Block/PC (video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

How is there no such thing as straightening up within one's vertical plane? If she'd just been standing there all the time with her knees bent and then locked her knees while not going further forward than the front of her feet...

I know I've mentioned this before but a defender doesn't have to become a statue when establishing LGP. Here's the Verticality rule (I'm using the NCAA-W rule book since that's what's covered in the clip but it's the same for NFHS & NCAA):



According to these guidelines, what did the defender in this clip do wrong after establishing LGP? Section B allows for a defender to "rise...within her vertical plane." Presumably, a player's vertical plane ends at the front of his/her feet. Section F says the defender "may not 'belly up' or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane."

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

The defender got two feet down with her torso facing the BH/dribbler meaning, by rule, she was "already there." Again, it's not as though a defender has to freeze on the spot at that point.

The rule allows for some movement as long as they're within their vertical plane and the defender in this play definitely wasn't leaning out over her feet. As I said before, she never even got the chance to straighten up fully before the BH/dribbler violated her vertical space. Even if the defender's torso had continued moving up/forward, by rule she'd be fine as long as it remained in her vertical plane.

[Pantherdreams]

Feet down - check
Facing player with the ball - Check
Inside her cylinder/vertical plane - Check

No idea what the defender did wrong.

Think the idea that her torso is moving forward is moot unless she's somehow got it moving beyond her toes and outside her cylinder.

Technically everytime someone breathes or tenses their abs there is going to be outward/forward movement with their torso. Saying that that is forward movement would be ridiculous. I'm putting any movement of the torso as they brace/straighten/settle in teh same category unless it puts them outside their allowed space. I don't feel that is the case here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Raising straight up is not the same as bringing the body forward over the feet after planting the feet. What you've described is for a player who is already there that is allowed to rise....not for a player arriving into the position who's body is just settling over their feet, still coming forward in the attempt to obtain the position. This player came forward into the position over her feet, she didn't rise up within the plane.

I would not want to try to justify a block to a supervisor based on this reasoning.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Feet down - check
Facing player with the ball - Check
Inside her cylinder/vertical plane - Check

No idea what the defender did wrong.

Think the idea that her torso is moving forward is moot unless she's somehow got it moving beyond her toes and outside her cylinder.

Technically everytime someone breathes or tenses their abs there is going to be outward/forward movement with their torso. Saying that that is forward movement would be ridiculous. I'm putting any movement of the torso as they brace/straighten/settle in the same category unless it puts them outside their allowed space. I don't feel that is the case here.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would not want to try to justify a block to a supervisor based on this reasoning.

Here is the one part of the rule you're both leaving out....

The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs

This requirement is absolute. It is not qualified by any point of reference relative to the feet or a position. If the guard is moving forward, even just a little, it is not LGP. Period.

This player isn't "breathing" to cause the forward movement or straightening up, it is the primary act of trying to get a position that isn't yet complete.

For that matter, if the defender's torso is still moving forward, the defender didn't even get there first, which is also a basic requirement for guarding. That much is pretty basic.

You can argue that the player in any specific play might not have been moving forward but once you allow that she was (as JetMetFan did above), you can't have anything but a block.

[Pantherdreams]

The only contact from movement/acton the the defender is responsible for is movement or action that takes place outside of their legally guarding position and associated rights.

They can move their arm up/in front of them and get hit on the arm so long as the arm is within their cylinder. They can lean back to the side do the hula if they want so long as the contact takes place in side their cylinder and they've established legal guarding postion.

Different situation but if a player had legal guarding postion and as impact was occuring brough their arms across their chest and they got hit you wouldn't call illegal use of the hands or blocking because their arms came forward (unless they wen't beyond their cylinder). So unless their chest is coming out past their toes wouldn't you see that as the same thing?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

The only contact from movement/acton the the defender is responsible for is movement or action that takes place outside of their legally guarding position and associated rights.

They can move their arm up/in front of them and get hit on the arm so long as the arm is within their cylinder. They can lean back to the side do the hula if they want so long as the contact takes place in side their cylinder and they've established legal guarding postion.

That is simply not correct.

By rule, the ONLY movement allowed is vertical, lateral to or away from the opponent. Movement towards the opponent at the time of contact is always negates LGP...they don't have a cylinder to move in if they are moving forward. Plus, leaning to the side is, by definition, not in the cylinder...it is outside of the cylinder. The cylinder is vertical, not to their side. It doesn't extend outside of their torso to include the space nearby.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Different situation but if a player had legal guarding postion and as impact was occuring brough their arms across their chest and they got hit you wouldn't call illegal use of the hands or blocking because their arms came forward (unless they wen't beyond their cylinder). So unless their chest is coming out past their toes wouldn't you see that as the same thing?

That could be legal, a push, illegal hands or something else...would have to see that. Fundamentally, the torso moving forward negates LGP. It has nothing to do with the toes or the feet.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This requirement is absolute. It is not qualified by any point of reference relative to the feet or a position. If the guard is moving forward, even just a little, it is not LGP. Period.

This player isn't "breathing" to cause the forward movement or straightening up, it is the primary act of trying to get a position that isn't yet complete.

For that matter, if the defender's torso is still moving forward, the defender didn't even get there first, which is also a basic requirement for guarding. That much is pretty basic.

You can argue that the player in any specific play might not have been moving forward but once you allow that she was (as JetMetFan did above), you can't have anything but a block.

So...here's the play slowed down even more. I don't agree with your premise because there's nothing in terms of establishing LGP that requires a player's upper body to stop moving.

However, even if I did agree with you when does the defender violate the rule of verticality? Verticality exists when you have LGP, which the defender established by having both feet on the court with her torso facing her opponent. The rules of verticality allow a player movement within their vertical plane - or their "cylinder" as Panther put it - provided they don't create contact outside that plane/cylinder. As I mentioned before, the offensive player enters the defender's plane/sphere and creates contact. Even if I/we allow for your interpretation and the defender isn't legal, the offensive player doesn't give her a chance to commit a foul. Think of it similar to a screen: I can set a screen that will be illegal but if my opponent shoves me over the foul is on them.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

So...here's the play slowed down even more. I don't agree with your premise because there's nothing in terms of establishing LGP that requires a player's upper body to stop moving.

Here you go (from rule 4-23 GUARDING, older rule number perhaps)...

ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
...
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.

It only allows the player to jump UP, not move forward.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

However, even if I did agree with you when does the defender violate the rule of verticality? Verticality exists when you have LGP, which the defender established by having both feet on the court with her torso facing her opponent. The rules of verticality allow a player movement within their vertical plane - or their "cylinder" as Panther put it - provided they don't create contact outside that plane/cylinder. As I mentioned before, the offensive player enters the defender's plane/sphere and creates contact. Even if I/we allow for your interpretation and the defender isn't legal, the offensive player doesn't give her a chance to commit a foul. Think of it similar to a screen: I can set a screen that will be illegal but if my opponent shoves me over the foul is on them.

The rules of verticality allow VERTICAL movement, not lateral movement. That is why it is called verticality. Guarding rules clearly (as I mention above) disallow forward movement.

These two players are coming together. In the context of block/charge, the requirements are 100% on the defender to be legal. If the defender is moving forward, they are not legal and it doens't matter what the offensive player is doing, it is a block.

If a player shoves another, then it isn't a block/charge play. That is a different discussion.

[Raymond]

Super Slo-Mo convinces even more that it's a PC foul, and that the Lead not only should not have had a whistle, he didn't even give the C first crack.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules of verticality allow VERTICAL movement, not lateral movement. That is why it is called verticality. Guarding rules clearly (as I mention above) disallow forward movement.

These two players are coming together. In the context of block/charge, the requirements are 100% on the defender to be legal. If the defender is moving forward, they are not legal and it doesn't matter what the offensive player is doing, it is a block.

If a player shoves another, then it isn't a block/charge play. That is a different discussion.

Section F of Verticality: The defender "may not 'belly up' or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact outside her vertical plane."

Section B of Verticality: The defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within her vertical plane. (BTW, one of the definitions of "rise" is "to assume an upright position")

Verticality doesn't limit a player to just vertical movement. A player is limited to movement within their vertical plane. There's a difference. Obviously if a player steps forward or leans into an opponent outside their vertical plane that's a foul. The defender in this case didn't move her feet forward and didn't lean into her opponent/create contact. Any movement was within her vertical sphere of influence after she established LGP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... cylinder ...

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

... plane ... sphere ...

Two of these are three dimensional objects, while one is a two dimensional object. Using all three in the same argument can lead to a lot of mathematically challenging questions. Let's try to stick to the same "dimension".

Also, where does it say that the cylinder is defined by the feet? I would think that the torso looks more like a cylinder than two feet look like a cylinder. Again we have a problem with dimensions. The base of a cylinder is a plane and it takes three points to define a plane. Unless a player has a third foot, or a tail, I would think that the base of that cylinder is best described by the dimensions (radius) of the torso.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Block.
Shouldn't be a double whistle.
Center should be able to (and apparently does, in this case) be fully aware of, anticipate, and officiate both the screening play and the secondary defender coming over.
My guess is Lead's ball-watching and too invested in the play, leading to that quick whistle out of his primary.

Thanks for posting. Nice discussion play.

Also, haven't been on in a while, come back, skip to last page of this thread, see this:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...The base of a cylinder is a plane and it takes three points to define a plane. Unless a player has a third foot, or a tail, I would think that the base of that cylinder is best described by the dimensions (radius) of the torso.

= awesome.