written about guarding in 4-23-1. Those are the basics of guarding and everything that is stated there applies to the later articles.

4-23-1 "... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

That's the guiding principle. (There are exceptions for airborne and fast moving players.)

All fine except it is all wrong.

A player gets a spot "on the playing court", not in the air over another player and his/her spot. A1, having his/her arms over B1 is not in that spot at all. A1 is invading B1's spot. Again, you are not in a spot just becasue you get your arms over the spot. If that were even remotely true, you could set a screen by extendeding your arms into a space before the another player arrives....but the rules clearly indicate that having the arms extended into a space doesn't give that player the right to that spot.

If A1 is able to get his feet over B1's head, then, maybe, he'll also have that spot, but not by just getting his/her arms into the space.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me rephrase...we, the referees who make the correct call,....

Hard to say that when you don't know what the correct call is.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All fine except it is all wrong.

I say the same thing about your opinion.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player gets a spot "on the playing court", not in the air over another player and his/her spot. A1, having his/her arms over B1 is not in that spot at all. A1 is invading B1's spot. Again, you are not in a spot just becasue you get your arms over the spot.

So whenever a player reaches out to grab a ball over an opponent's head, that opponent would be smart to reach up and smack his arms away.

That fits your description of a legal play. BTW I notice that you didn't respond to my "George Gervin" example.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If that were even remotely true, you could set a screen by extendeding your arms into a space before the another player arrives....but the rules clearly indicate that having the arms extended into a space doesn't give that player the right to that spot.

Screening is a contact situation. The rules are specifically written with the expectation that contact will occur. Therefore, it would be dangerous to allow players to extend their arms and elbows as if blocking like an offensive lineman. A screener must allow the opponent to come to him and cause the contact. That is why screening isn't a foul. If the screener reaches out and causes the contact that's illegal.

That is completely different from this situation in which the player is not attempting to cause contact. He is jumping and/or reaching over an opponent to catch the ball. He is not the one who is causing any contact. It is the player who reacts late who causes the contact.

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Just finished reading the banter back and forth tween Cameron and Nevada. Both raise good points of arguement and both valid in their thinking patterns, however, I believe after considerable thought I side with Nevada on this one.

I would have to concur.

Originally Posted by Amesman

Success, but A2 is now effectively an 'L' shape over B2 upon gathering the ball. B2, who was leaning forward, now straightens up and maybe even raises arms straight up. Lots of contact. In B2's airspace.
line.

A2 went up & over without contacting B2 & got the rebound. B2 isn't being put at a disadvantage when he straightens up because the board is already in possession of A2. Now if the contact came before A2 possessed the ball that's a different story.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Ch1town and SmokeEater:

The only problem with you agreeing with Nevada is you both would be wrong. The rules (NFHS, NCAA, and even FIBA) are quite clear. B2 is entitled to what FIBA calls his/her Cylinder of Verticality. B2 is entitled to his vertical space and the ability to stand, hold his/her arms straight up, and to jump all of the way to the rafters unimpeded.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Scenario:
Rebound situation, B2 blocking out A2. A2 jumps up and over B2 in such a way that he would pass to the side even though his torso is directly over top of B2 to grab the rebound. B2 then jumps straight up to grab the same rebound. Both players fall to the floor and the ball trickles away.

I've got a foul on A2.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A2 is entitled to his vertical space and the ability to stand, hold his/her arms straight up, and to jump all of the way to the rafters unimpeded.

MTD, Sr.

You mean B2? And even after A2 gained possession & TC control?
Should A2 just patiently wait until B2 decides to straighten up & jump for the ball??

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Scenario:
Rebound situation, B2 blocking out A2. A2 jumps up and over B2 in such a way that he would pass to the side even though his torso is directly over top of B2 to grab the rebound. B2 then jumps straight up to grab the same rebound. Both players fall to the floor and the ball trickles away.

I've got a foul on A2.

The "same rebound" is where your sitch differs from the original. There wasn't any rebound for A2 to get as B2 already had it before contact occured, sounds like a play on to me.

Say in the OP that B2 had the same actions over A2 but he punched it home while he was in the air... we aren't really wiping that off are we?

I don't the intent of the verticality is to reward players who don't even jump for a rebound. You gotta at least leave the ground, IMHO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I don't the intent of the verticality is to reward players who don't even jump for a rebound. You gotta at least leave the ground, IMHO.

Well, you could be right if the rule only said they may jump. But it also says they may extend their arms and says nothing about a requirement to leave the floor.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

You mean B2? And even after A2 gained possession & TC control?
Should A2 just patiently wait until B2 decides to straighten up & jump for the ball??

No, but A2 should be aware that by going over B2 and invading B2's space that he (A2) could be called for a foul if B2 choses to exercise his right to verticality.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

The "same rebound" is where your sitch differs from the original. There wasn't any rebound for A2 to get as B2 already had it before contact occured, sounds like a play on to me.

None of that really matters. Was B2 in A2's vertical space or not? Even if A2 has the ball it doesn't remove B2's right to the verticality.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Say in the OP that B2 had the same actions over A2 but he punched it home while he was in the air... we aren't really wiping that off are we?

Probably not, but that is not at all the same as long as the contact was with A2 upstretched arms. We're talking about whether A2 has committed a foul or not. I'd agree that B2, having his arms over A2 with possesion of the ball will not be a foul on B2 if A2 jumps up into those arms. However, if B2 came through A2's body, that is a different case.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I don't the intent of the verticality is to reward players who don't even jump for a rebound. You gotta at least leave the ground, IMHO.

But the whole point of the discussion was that the player was going up for the ball....reaching up and/or jumping while B2 had thier arms in the same space.

Analogy...

A3 jumps. Then, B4 takes a spot on the floor, got there "first", is stationary. A3, still airborne, crashes into B4. What do we have? A foul on B4. Why? becasue A3 is entitled to to pass through the spot B4 was in due to prior actions.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

You mean B2? And even after A2 gained possession & TC control?
Should A2 just patiently wait until B2 decides to straighten up & jump for the ball??



The "same rebound" is where your sitch differs from the original. There wasn't any rebound for A2 to get as B2 already had it before contact occured, sounds like a play on to me.

Say in the OP that B2 had the same actions over A2 but he punched it home while he was in the air... we aren't really wiping that off are we?

I don't the intent of the verticality is to reward players who don't even jump for a rebound. You gotta at least leave the ground, IMHO.

I corrected my post.

MTD, Sr.