Rsbq

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It seems to me that V2 violated H1's Cylinder of Verticality and while doing so made contact with H1, thereby preventing him from standing upright. That sounds like illegal contact to me.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

The RSBQ concept is applied to offensive players in motion. Does the contact by the defender impair the offensive player's rhythym, speed, balance, or quickness? If so, then call a foul.

H1 was standing still. I'm most likely going to judge this by advantage/disadvantage. Did V2's contact prevent H1 from making a play? Did V2's contact cause H1 to travel or step on the end line?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It seems to me that V2 violated H1's Cylinder of Verticality and while doing so made contact with H1, thereby preventing him from standing upright. That sounds like illegal contact to me.

MTD, Sr.

What in the OP suggests to you that H tried to stand upright while V was in the cylinder?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What in the OP suggests to you that H tried to stand upright while V was in the cylinder?

The fact that V2 put two hands on H1's back is a pretty good indicator of illegal contact.

MTD, Sr.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The fact that V2 put two hands on H1's back is a pretty good indicator of illegal contact.

MTD, Sr.

And how was H disadvantaged?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

And how was H disadvantaged?

Everybody listen up: The key to this play is the Principal of Verticality.

It does not matter if V2 was jumping over H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back or he was standing next to H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back. V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. See the following:

NFHS R10-S6-A3: "A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping."

NCAA R10-S1-A3: "A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent in starting or stopping."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everybody listen up: The key to this play is the Principal of Verticality.

It does not matter if V2 was jumping over H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back or he was standing next to H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back. V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

It sounds to me like you rule this an automatic foul.

For me, it's not automatic.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

Granted. How do you know that constitutes a disadvantage in every case?

[Adam]

For the brief moment contact was made, I would have to see an obvious attempt to get upright before I call this foul. Unless he actually prevents A1 from normal offensive movement, I'm letting this go.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

JugglingReferee, MByron, and Snaqs:

I edited my OP to include the relevant NFHS and NCAA rules.

Yes it is an automatic foul.

As I have already stated, V2 put his two hands on H1's back while violating H1's Cylinder of Verticalty thereby preventing him from standing up. To use the words of the actual rule: V2's contact inhibited H1's freedom of movement.

We certainly do not wait to see if H5's FGA is succesful before calling a Foul in the Act of Shooting against V5 do we?

MTD, Sr.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everybody listen up: The key to this play is the Principal of Verticality.

It does not matter if V2 was jumping over H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back or he was standing next to H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back. V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. See the following:

NFHS R10-S6-A3: "A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping."

NCAA R10-S1-A3: "A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent in starting or stopping."

These same concepts of principal of verticality and moving within it can apply to what fans call over the back. Now we all know its not a foul, but if B1 puts his arms over A1's back shouldn't you call a foul because A1 might have jumped and B1's arms in A1's vertical space prevented it.

Just saying. It is a slippery slope if you are going to call fouls on what a player may have been prevented from doing if he had tried doing it. Call what did happen and not what might have happened. This is a good no call if there was no displacement. What if this had happened in a 1 point ball game with 10 seconds and the player could have passed the ball up ahead to a waiting team mate for the winning bucket? If you call the foul when the player was not disadvantaged then you prevent them from possibly winning the game. Incidental contact is defined as contact that does not rise to the point of a foul and does not prevent a defensive or offensive player from performing his/her duties. This is a paraphrase of course, but that is basically the idea of incidental contact. It seems like this was just incidental contact, unless you are of the opinion that "two of anything" in contact with the player with the ball is ALWAYS a foul.