Principle of 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Not" should be "knocked."

Nope. He was talking about trees. That means "not" should be "knot", woodn't it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope. He was talking about trees. That means "not" should be "knot", woodn't it?

I'll have to ask Woody next time I see him.

[NoFussRef]

Would you call an offensive foul if they only shaved a lil bark?

Subsequently:
If a tree FLOPS in the lane but no one is around to hear it....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll have to ask Woody next time I see him.

Don't bother. He's an ash and will just tell you to leaf.

[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."

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Is this the must misunderstood rule in the book? It seems that all coach see is the contact...not who caused it...just the contact...not if the defender had LGP and good verticality...just the contact.

Those same coaches are the ones who will tell their defender jumped straight up and down or was just standing there with their hands up.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

How in the world do you go from this response:

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.

To this one?

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I personally think they all (95% of players and coaches) know about verticality but simply misunderstand it. Some of them plead ignorance when such ignorance would warrant a foul in their favor.

Again, I get far more compaints when I call fouls on defenders who aren't vertical than when I don't call something against a legal defender. Even when I do get complaints about non-calls, "he was straight up" virtually always satisfies the coach. He knows the rule, he just wants me to forget it when it's convenient for him.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How in the world do you go from this response:.....To this one?

Must be your awesome power of persuasion, Snaqs!