Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

And that's my point,you don't really know from the OP; but Jeff is stating he considers it incidental. Like you, I can foresee situations where an eye poke would be incidental, but they are uncommon in comparison.

From the OP, it's entirely possible that the defender's hands were within his space while the dribbler was leading with his face. It's also entirely possible that the defender swiped at the ball and got eyeball instead.

[jeffpea]

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?

if you're assuming that I saw the contact...then I would rule that this is "contact that warrants a foul".

if you're going to assume that I did not see the contact...then I would not rule this to be a foul.

[mbyron]

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

As we've discussed here before, there are only 2 categories here, not three. Some marginal contact is incidental, and some is a foul. Those are the only 2 options relevant to calling a play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As we've discussed here before, there are only 2 categories here, not three. Some marginal contact is incidental, and some is a foul. Those are the only 2 options relevant to calling a play.

But you can always consider marginal contact to be a foul and not be a foul. So that is why it is a third category. This is where your judgment comes into play on a higher level. Marginal contact can be a foul if it puts a player at a disadvantage.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But you can always consider marginal contact to be a foul and not be a foul. So that is why it is a third category. This is where your judgment comes into play on a higher level. Marginal contact can be a foul if it puts a player at a disadvantage.

Peace

His point is that with "marginal" contact, you're still making a determination of whether it's incidental or a foul. Those are the only two categories that matter. Those are the only two that are defined.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

His point is that with "marginal" contact, you're still making a determination of whether it's incidental or a foul. Those are the only two categories that matter. Those are the only two that are defined.

Look at it anyway you want to look at it. I am just saying that becasue it does not fit your thinking does not mean others do not apply those standards. I have heard these three things mentioned at camps and by very experienced officials. If you do not want to use it, then don't. This is a philosophy, not anything in stone.

Peace

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As we've discussed here before, there are only 2 categories here, not three. Some marginal contact is incidental, and some is a foul. Those are the only 2 options relevant to calling a play.

when a play happens and there is contact, you have to determine whether to call a foul or not. the second you blow your whistle - by definition - you have "contact that warrants a foul". IF you do not consider it a foul, then you have determined that the contact was marginal.

you are probably asking: "where does 'incidental' contact occur?"

the answer is simple...contact between players that are not involved in the play or any basketball action is "incidental" contact. there are plenty of examples:
while setting up the offensive play, A1 runs to a spot on the floor & brushes B4.
A2 bumps into B5 while running up the floor after a made basket.
while on defense, B3 touches A3 on the weak side to determine A3's position.
A2, realizing that A5 is in the wrong offensive position, pushes A5 out of the way and into B5.
(ALL of these occur between players that are NOT involved in the play and are NOT considered a basketball move).

[jeffpea]

I think we can all agree that, routinely, there is contact in the game of basketball (why it's called a "non-contact sport" i'm not sure...). The average official (and average fan, for that matter) can quite easily call the obvious fouls. The best officials, whether NBA, College, or High School, have the ability to determine/judge whether contact falls into the "marginal" or "contact that warrants a foul" categories.

This incidental/marginal/ctc-that-warrants-a-foul type of philosophy is different from the decades-old Tower philosophy of "advantage/disadvantage". The pendulum is swinging away from advantage/disadvantage toward the incdntl/mrgnl/CTWAF (the NBA has moved to it in the last couple of years; college is moving towards it now; and HS will soon see this shift as well).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

when a play happens and there is contact, you have to determine whether to call a foul or not. the second you blow your whistle - by definition - you have "contact that warrants a foul". IF you do not consider it a foul, then you have determined that the contact was marginal.

No, sorry, you're wrong by rule. 4-27, Incidental Contact: "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul."

Some incidental contact is marginal, some is severe, as 4-27-2 shows. So the two terms are not synonymous.

The term 'marginal contact' does not appear in the rule book. I know what 'marginal contact' means, and it's not in the book for a reason. Sometimes marginal contact is a foul, as when a little bump disrupts a play. Sometimes it's not a foul, as when a strong player plays through a little bump. That's why 'marginal contact' is not a useful or important category for calling fouls.

'Marginal' contrasts with 'severe', neither of which tells you whether contact is a foul. Contact is either legal or illegal: the former is incidental, the latter is a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The term 'marginal contact' does not appear in the rule book. I know what 'marginal contact' means, and it's not in the book for a reason. Sometimes marginal contact is a foul, as when a little bump disrupts a play. Sometimes it's not a foul, as when a strong player plays through a little bump. That's why 'marginal contact' is not a useful or important category for calling fouls.

Neither does the term "no call" but we use it all the time in many circles. A lot of terms we use in officiating are not in the rulebook. So what is your point?

Originally Posted by mbyron

'Marginal' contrasts with 'severe', neither of which tells you whether contact is a foul. Contact is either legal or illegal: the former is incidental, the latter is a foul.

Well I do not look at it that way and there is not much you are going to do about it. Not sure why this is such a big deal if you do not agree or do not use terms or philosophies to help you call the game.

Peace