Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh......

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!

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?

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Can't believe Billy let this one slide.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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?

Originally Posted by mbyron

'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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.