Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown

[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.