Not facing the opponent

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

By occupying it first.