Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you can only violate the principal of verticality when you move into another's space. Moving "away" from the other's space is legal.

I think you are correct.

However Cobra was making a big point of stating that verticality can only apply to a defender with LGP. The rule book clearly disagrees, and specifically calls out that rebounders must also respect the principle of verticality in order to be legal. I probably edited the context out of what little bit of his post I quoted.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Actually you're completely wrong as per NFHS rule 4-45-5. Verticality applies to everyone on the court, including rebounding action when there is no offense or defense. And it applies to all legal positions, not just legal guarding positions.

No, I'm not wrong. To have verticality legal guarding position must be obtained.

Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the
principle of verticality:
ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement
thereafter must be legal.

The definition of guarding is "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."

So in order in order to guard someone you must be on defense. The principle of verticality says legal guarding position must be obtained. The offense can't obtain legal guarding position so the prinicple of verticality only applies to the defense.

4-45-5 deals with the defender maintaining verticality and being fouled. It doesn't say anything about verticality applying to the offense.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

including rebounding action when there is no offense or defense

Then how can there be goaltending or basket interference on the offensive team? Team control is not the same as being on offense. You obviously didn't read my post as I said that the rules should be changed to correct these problems.

And you might not want to argue with me about definitions anymore. Last week you didn't know the difference between a common foul and a personal foul and then now you don't know the definition of verticality nor the guarding definition.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So what then does 4-37-2d mean when it says: "To obtain or maintain legal rebounding position, a player may not:...Violate the principle of verticality."?

That is what I was saying. The rule states that a player cannot violate verticality and be in a legal guarding position. This is a problem under the rules as there is no team control during rebounding action so neither team is on offense or defense.

Offense and defensive teams need to be defined. The legal rebounding position needs to be changed to remove "verticality" and replace it with something about the vertical plane. The verticality prinicple could be changed instead but it would probably be easier to change the legal rebounding position rule.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I wasn't confused at all. I agree with the conclusion of your earlier post, but you made a false statement in support of it. That's the part I quoted.

LGP and verticality seem to confuse a lot of people, and you won't clarify things by linking them.

The FED certainly has no compunction about doing so, specifically 4-23-3d, as amplification to your more generalized recitation. The OP was most certainly about guarding and that was the contextual basis for my mention of verticality.
And by failing to include the next sentence of my post you eliminated any sense of context.
I was simply trying to show that verticality was a result of gaining LGP and that not keeping a vertical position did not preclude a PC call in this sitch.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cobra

No, I'm not wrong. To have verticality legal guarding position must be obtained.

Verticality applies to a legal position. Following are the basic components of the
principle of verticality:
ART. 1 . . . Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement
thereafter must be legal.

The definition of guarding is "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent."

So in order in order to guard someone you must be on defense. The principle of verticality says legal guarding position must be obtained. The offense can't obtain legal guarding position so the prinicple of verticality only applies to the defense.

4-45-5 deals with the defender maintaining verticality and being fouled. It doesn't say anything about verticality applying to the offense.



Then how can there be goaltending or basket interference on the offensive team? Team control is not the same as being on offense. You obviously didn't read my post as I said that the rules should be changed to correct these problems.

And you might not want to argue with me about definitions anymore. Last week you didn't know the difference between a common foul and a personal foul and then now you don't know the definition of verticality nor the guarding definition.



That is what I was saying. The rule states that a player cannot violate verticality and be in a legal guarding position. This is a problem under the rules as there is no team control during rebounding action so neither team is on offense or defense.

Offense and defensive teams need to be defined. The legal rebounding position needs to be changed to remove "verticality" and replace it with something about the vertical plane. The verticality prinicple could be changed instead but it would probably be easier to change the legal rebounding position rule.

I'll stick with my original assessment. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you really think that verticality doesn't apply to rebounding situations where LGP isn't and never was a factor, then I doubt very much that it's worthwhile trying to explain anything further to you. Especially when you come up with a statement such as the one highlighted above in red. When you have an explicit rule that has already been cited (NFHS rules 4-45-5 and 4-45-7) that definitively state that verticality does apply to offensive players, and you still insist that the principle of verticality still only applies to the defense, it's kinda hard to take anything that you say seriously.

PS..it might also be a good idea to get somebody to read POE #5 in this year's rulebook to you, specifically 5E& 5G.

[dsqrddgd909]

Do these two case book plays shed any light?


10.6.1 SITUATION A:

B1 takes a certain spot on the court before A1 jumps in the air to catch a pass: (a) A1 lands on B1; or (b) B1 moves to a new spot while A1 is airborne. A1 lands on one foot and then charges into B1. RULING: In (a) and (b), the foul is on A1. (4-23-5d)

10.6.1 SITUATION C:

B1 is standing behind the plane of the backboard before A1 jumps for a lay-up shot. The forward momentum causes airborne shooter A1 to charge into B1. RULING: B1 is entitled to the position obtained legally before A1 left the floor. If the ball goes through the basket before or after the contact occurs, the player-control foul cancels the goal. However, if B1 moves into the path of A1 after A1 has left the floor, the foul is on B1.
(4-19-1, 4-19-6; 6-7-4; 10 Penalty 2, 5a)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you can only violate the principal of verticality when you move into another's space. Moving "away" from the other's space is legal.

Exactly...you don't violate your vertical space, you violate someone elses.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'll stick with my original assessment. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you really think that verticality doesn't apply to rebounding situations where LGP isn't and never was a factor, then I doubt very much that it's worthwhile trying to explain anything further to you. Especially when you come up with a statement such as the one highlighted above in red. When you have an explicit rule that has already been cited (NFHS rules 4-45-5 and 4-45-7) that definitively state that verticality does apply to offensive players, and you still insist that the principle of verticality still only applies to the defense, it's kinda hard to take anything that you say seriously.

PS..it might also be a good idea to get somebody to read POE #5 in this year's rulebook to you, specifically 5E& 5G.

The POE is just a copy of the definition of the verticality principle except for the last sentence. 5E (4-45-5) says "The offensive player, whether on the floor or airborne, may not “clear out”
or cause contact within the defender’s vertical plane; this is a foul."

Notice is says the contact was "within the defender's vertical plane". It does not say that the contact was "outside of the offender's vertical plane" because verticality does not apply to him.

5F (4-45-6) says "The defender may not “belly up” or use the lower part of the body or arms
to cause contact outside his or her vertical plane; this is a foul."

So it is the exact same thing as 5E except in reverse. Notice again that it makes no reference to the vertical plane of the offensive player.

If verticality applies to the offense then why does 4-45-1 say that LGP must be obtained first and 4-45-2, 3, and 4 all start with "the defender"? I know it is a little confusing but verticality only applies to the defense. If the offense fouls it is for illegal contact within the vertical plane of the defender. If the defense fouls it is for illegal contact outside the vertical plane of the defender. The offensive player's vertical plane means nothing, only the defender's plane matter under the verticality principle.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cobra

.

I know it is a little confusing but verticality only applies to the defense.

It ain't confusing at all. Your theorem is a pile of steaming doo-doo, rules-wise.

If you honestly think that the principle of verticality doesn't apply on rebounding or to a shooter, you really, really need to talk to a good rules interpreter.

Note that I said a good rules interpreter. Don't talk to bainsey's.

[JFlores]

Had this one happen on Monday. Young man pretty much braced himself for impact by starting to lean back, partner calls the charge. Coach screams out " That has not been called all year", my response " Not sure what to tell you coach, but today is a new day". But at halftime we went over it and he was ok with the call.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless you are vertical towards the opponent, then that is not illegal. A player can always absorb or brace themselves for contact.

Peace

This is a HTBT play. In my mind it all depends on the amount of contact and if the contact caused the player to go to the floor. If they are leaning back so far as to require minimal contact to go to the floor, I've got nothing or a block. The main reasons players do this is to draw a foul and that is an Unsporting T as one poster has already mentioned. You can still call a charge when the player is leaning back because as you say they are allowed to brace or move to absorb contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

This is a HTBT play. In my mind it all depends on the amount of contact and if the contact caused the player to go to the floor. If they are leaning back so far as to require minimal contact to go to the floor, I've got nothing or a block. The main reasons players do this is to draw a foul and that is an Unsporting T as one poster has already mentioned. You can still call a charge when the player is leaning back because as you say they are allowed to brace or move to absorb contact.

Based on what rule?

Disagree. The main reason is to brace for contact. Besides, trying to draw a foul call is not an unsporting T, unless you think it's an attempt to "fake being fouled." They're not the same thing, necessarily. Allowing yourself to fall after contact is different, IMO, than faking being fouled.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Based on what rule?

Disagree. The main reason is to brace for contact. Besides, trying to draw a foul call is not an unsporting T, unless you think it's an attempt to "fake being fouled." They're not the same thing, necessarily. Allowing yourself to fall after contact is different, IMO, than faking being fouled.

First of all let me clarify. I like to use the To or Through principle. Did the offensive player go through the defender, then it is a PC all the way regardless of whether the defender was leaning or not. If he went to the player, meaning minimal (read here incidental) contact then I believe a block can be a reasonable call if the offensive player falls to the ground because of the defender lying on the ground. In other words, if the offensive player fell to the floor because of the "flop", it can be a block.

I don't agree the main reason is to brace for contact. I believe the main reason is to fake a foul, hence the unsporting T.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

If he went to the player, meaning minimal (read here incidental) contact then I believe a block can be a reasonable call if the offensive player falls to the ground because of the defender lying on the ground. In other words, if the offensive player fell to the floor because of the "flop", it can be a block.

Faulty logic from a rules stand-point, as Snaqs pointed out. How can you possibly call a block on a player who has a legal guarding position? A defender can always legally move to maintain their LGP and that includes moving backwards.

Better re-think that one because you have absolutely no rules justification to ever call a block. A no-call or a "T" for faking a foul, yes. That's a judgment call. But never a block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

First of all let me clarify. I like to use the To or Through principle. Did the offensive player go through the defender, then it is a PC all the way regardless of whether the defender was leaning or not.

I agree with this part as a general rule.

Originally Posted by rwest

If he went to the player, meaning minimal (read here incidental) contact then I believe a block can be a reasonable call if the offensive player falls to the ground because of the defender lying on the ground. In other words, if the offensive player fell to the floor because of the "flop", it can be a block.

By rule, not really. That player is entitled to the spot on the floor if he gets their first. If you're trying to send a message and that's what is accepted in your area, that's different; but there's no solid rules backing for making that call.

Originally Posted by rwest

I don't agree the main reason is to brace for contact. I believe the main reason is to fake a foul, hence the unsporting T.

If you think he's faking being fouled, then I'd say sac up and call the T. I've called one such T, in a 7th grade YMCA game. I'd warned the kid, then he did it again just as the dribbler got within closely guarded distance.

Had a JV kid last year try it once. I no-called the play, then warned him not to do it again on the way down the court. He didn't.