The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 782
I does git wordie at times . . .

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.
__________________
To be good at a sport, one must be smart enough to play the game -- and dumb enough to think that it's important . . .
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Three for the opponent? bainsey Basketball 12 Wed Jan 25, 2012 01:08am
Batting the puck into the net off an opponent John Robertson Hockey 3 Sat Nov 04, 2006 03:08pm
RHP in stretch facing 1st base (balk or no balk) tem_blue Baseball 6 Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:00pm
Ejected Coach...first time facing since ejection Raymond Basketball 9 Wed Feb 08, 2006 01:34pm
Lining: "Facing the play" sir_eldren Hockey 3 Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1