Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[zeedonk]

Just watched this happen- Temple's Fernandez gets ball in backcourt and Gtown defender moves with Fernandez but apparently pokes him in the eye. Fernandez stops dribble, holds the ball and bends over and covers his eye. No foul called- play stopped to tend to Fernandez, who stays in game (I think) and we continue play...

ESPN commented (Mr. Bilas) that it was inadvertent, therefore no foul.

What's the rule in NCAA-M?

What's the rule in NFHS? (I think foul all the way).

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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...

[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".

[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.