Principle of Verticality

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Is this the must misunderstood rule in the book?

I have to wonder if it's more like blatant ignorance, rather than misunderstanding. Otherwise, why would we get the "set" argument if they even know about verticality?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I have to wonder if it's more like blatant ignorance, rather than misunderstanding. Otherwise, why would we get the "set" argument if they even know about verticality?

Because, while the terms are linked in the book, they aren't linked in the minds of most players and coaches. When they argue a player wasn't set, verticality is rarely an issue anyway because the player was moving sideways or backwards (usually).

I have never heard a coach argue a defender was moving when he simply jumped vertically.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Because, while the terms are linked in the book, they aren't linked in the minds of most players and coaches. When they argue a player wasn't set, verticality is rarely an issue anyway because the player was moving sideways or backwards (usually).

I have never heard a coach argue a defender was moving when he simply jumped vertically.

Nor I.

My point is, I don't believe this is a misunderstood rule. I believe that some don't know this principle exists at all (hence word "ignorance"). In other words, they believe you can't draw a charge if you're in the air.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Nor I.

My point is, I don't believe this is a misunderstood rule. I believe that some don't know this principle exists at all (hence word "ignorance"). In other words, they believe you can't draw a charge if you're in the air.

I disagree. I've heard more complaints of "wasn't he straight up" than "he was moving" on these plays. They understand it, but only choose to play ignorant when it suits them.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. I've heard more complaints of "wasn't he straight up" than "he was moving" on these plays. They understand it, but only choose to play ignorant when it suits them.

That could be. I wonder if they know that "straight up" doesn't require both feet on the floor at the time of contact, though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That could be. I wonder if they know that "straight up" doesn't require both feet on the floor at the time of contact, though.

That's a legitimate question. But if they don't, I guess that would make the rule "misunderstood."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's a legitimate question. But if they don't, I guess that would make the rule "misunderstood."

Maybe. I believe "misunderstood" means knowing a rule exists, but not knowing its meaning or how it works. I believe that some don't know verticality exists at all, and that goes well beyond misunderstanding. That's ignorance.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's a legitimate question. But if they don't, I guess that would make the rule "misunderstood."

They understand it if it is THEIR player on defense.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've heard more complaints of "wasn't he straight up" than "he was moving" on these plays.

Funny how they always appear to be "straight up" after the contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Funny how they always appear to be "straight up" after the contact.

LOL, and sometimes even right before the contact. But definitely after the whistle blows and they want to show you what they were doing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tref

Funny how they always appear to be "straight up" after the contact.

Like the players who reach outside their plane of verticality and foul a shooter, and then as the whistle sounds, put up their hands up like someone is holding a gun on them?

[zeedonk]

Originally Posted by bainsey

In other words, they believe you can't draw a charge if you're in the air.

Called one of these earlier in the year. A1 driving to the cup, B1 comes over and established LGP, then, inexplicably, jumps straight up in the air as A1 tries to run through the middle of his chest. Going the other way- Entire A team coaching staff erupts (all 5 of them). I report PC foul and say to HC, "he had LGP, your guy ran him over" and go opposite. Partner inbounds and after an OOB by the bench winds up warning staff. Nothing further, but I spoke with AC after the game, whom I know pretty well, and says "how the hell can you call a charge on a guy when the defender is in the air?" I reply "veritcality". He says "Oh, OK.... wait- what?" Repeat.

Z

[GoodwillRef]

I think one of the factors contributing to this is that schools are hiring younger and younger coaches these days. We are seeing coaches in their early to mid twenties being hired as varsity head coaches and they are so overwhelmed with everything else about the job they do not have the time to read or understand the rules.

Last year we had a 24 year old girls varsity coach yelling at us from the opening tip...I warned her after 26 seconds...not another word the rest of the game. I thought I was working a 5th grade game they way she was yelling for stuff.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

"how the hell can you call a charge on a guy when the defender is in the air?" I reply "veritcality". He says "Oh, OK.... wait- what?" Repeat.

There it is. This is what I believe to be one of the many myths we battle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There it is. This is what I believe to be one of the many myths we battle.

Yep, but his response indicates he's aware of the rule but not overly familiar with it's applications.

My guess is that LGP is more likely the rule they aren't even aware of, whereas they're simply confused about verticality.