Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Agree with this completely - which is likely what happened in the OP.