Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.

[just another ref]

Sometimes it is obvious that the poke was not inadvertent.



Can't believe Billy let this one slide.

[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.

[fullor30]

Advantage disadvantage is all that really needs to be said. THAT said, if I don't see poke, no call.