Player starting to fall in anticipation of charge

[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.

[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.

[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)

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Cobra

A player in a legal rebounding position cannot violate verticality.

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."?

[bob jenkins]

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."?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.