Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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

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.

ok, since I have not been able to explain it to your simplistic satisfaction, let me try a different semantic approach:

incidental = contact not even close to being considered a foul
marginal = close, but not cigar
contact that warrants a foul = yup. that crossed the line.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

ok, since I have not been able to explain it to your simplistic satisfaction, let me try a different semantic approach:

incidental = contact not even close to being considered a foul
marginal = close, but not cigar
contact that warrants a foul = yup. that crossed the line.

And I think all Snaqs and JR were saying was there are 2 simple choices to be made on contact:

Yep, foul.

Nope, not a foul.

In your descriptions, incidental and marginal fall in the same category of "Nope". I think that's what confuses some of the newbies is some of this terminology. I know if someone says "marginal" to me, it means a descriptive term that could be a foul in some cases, and not in others. But bottom line, it still only comes down to "Yep" or "Nope".

Yea, it sounds simplistic, and we all know there are a lot of gray ares when it comes to judging contact. But sometimes breaking things down to the basics can help with the more difficult decisions down the road.

[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.