Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Poking someone in the eye is not automatically a foul at any level. So I do not know why you say it is a foul definetly at the NF level? It depends on why a person was poked in the eye which would make it a foul or not. And do not think for a second players do not or have not faked poked in the eye before.

Peace

Can you expand on your view on this? While I agree that players have faked being poked in the eye before, if I am sure that I see someone get poked I have a foul in NF regardless of "why" they were poked. I'm just curious as to the distinction that you are making when you say it depends on why they were poked in the eye? Are you implying if you judge it to be accidental you have no foul? I suppose if I judge it to be intentional (???) I could have an intentional or potentially flagrant foul, but I guess I don't see where the "why" matters here?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Can you expand on your view on this? While I agree that players have faked being poked in the eye before, if I am sure that I see someone get poked I have a foul in NF regardless of "why" they were poked.

That is nice, but I am trying to figure out what this has to do with the code? The rules are the exact same. There is not a single difference in this area. Actually there are more rules for elbows to the head and neck area at the NCAA level that the NF does not have.

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I'm just curious as to the distinction that you are making when you say it depends on why they were poked in the eye?

A player is standing in the vertical space of another player with the ball and the player with the ball tries to move and pokes the guy in the eye with the ball or a finger. You are calling a foul on the player defending the ball carrier? Do you have a rule that supports that?

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Are you implying if you judge it to be accidental you have no foul? I suppose if I judge it to be intentional (???) I could have an intentional or potentially flagrant foul, but I guess I don't see where the "why" matters here?

No, I am saying that all contact is not a foul. And I have seen players get hit in the face and they were violating the rules and the person that hit them was in a legal position.

Peace

[just another ref]

Another reason a poke in the eye is often not called a foul, is simply because it often is not seen. Why? Simple, because we have no reason to be looking in the ballhandler's eye. We often see a violent reaction to the poke without seeing the actual contact. Difficult to call a foul in that case.

The fact that contact is inadvertent does not mean it isn't a foul.

Accidental isn't always incidental.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The fact that contact is inadvertent does not mean it isn't a foul.

Accidental isn't always incidental.

I totally agree with that. But to say that a foul should be called or has to be called for simply an eye poke without context or some explanation is silly. And when someone tries to put the issue to what should be called at the college level and the high school level is even sillier than the first statement. There are no "automatic" foul rules for an eye poke at any level that I am aware of. Just like I had a kid recently going for the ball get a ball kicked back into his face and it made his nose bleed. Should I have called a foul because a player accidental touched his foot with the ball and it hit another player?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But to say that a foul should be called or has to be called for simply an eye poke without context or some explanation is silly.

Who said that?

But, for example: A1 is guarded by B1. A1 makes a move and blows by. B1 makes a swipe and cleanly knocks the ball loose down low, but on the way down pokes A1 in the eye. A1 doubles over and grabs his eye as B1 starts in the other direction after the ball. Is this a foul?

yes

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Who said that?

Did you read the OP? I am not reading anything that said the defender did anything illegal. Your play is much more descriptive.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did you read the OP? I am not reading anything that said the defender did anything illegal. Your play is much more descriptive.

Peace

I agree from the OP it is impossible to tell if there was a foul or not. I'm merely speculating that it could have been one of those where the contact was not seen, only the reaction.

As for my play, the play on the ball was a good one, but it was accompanied by "inadvertent" contact with the eye. With all due respect to Mr. Bilas, this is still a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Another reason a poke in the eye is often not called a foul, is simply because it often is not seen.

Yup, one of the toughest calls to make and easy to miss. The good thing is that most good coaches realize it is an easy one for us to miss and don't b!tch too much.

[zeedonk]

I was wondering if there is a specific rule to cover this in NCAA-M. I understand that there can be situations where you can have a foul or no foul at either level. I think it's absolutely a HTBT situation. In the Temple game, it was a backcourt situation where the new T was right with the ballhandler and the defender.

I indicated that I think it's a foul in NFHS because, accidental or not, it places the offensive player at a disadvantage. If he is able to continue the possession, I probably have nothing. But if he doubles over, stops the dribble and covers his eye, or falls to the ground in pain, or loses the ball, I think I have an advantage/disadvantage situation (unless I am clear he is faking)

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

I was wondering if there is a specific rule to cover this in NCAA-M. I understand that there can be situations where you can have a foul or no foul at either level. I think it's absolutely a HTBT situation. In the Temple game, it was a backcourt situation where the new T was right with the ballhandler and the defender.

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

Originally Posted by zeedonk

I indicated that I think it's a foul in NFHS because, accidental or not, it places the offensive player at a disadvantage. If he is able to continue the possession, I probably have nothing. But if he doubles over, stops the dribble and covers his eye, or falls to the ground in pain, or loses the ball, I think I have an advantage/disadvantage situation (unless I am clear he is faking)

Z

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

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is nice, but I am trying to figure out what this has to do with the code? The rules are the exact same. There is not a single difference in this area. Actually there are more rules for elbows to the head and neck area at the NCAA level that the NF does not have.



A player is standing in the vertical space of another player with the ball and the player with the ball tries to move and pokes the guy in the eye with the ball or a finger. You are calling a foul on the player defending the ball carrier? Do you have a rule that supports that?



No, I am saying that all contact is not a foul. And I have seen players get hit in the face and they were violating the rules and the person that hit them was in a legal position.

Peace

I would go with 4-19 since an eye poke is illegal contact which hinders an opponent from performing normal offensive & defensive movements.

I think I see your point - by asking "why" you are asking why did the play happen, ie why were the players where they were, who had legal position, etc. correct? Agree in your example above if a player is in the vertical space of another and gets himself poked in the eye, if anything I've got a foul on the defense or more likely a no call depending on the advantage gained. This is different than trying to judge the intent which is what I thought you were asking originally with "why".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I would go with 4-19 since an eye poke is illegal contact which hinders an opponent from performing normal offensive & defensive movements.

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?

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I think I see your point - by asking "why" you are asking why did the play happen, ie why were the players where they were, who had legal position, etc. correct? Agree in your example above if a player is in the vertical space of another and gets himself poked in the eye, if anything I've got a foul on the defense or more likely a no call depending on the advantage gained. This is different than trying to judge the intent which is what I thought you were asking originally with "why".

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

[jeffpea]

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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