Not facing the opponent

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

I am not buying that at all. And since a lot of LGP situations would not apply like a rebound or loose ball situations where there is no position to establish and a ball handler is not involved to face. But to suggest that verticality only applies if LGP is present is silly to me and does not make any since. And really does not make since when you read POEs and examples given to highlight that rule.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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?

I am. They can stand there and be legal but they don't get the any of the rights of LGP if they don't have LGP.

[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.

So you're also saying that if B1 is standing facing the basket with his arms raised in anticipation of a rebound, and A1 drives in, and in the process of taking a shot contacts B1's totally stationary arm, it can be a foul on B1?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So you're also saying that if B1 is standing facing the basket with his arms raised in anticipation of a rebound, and A1 drives in, and in the process of taking a shot contacts B1's totally stationary arm, it can be a foul on B1?

As the rule is written, it can be.

Will I call it? Maybe not.

The rule is pretty clear about when verticality applies and when such actions are allowed (only with LGP).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As the rule is written, it can be.

Will I call it? Maybe not.

The rule is pretty clear about when verticality applies and when such actions are allowed (only with LGP).

Verticality explains all these things that one can do that are legal. If a stationary defender jumps straight up and is contacted by the offensive player, where's the part which says this is illegal?

[Rob1968]

Wow! This thread is the result of yet another case of poor wording by the editors of the Rules Book.
It seems to me that in 4-23 - Guarding, and 4-37 - Rebounding, and 4-45 - Verticality, there are two subjects addressed, in very sloppily structured paragraphs, or Articles.
4-23-1, third sentence, deals with players on the playing court, without reference to LGP: "Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."
The following sentence introduces that statement's relation to actions of opponents: "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have legal guarding position if contact occurs." Such action can occur whether or not the player is guarding an opponent.
4-23-2 defines an intial LGP, which is a new subject. It is not intended to define a "player position".

4-37-1 defines rebounding.
4-37-2 describes obtaining or maintaining legal rebounding position.
4-37-2 d. states: "To obtain or maintain legal rebounding position, a player may not: Violate the principle of verticality."
And 4-37-3 reiterates the statement in 4-23-1, regarding player position. Thus, in rebounding, guarding is not neccessarily involved, but verticality is.

4-45 begins with "Verticality applies to a legal (player) position." It is
not a statement about LGP.
Then, Articles 1-7 deal with Verticality, in reference to opponents, and thus, LGP.
Although it is an extrapolation, the common understanding of Verticality is that it applies to a player having the right to his place when in contact with the floor, and when jumping within his vertical area. The notion that when a player,/defender jumps "within his vertical area" he forfeits his right to verticality, seems anathema to the generally accepted legal/illegal actions of players, whether they are, at that moment, in offensive or defensive attitude.
Thus, Cameron, I respectfully disagree with your stance on the subject.

[MiamiWadeCounty]

Originally Posted by 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..

So can a secondary defender draw a PC in the RA (restricted area)?

The RA doesn't allow ILGP to be obtained in there, but by your logic, a secondary defender doesn't need LGP to draw PC foul in the RA if he's not moving when contact occurs, even though they made it clear that no secondary defender can be there no matter how long they've been stationed in there.

[MiamiWadeCounty]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Wow! This thread is the result of yet another case of poor wording by the editors of the Rules Book.

I've always said that.

NBA and FIBA made it cleared in their rules books that a player, with or without LGP, is entitled to a vertical position even to the extent of holding his arms above his shoulders.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MiamiWadeCounty

So can a secondary defender draw a PC in the RA (restricted area)?

The RA doesn't allow ILGP to be obtained in there, but by your logic, a secondary defender doesn't need LGP to draw PC foul in the RA if he's not moving when contact occurs, even though they made it clear that no secondary defender can be there no matter how long they've been stationed in there.

1) This has generally been a HS discussion, and the RA is NCAA.

2) It's clear that the rule says something to the effect that "a player is entitled to his/her spot on the floor provided s/he gets there legally first." Standing in the RA is NOT getting there "legally."

3) Your'e wrong about his logic.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MiamiWadeCounty

I've always said that.

NBA and FIBA made it cleared in their rules books that a player, with or without LGP, is entitled to a vertical position even to the extent of holding his arms above his shoulders.

But, just for the sake of clarity, does that position apply to an airborne player?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The notion that when a player,/defender jumps "within his vertical area" he forfeits his right to verticality, seems anathema to the generally accepted legal/illegal actions of players, whether they are, at that moment, in offensive or defensive attitude.
Thus, Cameron, I respectfully disagree with your stance on the subject.

I didn't say they always forfeit when they jump, only when they've not earned the right to it by having LGP (in the case of guarding) or LRP (rebounding).

In the generally accepted actions, the players RARELY have their backs to the opponent involved in the play....they are usually facing them.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't say they always forfeit when they jump, only when they've not earned the right to it by having LGP (in the case of guarding) or LRP (rebounding).

In the generally accepted actions, the players RARELY have their backs to the opponent involved in the play....they are usually facing them.

I think this is the reason that this does not draw more attention in the wording of the rules. But I still don't see anything which says that a player without LGP who leaves his feet could not then still draw a charge if the offensive player initiates the contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the reason that this does not draw more attention in the wording of the rules. But I still don't see anything which says that a player without LGP who leaves his feet could not then still draw a charge if the offensive player initiates the contact.

He's entitled to a spot on the playing court. Not to the air space above it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He's entitled to a spot on the playing court. Not to the air space above it.

It's the old "No Fly Zone" rule.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He's entitled to a spot on the playing court. Not to the air space above it.

So, what do we do about 4-45-3: "The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his/her vertical plane while on the floor or in the air."?

This statement, and others, intimate, and indeed indicate, that the vertical plane is considered in regards to contact between opponents, whether the opponents are grounded or airborne.

I still see the statements regarding verticality as applying to two subjects:
1) a player and his inherent right to a position on the floor
2) a player and his rights regarding contact with an opponent, be it a defender or an offensive player.

Where does one find reference to "a spot on the playing court" meaning "in contact with the playing surface"? Is not the concept of verticality meant to define the reality of movement by all players, in a game which intrinsically involves leaving the playing surface vertically?

So, A1 facing B1, with his back to B2, who has the ball, sees that B1 looks upward, and reaches upward, as if to receive a pass from B2. A1, thinking to foil the pass attempt, jumps, within his vertical plane. While in the air, B2 drives into the back of A1. Blocking foul on A1?...Really?