Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

He is a commentator, we know he is often wrong.

Peace

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Agreed, this is why I'm saying that the "why" doesn't matter to me - if he did it intentionally or unintentionally I still have a foul. My guess without seeing the play is that the covering official didn't see it and therefore correctly didn't call it...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Agreed, this is why I'm saying that the "why" doesn't matter to me - if he did it intentionally or unintentionally I still have a foul. My guess without seeing the play is that the covering official didn't see it and therefore correctly didn't call it...

Intentionality (the "why") may not matter, but the "how" certainly can. Typically, it's a foul if you see it. But it's possible it wouldn't be a foul.

Bottom line for me, though, is there's no way I'm calling this if I don't see it. Do players fake it now? Probably not, but if you start making this an automatic call based on the reaction of the players, I wouldn't be surprised to see the faking begin.

[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