Player starting to fall in anticipation of 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.