Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I understand, so can you define "marginal" contact in this context? Is it simply contact that isn't obviously incidental or a foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I understand, so can you define "marginal" contact in this context? Is it simply contact that isn't obviously incidental or a foul?

To me marginal contact is when I have to wait to determine a foul or not based on the result. You know there is contact, but you are not sure if it will create some kind of advantage.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To me marginal contact is when I have to wait to determine a foul or not based on the result. You know there is contact, but you are not sure if it will create some kind of advantage.

Peace

Which is precisely what I was thinking; anything that's not obviously one or the other.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I understand, so can you define "marginal" contact in this context? Is it simply contact that isn't obviously incidental or a foul?

IMHO...marginal contact is: contact that does not interrupt or interfere with the Rythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness (RSBQ) of an opponent.

It is not predicated on the outcome of the play (i.e. missed shot), it is determined solely on the RSBQ method.

Advantage/Disadvantage has lead to a more physical game that restricts player movement. Allowing players freedom of movement ensures that players with different skills sets, teams with varying styles, and coaches with different philosophies can be equally protected under the rules of the game.

[Adam]

I see your point, but to me, interfering with RSBQ is advantage; so if someone is applying A/D and allowing that sort of contact, he's not applying it properly.

Your definition of marginal above is identical to the definition of incidental IMO.

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

I do not presume to speak for mbyron, but I would think the point is this. The term no call is simple enough, and is the end of the story. To describe contact as marginal, on the other hand really tells us nothing, in and of itself. Marginal contact may result in either a foul or a no call. As JR said earlier, the choices are simple. Doing the choosing is the hard part.