Not facing the opponent

[Camron Rust]

LGP grants the right to move and jump. Without it a player doesn't have the right to do either when contact occurs. Here is the rule on verticality...

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.
ART. 2 . . . From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his/her vertical plane.
ART. 3 . . . The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air.

So, until they have LGP, they may have a legal spot by getting there first but when they jump without having LGP, they forfeit the right to their spot....in a sense, they're moving to a new spot above the one they started from and the verticality rule doesn't allow them to do so.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

P

LGP offers protection to moving defenders. A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

Actually, he/she isn't. He/She is only entitled to the space above if he/she has LGP.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, until they have LGP, they may have a legal spot by getting there first but when they jump without having LGP, they forfeit the right to their spot....in a sense, they're moving to a new spot above the one they started from and the verticality rule doesn't allow them to do so.

Hmmm, then let's try this.

A-1 is guarded by B-2, who is in the lane and facing A-1 (has LGP).

A-1 passes to A-3, who drives and goes airborne. B-2, who is not facing A-3 but remains on his spot, jumps straight up. There is body contact between A-3 and B-2. Blocking foul?

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is spot on with my thinking of the rule.

And me.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, he/she isn't. He/She is only entitled to the space above if he/she has LGP.

You're talking about jumping. I didn't mention jumping.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

.....when they jump without having LGP, they forfeit the right to their spot....in a sense, they're moving to a new spot above the one they started from and the verticality rule doesn't allow them to do so.

Player A1 catches a pass near 3 point line, and squares up to shoot. B1 arrives too late to contest the shot, so he takes a position in front of A1 with his back to him intending to box him out. He turns to see A1 still holding the ball, looking into the post. He jumps straight up with his hands up, hoping to deflect the pass. A1 puts the ball on the floor and plows into B1's back. Ruling: blocking foul on B1

not bloody likely

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're talking about jumping. I didn't mention jumping.

Nah, here is what you said...

Originally Posted by mbyron

A stationary defender is entitled to his spot on the floor (and the vertical space above it) regardless of whether he has LGP.

The verticality rule says that must have LGP to have the right to the space above them....whether by jumping or raising their arms.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The verticality rule says that must have LGP to have the right to the space above them....whether by jumping or raising their arms.

How is that the case? Rebounding we do not require a player to have LGP to be legal on contact in other cases? Where does it say there must be LGP for verticality?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The verticality rule says that must have LGP to have the right to the space above them....whether by jumping or raising their arms.

It also says: The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender........

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The verticality rule says that must have LGP to have the right to the space above them....whether by jumping or raising their arms.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How is that the case? Rebounding we do not require a player to have LGP to be legal on contact in other cases? Where does it say there must be LGP for verticality?

Peace

As I posted in post #16....Not facing the opponent

Rule 4-45 VERTICALITY
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.

I believe the difference is that it is not the same between defending/guarding and rebounding and that, in the case of rebounding, the initial requirements are not LGP but a legal rebounding position as established in 4-37...and it is not the same as LGP, it is much less restrictive.

The rights of verticality come into play only when the relevant legal position is obtained.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As I posted in post #16....Not facing the opponent

Rule 4-45 VERTICALITY
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.

I believe the difference is that it is not the same between defending/guarding and rebounding and that, in the case of rebounding, the initial requirements are not LGP but a legal rebounding position as established in 4-37...and it is not the same as LGP, it is much less restrictive.

The rights of verticality come into play only when the relevant legal position is obtained.

I misspoke a little in my question. What I really meant to say was where does it say that all contact with a player involve all players to gain LGP? There are case plays and interpretations in the S&I books or pictures that show the NF wants a foul on players that run over players that are not facing them. I do not see any examples where someone is called for this just because they did not once face the player with the ball? And verticality is not just about someone jumping it is about staying in your vertical plane.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I misspoke a little in my question. What I really meant to say was where does it say that all contact with a player involve all players to gain LGP? There are case plays and interpretations in the S&I books or pictures that show the NF wants a foul on players that run over players that are not facing them. I do not see any examples where someone is called for this just because they did not once face the player with the ball?

Fully stationary players, yes. But not moving/jumping.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And verticality is not just about someone jumping it is about staying in your vertical plane.

Peace

Indeed, but you can't take advantage of verticality (by either raising arms or jumping) until the requirements of verticality are met (LGP when defending, or legal rebounding position if rebounding).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Fully stationary players, yes. But not moving/jumping.


Indeed, but you can't take advantage of verticality (by either raising arms or jumping) until the requirements of verticality are met (LGP when defending, or legal rebounding position if rebounding).

Thanks, Camron. The rule says players are entitled to their spot "on the playing floor." Not in the air.

[just another ref]

If a player is stationary, then jumps or raises his arms in his own vertical plane, he can't possibly contact anyone unless that player leaves his own vertical plane. Then what?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Indeed, but you can't take advantage of verticality (by either raising arms or jumping) until the requirements of verticality are met (LGP when defending, or legal rebounding position if rebounding).

So, are you saying, if you're not facing the ball handler (and therefore don't have LGP), you don't have the rights to verticality, that if you jump straight up, and contact takes place (assuming it's not a stiff-arm or elbow from the shooter), this would be a blocking foul?