Agree with this completely - which is likely what happened in the OP.

Sometimes it is obvious that the poke was not inadvertent.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Q...yePoke.jpg&t=1

Can't believe Billy let this one slide.

All I am saying is there is no rule for specifically poking someone in the eye at that level or any level.

You do what a lot of people do. You see something on TV and assume that at the high school level the rule is automatically different. My point to you it is not. The rules are the same. If you see someone hit someone in the face, it is a foul as long as the contact is illegal. And I can think of all kinds of situations where someone would get poked in the eye and it would not be a foul. You are assuming that the person that gets poked in the eye is in a legal position which it is possible they might not be. That is really all I am saying. So this is why when you see it, call it appropriately do not default to a player just hunching over and say it must have happen. And yes I have seen players fake this injury when it could not be possible to be hit in the face. I did not say it was a smart thing to do, just have seen it happen.

Peace

So you are going to call a foul, simply because a player was poked in the eye and not consider other rules like verticality or some other contact that might have taken first?

I am not talking about intent and never did. I just think you should consider the play at hand and not the result rather than the why. Now usually if you were to see this it is likely a foul, but not just because it happen.

Peace

when an official observes contact, he/she needs to determine which category the contact falls into:
1) incidental
2) marginal
3) contact that warrants a foul

of course, the key word I included above is: "observe". it is very difficult to justify calling a foul that you did not observe/see. after the play happens it may be easy to see that contact occurred (blood, visible marks, etc); but you cannot then call a foul :30 seconds after the play is whistled dead because a player has fallen to the floor. the minute you describe a play where you have observed a player getting hit/poked/scratched/etc...you've changed the situation completely.

as described in the OP, I would say this contact falls into the "incidental" contact category and I would simply resume play (with or without a sub based on the circumstances).

Assuming you see the contact, how in the world are you declaring the play in the OP to be incidental? By what reasoning?

I cannot speak for Jeff, but I can speak for me (I know that sounds weird). I did not read anything that says the contact was illegal. All we know is a player falls over as if he is hit in the eye or face and play is stopped. I did not read that someone reached for the ball and was hit in the face based on that action alone. Again, I did not see the play so I cannot say for sure.

Peace

And that's my point,you don't really know from the OP; but Jeff is stating he considers it incidental. Like you, I can foresee situations where an eye poke would be incidental, but they are uncommon in comparison.

From the OP, it's entirely possible that the defender's hands were within his space while the dribbler was leading with his face. It's also entirely possible that the defender swiped at the ball and got eyeball instead.

As we've discussed here before, there are only 2 categories here, not three. Some marginal contact is incidental, and some is a foul. Those are the only 2 options relevant to calling a play.

But you can always consider marginal contact to be a foul and not be a foul. So that is why it is a third category. This is where your judgment comes into play on a higher level. Marginal contact can be a foul if it puts a player at a disadvantage.

Peace

His point is that with "marginal" contact, you're still making a determination of whether it's incidental or a foul. Those are the only two categories that matter. Those are the only two that are defined.

I would suspect it were intentional if the G'town player were:
1. Moe
2. Horace Broadnax

Look at it anyway you want to look at it. I am just saying that becasue it does not fit your thinking does not mean others do not apply those standards. I have heard these three things mentioned at camps and by very experienced officials. If you do not want to use it, then don't. This is a philosophy, not anything in stone.

Peace

if you're assuming that I saw the contact...then I would rule that this is "contact that warrants a foul".

if you're going to assume that I did not see the contact...then I would not rule this to be a foul.

Advantage disadvantage is all that really needs to be said. THAT said, if I don't see poke, no call.