I understand, so can you define "marginal" contact in this context? Is it simply contact that isn't obviously incidental or a foul?

when a play happens and there is contact, you have to determine whether to call a foul or not. the second you blow your whistle - by definition - you have "contact that warrants a foul". IF you do not consider it a foul, then you have determined that the contact was marginal.

you are probably asking: "where does 'incidental' contact occur?"

the answer is simple...contact between players that are not involved in the play or any basketball action is "incidental" contact. there are plenty of examples:
while setting up the offensive play, A1 runs to a spot on the floor & brushes B4.
A2 bumps into B5 while running up the floor after a made basket.
while on defense, B3 touches A3 on the weak side to determine A3's position.
A2, realizing that A5 is in the wrong offensive position, pushes A5 out of the way and into B5.
(ALL of these occur between players that are NOT involved in the play and are NOT considered a basketball move).

To me marginal contact is when I have to wait to determine a foul or not based on the result. You know there is contact, but you are not sure if it will create some kind of advantage.

Peace

I think we can all agree that, routinely, there is contact in the game of basketball (why it's called a "non-contact sport" i'm not sure...). The average official (and average fan, for that matter) can quite easily call the obvious fouls. The best officials, whether NBA, College, or High School, have the ability to determine/judge whether contact falls into the "marginal" or "contact that warrants a foul" categories.

This incidental/marginal/ctc-that-warrants-a-foul type of philosophy is different from the decades-old Tower philosophy of "advantage/disadvantage". The pendulum is swinging away from advantage/disadvantage toward the incdntl/mrgnl/CTWAF (the NBA has moved to it in the last couple of years; college is moving towards it now; and HS will soon see this shift as well).

IMHO...marginal contact is: contact that does not interrupt or interfere with the Rythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness (RSBQ) of an opponent.

It is not predicated on the outcome of the play (i.e. missed shot), it is determined solely on the RSBQ method.

Advantage/Disadvantage has lead to a more physical game that restricts player movement. Allowing players freedom of movement ensures that players with different skills sets, teams with varying styles, and coaches with different philosophies can be equally protected under the rules of the game.

I see your point, but to me, interfering with RSBQ is advantage; so if someone is applying A/D and allowing that sort of contact, he's not applying it properly.

Your definition of marginal above is identical to the definition of incidental IMO.

Hand to eye, or eye to hand. Foul, no foul.

Sigh......:rolleyes:

When in doubt, forget the silly-monkey camp-speak and simply use the rules....

1) NFHS rule 4-19-1-"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live....."
2) NFHS rule 4-27- "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a personal foul."

That's the ONLY 2 types of contact there are by rule.

Paralysis through analysis!

I disagree. I think philosophies are the staple of officiating or doing anything. All rules tell you are what things are defined. They do not tell you how to come to those conclusions. If you do not want to use a philosophy than so be it. But all rules have a philosophy. Every single one. If they didn't then we would not say some need to be called and others do not need to be called unless 1, 2, or 3 happens. Which is why some officials will give a flagrant foul for the use of the "F-word" and others will do nothing under the right circumstances. It is really whatever works for an individual to decide how to use their judgment. Camp speak or not, all sports and all rules have some sort of philosophy associated with them, they just do. Which is why Nevada wants to throw officials out of officiating for not noticing the kind of ball that is being used and others will see it as an honest mistake. :D

Peace

The basic officiating philosophy always has been that there is illegal contact and incidental, legal contact. That's it. Simple philosophy! It's up to us to determine which is which. Anything beyond that does nothing but cause confusion.

Again, paralysis through analysis.

#2 doesn't exist. You either have a foul or you don't. Dem's the only 2 choices you have.

That only applies if you cannot do the job because you are worried about what to do. Illegal contact involves a great deal of judgment. So does incidental contact. People use philosophies to determine how to be consistent.

Peace

Yup, I agree. You have to judge whether the contact was illegal or incidental. It's gotta be one or the other. And that is exactly what I've been saying. :)

Which is precisely what I was thinking; anything that's not obviously one or the other.

And don't you subsequently then have to make a decision as to whether that contact was incidental or illegal? Or are you going to leave it as being marginal? If so, please tell me exactly how you plan on doing that...because I sureashell don't know how you can.