Poke in eye- Temple v Gtown
 

Just watched this happen- Temple's Fernandez gets ball in backcourt and Gtown defender moves with Fernandez but apparently pokes him in the eye. Fernandez stops dribble, holds the ball and bends over and covers his eye. No foul called- play stopped to tend to Fernandez, who stays in game (I think) and we continue play...

ESPN commented (Mr. Bilas) that it was inadvertent, therefore no foul.

What's the rule in NCAA-M?

What's the rule in NFHS? (I think foul all the way).

Poking someone in the eye is not automatically a foul at any level. So I do not know why you say it is a foul definetly at the NF level? It depends on why a person was poked in the eye which would make it a foul or not. And do not think for a second players do not or have not faked poked in the eye before.

Peace

Can you expand on your view on this? While I agree that players have faked being poked in the eye before, if I am sure that I see someone get poked I have a foul in NF regardless of "why" they were poked. I'm just curious as to the distinction that you are making when you say it depends on why they were poked in the eye? Are you implying if you judge it to be accidental you have no foul? I suppose if I judge it to be intentional (???) I could have an intentional or potentially flagrant foul, but I guess I don't see where the "why" matters here?

That is nice, but I am trying to figure out what this has to do with the code? The rules are the exact same. There is not a single difference in this area. Actually there are more rules for elbows to the head and neck area at the NCAA level that the NF does not have.

A player is standing in the vertical space of another player with the ball and the player with the ball tries to move and pokes the guy in the eye with the ball or a finger. You are calling a foul on the player defending the ball carrier? Do you have a rule that supports that?

No, I am saying that all contact is not a foul. And I have seen players get hit in the face and they were violating the rules and the person that hit them was in a legal position.

Peace

Another reason a poke in the eye is often not called a foul, is simply because it often is not seen. Why? Simple, because we have no reason to be looking in the ballhandler's eye. We often see a violent reaction to the poke without seeing the actual contact. Difficult to call a foul in that case.

The fact that contact is inadvertent does not mean it isn't a foul.

Accidental isn't always incidental.

I totally agree with that. But to say that a foul should be called or has to be called for simply an eye poke without context or some explanation is silly. And when someone tries to put the issue to what should be called at the college level and the high school level is even sillier than the first statement. There are no "automatic" foul rules for an eye poke at any level that I am aware of. Just like I had a kid recently going for the ball get a ball kicked back into his face and it made his nose bleed. Should I have called a foul because a player accidental touched his foot with the ball and it hit another player?

Peace

Who said that?

But, for example: A1 is guarded by B1. A1 makes a move and blows by. B1 makes a swipe and cleanly knocks the ball loose down low, but on the way down pokes A1 in the eye. A1 doubles over and grabs his eye as B1 starts in the other direction after the ball. Is this a foul?

yes

Did you read the OP? I am not reading anything that said the defender did anything illegal. Your play is much more descriptive.

Peace

I agree from the OP it is impossible to tell if there was a foul or not. I'm merely speculating that it could have been one of those where the contact was not seen, only the reaction.

As for my play, the play on the ball was a good one, but it was accompanied by "inadvertent" contact with the eye. With all due respect to Mr. Bilas,:rolleyes: this is still a foul.

He is a commentator, we know he is often wrong. :D

Peace

Yup, one of the toughest calls to make and easy to miss. The good thing is that most good coaches realize it is an easy one for us to miss and don't b!tch too much.

I was wondering if there is a specific rule to cover this in NCAA-M. I understand that there can be situations where you can have a foul or no foul at either level. I think it's absolutely a HTBT situation. In the Temple game, it was a backcourt situation where the new T was right with the ballhandler and the defender.

I indicated that I think it's a foul in NFHS because, accidental or not, it places the offensive player at a disadvantage. If he is able to continue the possession, I probably have nothing. But if he doubles over, stops the dribble and covers his eye, or falls to the ground in pain, or loses the ball, I think I have an advantage/disadvantage situation (unless I am clear he is faking)

Z

Agreed, this is why I'm saying that the "why" doesn't matter to me - if he did it intentionally or unintentionally I still have a foul. My guess without seeing the play is that the covering official didn't see it and therefore correctly didn't call it...

I would go with 4-19 since an eye poke is illegal contact which hinders an opponent from performing normal offensive & defensive movements.

I think I see your point - by asking "why" you are asking why did the play happen, ie why were the players where they were, who had legal position, etc. correct? Agree in your example above if a player is in the vertical space of another and gets himself poked in the eye, if anything I've got a foul on the defense or more likely a no call depending on the advantage gained. This is different than trying to judge the intent which is what I thought you were asking originally with "why".

Intentionality (the "why") may not matter, but the "how" certainly can. Typically, it's a foul if you see it. But it's possible it wouldn't be a foul.

Bottom line for me, though, is there's no way I'm calling this if I don't see it. Do players fake it now? Probably not, but if you start making this an automatic call based on the reaction of the players, I wouldn't be surprised to see the faking begin.

Agree with this completely - which is likely what happened in the OP.

Sometimes it is obvious that the poke was not inadvertent.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Q...yePoke.jpg&t=1

Can't believe Billy let this one slide.

All I am saying is there is no rule for specifically poking someone in the eye at that level or any level.

You do what a lot of people do. You see something on TV and assume that at the high school level the rule is automatically different. My point to you it is not. The rules are the same. If you see someone hit someone in the face, it is a foul as long as the contact is illegal. And I can think of all kinds of situations where someone would get poked in the eye and it would not be a foul. You are assuming that the person that gets poked in the eye is in a legal position which it is possible they might not be. That is really all I am saying. So this is why when you see it, call it appropriately do not default to a player just hunching over and say it must have happen. And yes I have seen players fake this injury when it could not be possible to be hit in the face. I did not say it was a smart thing to do, just have seen it happen.

Peace

So you are going to call a foul, simply because a player was poked in the eye and not consider other rules like verticality or some other contact that might have taken first?

I am not talking about intent and never did. I just think you should consider the play at hand and not the result rather than the why. Now usually if you were to see this it is likely a foul, but not just because it happen.

Peace

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

of course, the key word I included above is: "observe". it is very difficult to justify calling a foul that you did not observe/see. after the play happens it may be easy to see that contact occurred (blood, visible marks, etc); but you cannot then call a foul :30 seconds after the play is whistled dead because a player has fallen to the floor. the minute you describe a play where you have observed a player getting hit/poked/scratched/etc...you've changed the situation completely.

as described in the OP, I would say this contact falls into the "incidental" contact category and I would simply resume play (with or without a sub based on the circumstances).

Assuming you see the contact, how in the world are you declaring the play in the OP to be incidental? By what reasoning?

I cannot speak for Jeff, but I can speak for me (I know that sounds weird). I did not read anything that says the contact was illegal. All we know is a player falls over as if he is hit in the eye or face and play is stopped. I did not read that someone reached for the ball and was hit in the face based on that action alone. Again, I did not see the play so I cannot say for sure.

Peace

And that's my point,you don't really know from the OP; but Jeff is stating he considers it incidental. Like you, I can foresee situations where an eye poke would be incidental, but they are uncommon in comparison.

From the OP, it's entirely possible that the defender's hands were within his space while the dribbler was leading with his face. It's also entirely possible that the defender swiped at the ball and got eyeball instead.

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

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.

I would suspect it were intentional if the G'town player were:
1. Moe
2. Horace Broadnax

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

if you're assuming that I saw the contact...then I would rule that this is "contact that warrants a foul".

if you're going to assume that I did not see the contact...then I would not rule this to be a foul.

Advantage disadvantage is all that really needs to be said. THAT said, if I don't see poke, no call.

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

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).

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Sigh......:rolleyes:

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. :D

Peace

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.

#2 doesn't exist. You either have a foul or you don't. Dem's the only 2 choices you have.

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

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. :)

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.

That was my next thought, left unsaid. There's no point in even stopping to call it marginal, as you still have to go on to determine whether its incidental. All it means is it might take me a second to gather all the necessary information and process it.

If that lobotomy goes through, it might take me longer.

Naw, it'll be quicker. Then you won't think about it as much.:D

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?

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.

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.

see dictionary.com:
MARGINAL:
3. at the outer or lower limits; minimal for requirements; almost insufficient: marginal subsistence; marginal ability.
Marginal | Define Marginal at Dictionary.com

INCIDENTAL:
1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.
Incidental | Define Incidental at Dictionary.com

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.

Got Home Too Late From Last Night's Game ...
 

Hey? Why post photos of Three Stooges impersonators, when you can post the real thing.

http://www.youtube.com/v/ScGPRsHSkaE&autoplay=1

Note to Mark Padgett: You're welcome.

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.

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.

You are wise beyond your years.

The 2 choices are that simple. What isn't simple is deciding between Door #1 and Door #2 in some cases.

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.

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?

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

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.