That was my next thought, left unsaid. There's no point in even stopping to call it marginal, as you still have to go on to determine whether its incidental. All it means is it might take me a second to gather all the necessary information and process it.

If that lobotomy goes through, it might take me longer.

Naw, it'll be quicker. Then you won't think about it as much.:D

if you are a "strict constructionist" to the NFHS rule book, then WE officials are accurate about 25% of the time during games.

btw, can you help me find were "advantage/disadvantage" is defined and spelled out in the rule book?

the problem with employing the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy is that you're looking at the result of the play - i.e. contact during a shot, wait for the result of the shot to take place, then whistle the foul.

advantage/disadvantage allows for restiction of player movement and is only penalized if that restriction puts an opponent at a disadvantage. instead of waiting for the negative result of the play, it is the restriction of player movement itself that is the foul in RSBQ.

like most things in life, very rarely are things only black or white....you are doing yourself a dis-service by missing all the shades of grey that occur.

see dictionary.com:
MARGINAL:
3. at the outer or lower limits; minimal for requirements; almost insufficient: marginal subsistence; marginal ability.
Marginal | Define Marginal at Dictionary.com

INCIDENTAL:
1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.
Incidental | Define Incidental at Dictionary.com

ok, since I have not been able to explain it to your simplistic satisfaction, let me try a different semantic approach:

incidental = contact not even close to being considered a foul
marginal = close, but not cigar
contact that warrants a foul = yup. that crossed the line.

And I think all Snaqs and JR were saying was there are 2 simple choices to be made on contact:

Yep, foul.

Nope, not a foul.

In your descriptions, incidental and marginal fall in the same category of "Nope". I think that's what confuses some of the newbies is some of this terminology. I know if someone says "marginal" to me, it means a descriptive term that could be a foul in some cases, and not in others. But bottom line, it still only comes down to "Yep" or "Nope".

Yea, it sounds simplistic, and we all know there are a lot of gray ares when it comes to judging contact. But sometimes breaking things down to the basics can help with the more difficult decisions down the road.

Got Home Too Late From Last Night's Game ...
 

Hey? Why post photos of Three Stooges impersonators, when you can post the real thing.

http://www.youtube.com/v/ScGPRsHSkaE&autoplay=1

Note to Mark Padgett: You're welcome.

Look in the "Intent and Purpose Of The Rules" on p7...

"A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by rule."

A basic.

You're welcome.

And you're doing yourself a dis-service imo by refusing to even think about what you're being told.

We have to look at the shades of gray( the shade of gray being the actual contact looked at) and then turn that particular shade of gray into either black or white (with black being a foul and white being incidental contact).

We have to decide whether a particular shade of gray contact is black or white in the real world. There are no other choices. We can't leave it as gray.

Unfortunately, it seems that simply don't have the capability to understand what is actually being said to you.

You are wise beyond your years.

The 2 choices are that simple. What isn't simple is deciding between Door #1 and Door #2 in some cases.

No, sorry, you're wrong by rule. 4-27, Incidental Contact: "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul."

Some incidental contact is marginal, some is severe, as 4-27-2 shows. So the two terms are not synonymous.

The term 'marginal contact' does not appear in the rule book. I know what 'marginal contact' means, and it's not in the book for a reason. Sometimes marginal contact is a foul, as when a little bump disrupts a play. Sometimes it's not a foul, as when a strong player plays through a little bump. That's why 'marginal contact' is not a useful or important category for calling fouls.

'Marginal' contrasts with 'severe', neither of which tells you whether contact is a foul. Contact is either legal or illegal: the former is incidental, the latter is a foul.

Neither does the term "no call" but we use it all the time in many circles. A lot of terms we use in officiating are not in the rulebook. So what is your point?

Well I do not look at it that way and there is not much you are going to do about it. Not sure why this is such a big deal if you do not agree or do not use terms or philosophies to help you call the game. ;)

Peace

I do not presume to speak for mbyron, but I would think the point is this. The term no call is simple enough, and is the end of the story. To describe contact as marginal, on the other hand really tells us nothing, in and of itself. Marginal contact may result in either a foul or a no call. As JR said earlier, the choices are simple. Doing the choosing is the hard part.