Not facing the opponent

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Isn't getting to the spot first only half the battle, though? What if you're not facing your opponent (4-23-2b)?

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

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.

This is spot on with my thinking of the rule.

Peace

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is spot on with my thinking of the rule.

And me.

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

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.

Great explanation +1

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

People insist on applying the guarding rule as the only way for a defender to "take a charge." If B1 has his back to A1 and A1 pushes him to the floor, you're calling a block on B1 because he didn't have LGP?

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.

Very well said.

And bainsey, doesn't rule 11-2-4 say that you can't combine self-imposed suspensions with injury recovery time? I think it's clear that they can't be served concurrently. (But I do hope your achilles heals quickly)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And bainsey, doesn't rule 11-2-4 say that you can't combine self-imposed suspensions with injury recovery time?

Not by my interpretation.

Then again, considering my OP, take strong consideration of what that's worth.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not by my interpretation.

Then again, considering my OP, take strong consideration of what that's worth.

[HawkeyeCubP]

-talking about how the defensive player is entitled to their legal spot on the court, resulting in ruling this type of play a PC foul.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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........