L of a play

[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.

The rules also state somewhere that no one is allowed to initiate contact for the purpose of gaining an advantage. (Wish I had the rule numbers to back that up)

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

The rules also state somewhere that no one is allowed to initiate contact for the purpose of gaining an advantage. (Wish I had the rule numbers to back that up)

No, it doesn't say that. It says that they may not gain an advantage not intended by rule. It is in the paragraph that preceeds rule 1. Some advantages are intended by rule.

Initiating or causing contact is not really the issue. It is often the case that both players' actions cause contact but only one is liable for the foul. The one who commts the foul may or may not be the one who initiates contact.

Consider a drive to the basket where A1 and B1 are both racing to make a play and meet at some point and collide. Both of them caused/initiated the contact (if either had yielded, there would have been no contact). Who gets the foul depends on what the specific actions/movement were at the time of contact. B1's action may or may not be legal. A1's action may or may not be legal.

Example 1a. Stationary A1 observes B1 running forward (towards A1) and then choses to drive towards the basket and into B1 but B1 comes to a stop and/or starts to back way before contact. B1 satisfied the LGP principles and the call will be a charge.

Example 1b. Stationary A1 observes B1 running forward (towards A1) and then choses to drive towards the basket and into B1. A1 initiated contact but we have a block...as B1 violated the LGP requirements at the time of contact.

Example 2. B5 takes a defensive poistion with his arms stetched out laterally. B5 holds this position for 20 seconds when A1 drives sees the arms and drives through them to the basket....getting closelined. Who initiated the contact? A1. Who is called for the foul? B5.

Example 3. A1 is holding the ball. B2 swats at the ball, contacting most of A1's left hand such that it breaks A1's finger(s). B2 initiated and caused the contact and got an advantage but there is no foul since B2's actions are expressly legal.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Absolutely that's what it says, but isn't this the place where I learned about intent & application of the rule?

If the rebound is coming down & the player doesn't have to jump, sure put your arms up & get it or should I say be lazy & let the rebound come to you. If somebody went over the top in that case, yeah a foul. But it sounded as if the offensive player went upstairs to get it while the defender was bent over playing tidley winks & then decided to stick his arms up for a rebound that no longer existed... by rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Absolutely that's what it says, but isn't this the place where I learned about intent & application of the rule?

If the rebound is coming down & the player doesn't have to jump, sure put your arms up & get it or should I say be lazy & let the rebound come to you. If somebody went over the top in that case, yeah a foul. But it sounded as if the offensive player went upstairs to get it while the defender was bent over playing tidley winks & then decided to stick his arms up for a rebound that no longer existed... by rule.

Sure, we have to look at intent. But no where does it say the intent of this rule is to enforce proper technique or coaching. The purpose and intent of the rules is to ensure players don't gain an advantage by breaking the rules. The player is not breaking any rules here. He's bent over in a box out position (presumably) and straightens once the quick rebound goes over his head. you going to penalize him for standing up? I would go so far as to say you shouldn't penalize him for extending his arms vertically; as specifically allowed for in the rules without any condition of having to be airborne.

The rules say he's allowed to do two things; why penalize him for only doing one?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure, we have to look at intent. But no where does it say the intent of this rule is to enforce proper technique or coaching. The purpose and intent of the rules is to ensure players don't gain an advantage by breaking the rules. The player is not breaking any rules here. He's bent over in a box out position (presumably) and straightens once the quick rebound goes over his head. you going to penalize him for standing up? I would go so far as to say you shouldn't penalize him for extending his arms vertically; as specifically allowed for in the rules without any condition of having to be airborne.

The rules say he's allowed to do two things; why penalize him for only doing one?

No sir, you fail to acknowledge that he "straightens up" after A1 has the rebound & t/c
And I said a few posts ago that this sounds like a play on instead of a game interupter. but hey, it's tough to say what one would/wouldn't call unless you are actually on the court for said play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

No sir, you fail to acknowledge that he "straightens up" after A1 has the rebound & t/c
And I said a few posts ago that this sounds like a play on instead of a game interupter. but hey, it's tough to say what one would/wouldn't call unless you are actually on the court for said play.

Oh, I acknowledge as much, I just deny it has any bearing on the ruling.

Now, for the most part, it's going to be a play-on, as the likelihood of any advantage is minimal in this case, I think. The rebound is secured. If, however, there is an advantage gained by the player in back, then it's going to be a foul on that player. Conversely, if the advantage is gained by the player in front who stands up and knocks the ball away from A1, then I have a play-on.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

. But it sounded as if the offensive player went upstairs to get it while the defender was bent over playing tidley winks & then decided to stick his arms up for a rebound that no longer existed... by rule.

By rule...show me where the end of a rebound is defined and how that relates to verticality?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

By rule...show me where the end of a rebound is defined and how that relates to verticality?

I thought there is no t/c on the try & t/c is re-established on possession of the rebound.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I thought there is no t/c on the try & t/c is re-established on possession of the rebound.

Well, how does it relate, by rule, to verticality?