Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

And don't you subsequently then have to make a decision as to whether that contact was incidental or illegal? Or are you going to leave it as being marginal? If so, please tell me exactly how you plan on doing that...because I sureashell don't know how you can.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Hand to eye, or eye to hand. Foul, no foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Sigh......

When in doubt, forget the silly-monkey camp-speak and simply use the rules....

1) NFHS rule 4-19-1-"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live....."
2) NFHS rule 4-27- "Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a personal foul."

That's the ONLY 2 types of contact there are by rule.

Paralysis through analysis!

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

the problem with employing the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy is that you're looking at the result of the play - i.e. contact during a shot, wait for the result of the shot to take place, then whistle the foul.

advantage/disadvantage allows for restiction of player movement and is only penalized if that restriction puts an opponent at a disadvantage. instead of waiting for the negative result of the play, it is the restriction of player movement itself that is the foul in RSBQ.