Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

At some point he's no longer vertical and then it is certainly a block.

Verticality is earned by virtue of obtaining, then maintaining LGP. It is not a requirement. You're definitely screwing over the defender by making this erroneous call. If B1 has earned a call when vertical and A1 intrudes even further into backward leaning B1's space while initiating contact, A1 is totally and thoroughly at fault. I am calling PC on this play every time.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Verticality is earned by virtue of obtaining, then maintaining LGP.

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

[drofficial]

In the OP I was not intending to describe a player faking a foul. It's a player who knows he is going to get run over and so starts to lean fall back. The problem, for the official, is that this lessens the contact. So the question then becomes was there enough contact to gain an advantage, or did the defender's starting to fall mean that no advantage was gained?

I had this play last night and had a no-call, but then the offensive player basically fell on top of the defender on the floor, so we have a "crash" under the basket and a no-call looks suspect...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drofficial

In the OP I was not intending to describe a player faking a foul. It's a player who knows he is going to get run over and so starts to lean fall back. The problem, for the official, is that this lessens the contact. So the question then becomes was there enough contact to gain an advantage, or did the defender's starting to fall mean that no advantage was gained?

I agree that makes it tough, but does not make it "illegal." I call the contact, not what the defender did to anticipate contact that they can do legally. If they fall back so far and I have to decide if contact was a foul, then that is a different story. But that is not quite what you said and the reason people wanted clarification.

Originally Posted by drofficial

I had this play last night and had a no-call, but then the offensive player basically fell on top of the defender on the floor, so we have a "crash" under the basket and a no-call looks suspect...

I think we need to stop worrying about what others think. Players fall to the ground all the time and no foul is warranted. Especially when a shooter jumps into a bigger player, I am not calling a foul in the bigger defender if they did nothing wrong or illegal. One of the reasons why courage is a big part of officiating.

Peace

[Adam]

Agree with Rut. You have to decide whether the contact caused the player to fall, or if the defender's own actions caused him to lose his balance. Generally, if the shooter lands on top of the defender, you can go ahead and call the PC. If the shooter lands just at the defender, and contact is slight, you have a decision to make.

[Jurassic Referee]

From an old POE that still holds true...

Flopping: The defensive player or screener acting as though he or she has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he or she has not been, definitely has an impact on the game. It is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. The "actor" wants to create the false impression that he or she has been fouled in the charging/guarding situation, or while he or she is screening when in either case there is no contact or incidental contact. The "actor" falls to the court as though he or she was knocked down by the force of contact by the opponent. These actions are designed to have a foul charged to the opponent- a foul not deserved. The "flop" also incites spectators. The rules are in place to deal with such activity and must be enforced. A technical foul is charged to the "actor" in all cases. Coaches can have a positive impact by appropriately dealing with players who fake being fouled. It is not part of the game. Officials must penalize the act.

Try not to giggle at the notion of a coach giving one of his players crap for faking a foul. Far more coaches teach it than tsk-tsk it.

To sum up, it's always a judgment call. You first have to judge whether there was appreciable contact or not. No contact or minimal contact = no call or a "T". If there is appreciable contact, you then have to decide whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Incidental contact is a no-call. Illegal contact on which player is determined by the appropriate block/charge rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Try not to giggle at the notion of a coach giving one of his players crap for faking a foul. Far more coaches teach it than tsk-tsk it.

I've actually heard a coach (maybe two) get on his player for not taking the charge.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

No argument as to your general recitation that "Every player in a legal..." and I understand it implicitly.
My reference to verticality was to absolve B1 of the requirement for remaining vertical and paraphrasing 4-23-3 by showing verticality is reaffirmed by virtue of having LGP but is not a prerequisite for getting a PC call. Sorry you got confused and cited only part of my post.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Sorry you got confused and cited only part of my post.

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.

[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.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not true: your requirement implies that verticality applies only to the defense, since only defenders can have LGP!

Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.

Actually the definition of verticality states that it only applies to the defense and that legal guarding position must be obtained. There are restrictions on offensive players regarding being vertical but that is different from the principle of verticality.

A player in a legal rebounding position cannot violate verticality. Verticality requires legal guarding position, which only means getting in the way of an offensive opponent. But during rebounding action the try is in flight which would mean no team control nor player control so neither team would be on offense (an undefined term). But you can have basket interference or goaltending on the offense which can occur during a try. The legal rebounding position definition should be changed to remove the word verticality and replace it with something about remaining vertical as well as defining offensive and defensive teams. With the current wording it can be confusing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Actually the definition of verticality states that it only applies to the defense and that legal guarding position must be obtained. There are restrictions on offensive players regarding being vertical but that is different from the principle of verticality.

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.

There's nothing the matter with the rules verbiage. There obviously is a comprehension problem attached to the rules verbiage though.

[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.

[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.

[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.