Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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!

I disagree. I think philosophies are the staple of officiating or doing anything. All rules tell you are what things are defined. They do not tell you how to come to those conclusions. If you do not want to use a philosophy than so be it. But all rules have a philosophy. Every single one. If they didn't then we would not say some need to be called and others do not need to be called unless 1, 2, or 3 happens. Which is why some officials will give a flagrant foul for the use of the "F-word" and others will do nothing under the right circumstances. It is really whatever works for an individual to decide how to use their judgment. Camp speak or not, all sports and all rules have some sort of philosophy associated with them, they just do. Which is why Nevada wants to throw officials out of officiating for not noticing the kind of ball that is being used and others will see it as an honest mistake.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

The basic officiating philosophy always has been that there is illegal contact and incidental, legal contact. That's it. Simple philosophy! It's up to us to determine which is which. Anything beyond that does nothing but cause confusion.

Again, paralysis through analysis.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The basic officiating philosophy always has been that there is illegal contact and incidental, legal contact. That's it. Simple philosophy! It's up to us to determine which is which. Anything beyond that does nothing but cause confusion.

Again, paralysis through analysis.

That only applies if you cannot do the job because you are worried about what to do. Illegal contact involves a great deal of judgment. So does incidental contact. People use philosophies to determine how to be consistent.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That only applies if you cannot do the job because you are worried about what to do. Illegal contact involves a great deal of judgment. So does incidental contact. People use philosophies to determine how to be consistent.

Yup, I agree. You have to judge whether the contact was illegal or incidental. It's gotta be one or the other. And that is exactly what I've been saying.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The basic officiating philosophy always has been that there is illegal contact and incidental, legal contact. That's it. Simple philosophy! It's up to us to determine which is which. Anything beyond that does nothing but cause confusion.

Again, paralysis through analysis.

like most things in life, very rarely are things only black or white....you are doing yourself a dis-service by missing all the shades of grey that occur.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

like most things in life, very rarely are things only black or white....you are doing yourself a dis-service by missing all the shades of grey that occur.

And you're doing yourself a dis-service imo by refusing to even think about what you're being told.

We have to look at the shades of gray( the shade of gray being the actual contact looked at) and then turn that particular shade of gray into either black or white (with black being a foul and white being incidental contact).

We have to decide whether a particular shade of gray contact is black or white in the real world. There are no other choices. We can't leave it as gray.

Unfortunately, it seems that simply don't have the capability to understand what is actually being said to you.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by 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!

if you are a "strict constructionist" to the NFHS rule book, then WE officials are accurate about 25% of the time during games.

btw, can you help me find were "advantage/disadvantage" is defined and spelled out in the rule book?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

btw, can you help me find were "advantage/disadvantage" is defined and spelled out in the rule book?

Look in the "Intent and Purpose Of The Rules" on p7...

"A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by rule."

A basic.

You're welcome.

[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.