Last Night

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Saw one of my friends, a veteran, highly regarded, official, work a state tournament quarterfinal game. As a defender was reaching out to size up the opponent point guard, the defender accidentally brushed a few fingers across the point guards face. A split second went by (cue crickets). Point guard puts her hand up to her eye that was accidentally poked, in obvious pain. Only then came the whistle for the foul. I asked my friend about it afterward. He admitted that, at first, he was going to pass on the play as incidental contact, until he saw that the point guard was in pain. An advantage was certainly gained in that situation. Accidental and incidental don't mean the same thing.

Your post is valid, but not similar to the play in question. The ball was dead when the contact in question occurred. No one was put at a disadvantage.

The rule is what it is, and I suppose it was properly enforced here, but in my opinion the rule was written more with aggressive elbow type action in mind, as opposed to the reactive, reflexive grab we saw here.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Saw one of my friends, a veteran, highly regarded, official, work a state tournament quarterfinal game. As a defender was reaching out to size up the opponent point guard, the defender accidentally brushed a few fingers across the point guards face. A split second went by (cue crickets). Point guard puts her hand up to her eye that was accidentally poked, in obvious pain. Only then came the whistle for the foul. I asked my friend about it afterward. He admitted that, at first, he was going to pass on the play as incidental contact, until he saw that the point guard was in pain. An advantage was certainly gained in that situation. Accidental and incidental don't mean the same thing.

True, and I've handled that situation the exact same way. However, I've also seen an official just halt play for an injury stoppage without assessing a foul. In his mind the contact remained incidental and unworthy of a foul despite the injury. I think that this could be a reasonable debate, if people wish to discuss it.

[just another ref]

I think one reason that this is not called a foul is because it is so often that the contact is not seen, only the player reacting to the contact. The contact itself is so often brief and minimal, but can nonetheless be debilitating, not unlike a poke in the groin area.

Accidental or not, this is a foul.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

Not directed at me, but I will jump in and answer.

12:15 to go in 2nd half. Williams-Goss drives, takes 4 steps, and initiates all the contact on Pinson. The foul was called on Pinson. Why? Travel should have been called at step 3 if not step 4.

About :50 to go in the game. Meeks gets on the ground for the loose ball. His whole hand is out of bounds while ball is on his legs. Ref is right there. No call. Why?

We all miss calls. These guys are just under a lot more scrutiny. One missed OOB call does not define a game. Given the physicality of the game, missing one going to the floor is minor.

It was a physical game and they maintenance control. The teams played consistent and the officiating was consistent. Isn't that what coaches want? Consistency...

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

....so why wouldn't we call a foul when someone accidentally grabs someone's face or neck?

Seems like an oxymoron to me. Accidentally hit a face/neck? Yes, it is possible. Grab someone's face/neck? Must be intentional.

Maybe I am getting caught in semantics but just my opinion if going by literal words.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bucky

Seems like an oxymoron to me. Accidentally hit a face/neck? Yes, it is possible. Grab someone's face/neck? Must be intentional.

Maybe I am getting caught in semantics but just my opinion if going by literal words.

Don't overthink it. Just like in any other situation, on or off the court. You reach out to grab something, miss, and accidentally grab the wrong thing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bucky

Seems like an oxymoron to me. Accidentally hit a face/neck? Yes, it is possible. Grab someone's face/neck? Must be intentional.

Maybe I am getting caught in semantics but just my opinion if going by literal words.

So is every hold an intentional foul?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Adam

So is every hold an intentional foul?

Yes, presuming by "hold" you mean involving a grab.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

So is every hold an intentional foul?

Originally Posted by bucky

Yes, presuming by "hold" you mean involving a grab.

You really believe every hold is intentional? So every time you blow your whistle for a hold you rule it an intentional foul?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You really believe every hold is intentional? So every time you blow your whistle for a hold you rule it an intentional foul?

If the hold involved a grab, then yes.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bucky

If the hold involved a grab, then yes.

Instead of a graphic i'll just type it out

facepalm

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bucky

If the hold involved a grab, then yes.

What's the difference between a hold and a grab? It seems you're trying to make a distinction here.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

Instead of a graphic i'll just type it out

facepalm

You're too kind.

[IncorrectCall]

Originally Posted by bucky

If the hold involved a grab, then yes.

These are different things?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Adam

What's the difference between a hold and a grab? It seems you're trying to make a distinction here.

That is what I was thinking about your line of questioning, that you are trying to make some distinction. Not sure where you are going with it.

Anyway...

Yes, there is a distinction imo. I grab is a conscious closing of the hand around something, like a wrist, jersey, etc. It can't be accidental. Are all holds grabs? No. Are all grabs hold? Yes. Some holds are too difficult to consider intentional. If someone grabs a jersey though, then it seems obvious, not only what they were doing, but also there intent. Looks as if it comes down to semantics again. Shocker.

Just my opinion.