L of a play

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Didn't see that post.....no foul if the defenders arms were being raised straight up. The shooter has to expect that the defender will strectch to fully occupy the spot legally obtained.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Exactly...and the same principle applies...arms extended outside of a player's vertical space are not protected if the other player has remained in their vertical space.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Depends...the rules say a player can raise their arms up and/or jump...verticality. If they remain in their vertical space, and are doing what the rule expressly says is permitted and contact is involved I am not calling a foul. However, that is not the same as swatting them back and forth and causing contact...they can raise them and only raise them.

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That player is invading the space of the opponent and will be guilty of the foul if there is contact that causes an advantage. If the player never jumps or attempts to go for the ball, there is likley no advantage but if the ball is above the players head, he/she has every right to jump and/or reach up for that ball. When their is contact, any player who has violated another player's vertical space has caused the contact and has fouled by being in an illegal position.

This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So if I have the ball and hold it directly over your head while attempting to shoot or make a pass, you claim to be allowed to thrust your arms straight up and into my forearms knocking the ball free. I seriously doubt that is the proper reading of the rule.


This is not a question of applying the advantage/disadvantage philosophy. It is a textbook rules debate. The problem that we have is axiomatic. We start with different fundamental assumptions and thus each logically reach conflicting conclusions. I find no fault with your reasoning. It is your initial assumption that I believe is flawed. I've already stated my case as to why I think that.


Your guiding principle is occupying a legal position. Mine is the causing of contact.

You believe that having a legal position allows a player to cause contact. I believe that it merely allows that player to absorb contact. That difference may be minor, but it is key to how we each define "illegal contact."

Since I don't see either of us being able to change the other's mind about this fundamental point, it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others discuss this for themselves.

Your claim is that they may only have them raised, but the language of the book doesn't say that at all. The language of the book clearly says a defender may "raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane". It doesn't say they may only have thier hands in a raised position. The difference is fundamental and important. It allows them the action of raising them while in LGP, not just the position.

Also see rule 10-6-1:

Extending the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs is not legal.

Again, the language here grants permsion for the action of extending the arms, not just the position of having them extended and it says that it is a foul if it is "other than vertically"...which, implies that doing so vertically is legal.

The fact that it "causes contact" is not relevant. Few fouls are based on who causes the contact but on who is doing something illegal when contact occurs.