Player of floor

[Gargil]

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

No, but it doens't have to if the player isn't airborne, IMO.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Does the principle of verticality apply if the player does not have LGP.

Some would say yes, based on the first line of the definition: "Verticality applies to a legal position." (Notice it does not say legal guarding position.) Having a spot on the floor is a legal position, as long as that player got to that spot first. Others would argue no, based on 4-45-1: "Legal guarding position must be obtained initially..." Because of those differences, there is a disagreement as to whether a player on the floor as a right to the space directly above them.

There's also the issue of whether this would be considered incidental contact. A foul is, of course, contact that hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. But, is going over an opponent considered a "normal offensive movement"? Could it also be argued getting up off the floor is a "normal defensive movement"?

That's why I'm in the same camp as JR as to whether it's a foul in the OP - it depends. It's not an automatic foul on B2 simply because they're on the floor, or trying to get up. We have to judge if there is some intent on B2 to trip or hold A2, or if, in fact, A2 did travel trying to avoid B2.

[Gargil]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Some would say yes, based on the first line of the definition: "Verticality applies to a legal position." (Notice it does not say legal guarding position.) Having a spot on the floor is a legal position, as long as that player got to that spot first. Others would argue no, based on 4-45-1: "Legal guarding position must be obtained initially..." Because of those differences, there is a disagreement as to whether a player on the floor as a right to the space directly above them.

There's also the issue of whether this would be considered incidental contact. A foul is, of course, contact that hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. But, is going over an opponent considered a "normal offensive movement"? Could it also be argued getting up off the floor is a "normal defensive movement"?

That's why I'm in the same camp as JR as to whether it's a foul in the OP - it depends. It's not an automatic foul on B2 simply because they're on the floor, or trying to get up. We have to judge if there is some intent on B2 to trip or hold A2, or if, in fact, A2 did travel trying to avoid B2.

This makes sense to me.