Not facing the opponent

[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 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.

[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?

[MiamiWadeCounty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

This is what FIBA rules say:

"During the game, each player has the right to occupy any position (cylinder) on the playing court not already occupied by an opponent.

This principle protects the space on the floor which he occupies and the space above him when he jumps vertically within that space."

And this what NBA rules say:

"A player is entitled to a vertical position even to the extent of holding his arms above his shoulders, as in post play or when double-teaming in pressing tactics."

FIBA's verticality rules clearly apply to an airborne player.

NBA's verticality rules kind of suggest that it apply to an airborne player, but who knows sure?

One thing for sure is that in the NBA and FIBA a defender doesn't need LGP to be in a vertical position.

[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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

You can't leave out the requirements that must be met to have the right to 4-45-3.

Cited again....


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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... 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.

I didn't say that either. I said they don't have the right to the space above them if they've not earned it by getting proper position (i.e., LGP).

If the contact is in the torso, the jump doesn't change the point of contact. However, if they jump and make contact with a shooter's arms above them, they will only be able to do so legally if they have obtained LGP.

But, if they had LGP, they can legally jump up such that it results in contact in the space above them and not be guilty of a foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't say that either. I said they don't have the right to the space above them if they've not earned it by getting proper position (i.e., LGP).

If the contact is in the torso, the jump doesn't change the point of contact. However, if they jump and make contact with a shooter's arms above them, they will only be able to do so legally if they have obtained LGP.

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

If the defender sticks his arms out over the shooter, and the shooter goes straight up, creating contact, foul on the defense, whether he previously had LGP or not. So, in the unlikely event that the shooter goes up, leans out over the defender, then the defender goes straight up, I don't see how this can also be a foul on the defender.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the defender sticks his arms out over the shooter, and the shooter goes straight up, creating contact, foul on the defense, whether he previously had LGP or not. So, in the unlikely event that the shooter goes up, leans out over the defender, then the defender goes straight up, I don't see how this can also be a foul on the defender.

The verticality rule clearly says the defender can only do that if they have LGP. If they don't have LGP, they don't have the right to that space. If they are extending their arms into a space they do not have a right to (or jump into that same space) and cause contact sufficient for a foul, they have fouled.

The player with the ball isn't given any more protection or consideration. They both have a way to earn the right to the space above them. If they earn it, they get it. If not and there is contact, the one who causes the contact is at fault, not necessarily the one who is outside their vertical space.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The player with the ball isn't given any more protection or consideration. They both have a way to earn the right to the space above them.

How did the player with the ball earn the space above him?

If they earn it, they get it. If not and there is contact, the one who causes the contact is at fault, not necessarily the one who is outside their vertical space.

If you can lean over the other guy and still draw a foul, that's quite a consideration.