![]() |
|
|
|||
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.
__________________
Prettys Womans in your city |
|
|||
Quote:
Every player in a legal position on the court has verticality, regardless of whether the player (offense or defense) has LGP.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
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... |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:50pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Prettys Womans in your city |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Prettys Womans in your city |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
There's nothing the matter with the rules verbiage. There obviously is a comprehension problem attached to the rules verbiage though. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:51pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Cobra; Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:19pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:44pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
charge and player control foul | refnjoe | Basketball | 14 | Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:22pm |
charge / player control | dguig | Basketball | 3 | Wed Dec 01, 2004 07:41pm |
Block/Charge/Player Control? | RookieDude | Basketball | 16 | Sun Dec 29, 2002 06:02pm |
Help!!! What's the difference between a charge and a player control foul in NCAA? | gregbrown8 | Basketball | 31 | Mon Mar 26, 2001 12:38am |
Anticipation | Big Sarge | Basketball | 6 | Mon Feb 05, 2001 09:24am |