after patient whistle

[Tio]

I agree with other posters that the first bump would be considered marginal contact and should be a no call.

Coaches at the High School & Collegiate level don't understand the idea of "habitual shooting motion." Part of the reason why they don't understand is that even at the top levels of NCAA basketball, we see play after play where shooting fouls are blown on the floor by respected veteran officials.

We are starting to see the new wave of NCAA basketball leadership (John Adams, Dave Libbey) being vocal about recognizing when the habitual motion begins, so I expect all of us to get better in this regard and in turn gain buy-in from the coaches.

The key to it all is a patient whistle. If you blow too early, you risk marginal and-ones that can screw up the flow of your game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

I agree with other posters that the first bump would be considered marginal contact and should be a no call.

"marginal" should be restated as "incidental."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"marginal" should be restated as "incidental."

+1

Too much confusion is created if used in that context. Marginal contact may or may not be a foul, by rule. Severe contact may or may not be a foul, by rule. Incidental contact is never a foul, by rule. And of course, illegal contact is always a foul, by rule.

What an official has to determine is whether the contact should be deemed either "incidental" or "illegal".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Too much confusion is created if used in that context. Marginal contact may or may not be a foul, by rule. Severe contact may or may not be a foul, by rule. Incidental contact is never a foul, by rule. And of course, illegal contact is always a foul, by rule.

Substantively, I agree, but the reason is that the rules define 'incidental' but not 'marginal'.

If 'marginal' means 'incidental', then we don't need the word 'marginal'. If it means something else, then it's not going to mark the distinction between legal and illegal contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If 'marginal' means 'incidental', then we don't need the word 'marginal'. If it means something else, then it's not going to mark the distinction between legal and illegal contact.

And therein lies the rub....whatever the hell that means....I've never seen a rub lie...or lay for that matter...but I digress....

We really don't need the words "marginal" OR "severe" when it comes to defining contact. The contact is either a foul or it is not a foul. That's why all we need is the adjectives "incidental" and "illegal".

Incidental contact isn't a foul. Illegal contact is a foul.

KISS.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Substantively, I agree, but the reason is that the rules define 'incidental' but not 'marginal'.

If 'marginal' means 'incidental', then we don't need the word 'marginal'. If it means something else, then it's not going to mark the distinction between legal and illegal contact.

Marginal in the context I have heard it (always in camp coming from the mouths of conference supervisors and/or D1 officials) is "contact not worthy of a foul call".

So it's not exactly a technical term, just the "in" term in some regions to assess whether or not a foul should have been called.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Marginal in the context I have heard it (always in camp coming from the mouths of conference supervisors and/or D1 officials) is "contact not worthy of a foul call".

So it's not exactly a technical term, just the "in" term in some regions to assess whether or not a foul should have been called.

I think it's like "on the floor." In context, it generally means "incidental" and the thought process is correct. However, it gives the impression that the foul is determined by the severity of the contact.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"marginal" should be restated as "incidental."

So what if an opponents teammate pushes him into an airborne shooter? its "incidental" according to definition?? but the contact is not marginal, so......

Whether its an incident or an accident, illegal contact is illegal contact. I can jump non vertical and see that i'm illegal and draw my hands back in a "im not trying to foul" manner but that doesn't forgo the fact that my trajectory is still illegal, incident or not.

I think we get to hung up on marginal and incidental. If you use either I know what you mean, as does everyone else. I was just trying to make a point with the above. No offense

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So what if an opponents teammate pushes him into an airborne shooter? its "incidental" according to definition?? but the contact is not marginal, so......

Whether its an incident or an accident, illegal contact is illegal contact. I can jump non vertical and see that i'm illegal and draw my hands back in a "im not trying to foul" manner but that doesn't forgo the fact that my trajectory is still illegal, incident or not.

I think we get to hung up on marginal and incidental. If you use either I know what you mean, as does everyone else. I was just trying to make a point with the above. No offense

Since no one mentioned "accidental" until now, I'm assuming you're confusing the definition of "incidental." "Accidental" is not the same thing as "incidental." One is defined in the rules, and the other isn't even used. I don't give a crap about accidental here, and neither do the rules.

The point is, "incidental" contact is not illegal. "Marginal" contact can be illegal, and severe contact can be incidental.

Here is your list of antonyms for purposes of this thread:
1. incidental - illegal
2. accidental - intentional
3. marginal - severe

Each word is only mutually exclusive with its antonym, its relationship to the others is not absolute.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here is your list of antonyms for purposes of this thread:
1. incidental - illegal
2. accidental - intentional
3. marginal - severe

Each word is only mutually exclusive with its antonym, its relationship to the others is not absolute.

Wait, what?