Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[26 Year Gap]

I would suspect it were intentional if the G'town player were:
1. Moe
2. Horace Broadnax

[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 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.

[fullor30]

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