It sounds a bit like there might be a principal of verticality question and I'm curious about two things: (1) how truly straight up & down the defender's arms were in each situation, and (2) what "straight" really means in these situations. I ask because my observation is that virtually no defender has arms/hands straight - perpendicular to the floor on these plays. The angle seems to be 15-20 degrees even for a defender who has not moved hands/arms down & back up as in BktBallRef's post but has actually held still. When I look in the mirror, I realize that my hands/arms are not perpendicular to the floor unless/until, as I raise them, I place some strain (minor but appreciable) on my shoulder joints. Is anyone able to give this any precision beyond you know it when you see it?

Did any of the plays involve an airborne shooter?

Vertical does NOT mean perpendicular to the floor in this context. It means up in a natural position that is not extended out and over their opponent.

Thanks for your reply. I believe that & trust that it is the only way that verticality can be applied in a raised arms/hands situation. The reason I bring it up is that I so often see players stand there with their hands in the air, maintaining the posture they were in when they were called for a foul a couple seconds before & that posture is clearly leaning or angled - over what was the opponent's upward path. I think many times they are honestly puzzled as opposed to disingenuous about the call. There seems to be a real disconnect between what they perceive they were doing & the true angle of their arms. My sense of this is that the disconnect is qualitatively different than, say, a block-charge disagreement or a player not realizing he's moved his pivot foot. My conclusion - working conclusion or I wouldn't ask the question - is that the rule in this situation requires a defender to have arms/hands up in almost an unnatural (perhaps "exaggerated" is the word) manner in order to be in compliance. And it makes me wonder whether the rule essentially asks for too much from a defender. So, as a practical matter, how much leeway do you give a defender in these situations? Is it purely a judgment call or do you have some kind of more specific angle guideline that might be useful to players? Just trying to coach the kids to defend without fouling, you understand. Many thanks.

PS
Philosophically, and semi-ridiculously, why should verticality be required in this situation at all: why shouldn't a defender be able to close off the space above just as he can close off space horizontally by taking a charge? Does it just give too much advantage to a taller player?

The actual wording of the applicable rules:

A player shall not extend the arms fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs.

A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.


Did you ever mention what level we are discussing?

And what were the signal given for the nature of the foul, if any?
(block, illegal use of hands, etc.)

Educate the masses
 

I was at a late spring party also attended by a guy who coached three of my kids at various levels through the years. Good guy, good coach, helped the kids a lot.

NBE playoff game comes on, we watch. He enunciates after a charge call "That's the difference with high school, in high school you have to stand still to to take a charge."

I sat. I pondered. I watched the wives in cheerful conversation. I listened to the banter of high school kids watching a basketball game.

I got up and got another refreshing Yuengling porter.

Should have bought him one too, that way he wouldn't be too mad at you when you tell him, in front of everyone, how wrong he is.

The rule, may be more or less strictly interpreted by some officials, but it should allow for a natural position of the arms, not one that strains the shoulder joints. It is pretty easy to differentiate between that and arms that are extended out in front of them.
It is judgement.
It would allow too much advantage to the defender. They could essentially hold a shooter down on the floor if they could legally extend their arms over the shooter. If you were to permit such a position, why not also let a defender extend their arms/legs horizontally to the side as well...taking up a space several feet wider than their torso? Basically, it is about balance between offense and defense.