From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Mar 26 11:37:53 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id f2QAOMe20812
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:24:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f2QAODx20722
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:24:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from chinstrap.intranet.cabal.co.uk (th-gt144-164.pool.dircon.co.uk [194.112.59.164])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f2QAOAg14631
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:24:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ralf ([10.226.114.163])
	by chinstrap.intranet.cabal.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f2QAHW211046;
	Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:17:32 GMT
From: "Ranulf Doswell" <ralf@ranulf.net>
To: "Britdisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
   "Stephen Giguere" <SGiguere@bluews.com>
Subject: RE: The flying leap point
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:21:09 +0100
Message-ID: <JAEFIBPBNJKPOKOIDEMMCEBPCBAA.ralf@ranulf.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <6D293A121957D4119899009027FCB5DE18C72B@bluews.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

> My question is... does anyone realise that this is not only really
> annoying and exhibits rather poor spirit, but is a rather dangerous
> tactic.
[...]
> You could say it's a perfectly legal play and if you move through
> someone it's an offensive foul.

Yes and no. If you are aiming to deliberately jump into a defensive player,
then without a doubt it is a foul, and should be called. Usually, however,
this time of move is made into a space, and collisions occur when the
defence close up into that space. In this case, if the offensive player is
already in the air, then it's clearly a foul against him, as he can't change
his direction.

Another thing I think is worth bringing up is a call that occurred in one of
our games. Basically, we called double team at one point when three
defenders were crowding round one offensive player in the zone. The other
team moaned, saying that "there *must* be an exception for zone play". Now,
as far as I know, the only time it isn't a double team is if you're
sufficient close to another offensive player to be deemed marking him.

Bearing this in mind, it's probably fair to say that on most occasions of a
zone defense that I've seen, there probably is a double team going on.
Notably, the better teams who use zone defense have three markers spread
across the width of the zone. However, on some occasions over the weekend, I
saw four, and once, five, defensive players at the front of the zone. With
defensive players this close together with only one offensive player nearby,
it's surely highly likely that two of them are within one metre of him.

Ralf / Whiplash.