L of a play

[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

. 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?