Can Refs Help Improve Youth Play (Videos)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

We may be dealing with semantics issue here.

But if a player violates the legal guarding position and cylinder rules and creates contact, that by definition would be illegal contact. We need to judge whether that illegal contact was incidental or impacts the play. Just as all touches are not fouls, the touching does violate the rules in regards to their cylinders.

As i said we may be parsing semantics here, I think we are advocating the same thing. If you break a rule in making contact that is illegal, if we judge that contact to be sufficient to warrant a foul we call it. Saying it wasn't illegal contact would indicate a rule/guideline was not violated. The action is either within the rules or without, fouls are determined based on rules and application of the Tower Principle. Deciding contact was incidental doesn't make the action within the rules, just acceptable based on our judgement of advantage disadvantage.

ie. Why they went to 4 automatics. These types of illegal contact were being based on as incidental, now the illegal action = foul automatically.

no, contact is illegal or incidental. Incidental contact is never illegal. They went to the four automatics because too many were ruling the contact incidental/legal.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

no, contact is illegal or incidental. Incidental contact is never illegal. They went to the four automatics because too many were ruling the contact incidental/legal.

I think we are just dealing with semantics here. Illegal = contrary to the rules.


Contact is judged as illegal based on rule and tower principle by us calling fouls, contact can violate the rules but be deemed incidental based on principles.

By definition of the word illegal, though the second an action is contrary to the statues/laws or contrary to rules and regulations it is illegal.

Splitting hairs at this point.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I think we are just dealing with semantics here. Illegal = contrary to the rules.


Contact is judged as illegal based on rule and tower principle by us calling fouls, contact can violate the rules but be deemed incidental based on principles.

By definition of the word illegal, though the second an action is contrary to the statues/laws or contrary to rules and regulations it is illegal.

Splitting hairs at this point.

Not really. If choose to not call a foul, you have determined that the play was LEGAL in the context of the entire set of rules....including the advantage/disadvantage/incidental elements. The action could have been illegal if it had an effect on the play (RSBQ, for example) but if it doesn't, then it is not illegal.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not really. If choose to not call a foul, you have determined that the play was LEGAL in the context of the entire set of rules....including the advantage/disadvantage/incidental elements. The action could have been illegal if it had an effect on the play (RSBQ, for example) but if it doesn't, then it is not illegal.

A) I get that. I guess my point was that in the context of the OP is that the term illegal by definition is contrary to the rules/regulations.

Since the average person is not going to clinics or reading the interps, but at the very best reading or hearing a rule from the book at the worst getting 2nd or 3rd hand myths. In the case of the OP the actions of the opposing team go against the rules as written in the section on fouling. However the determination of whether a foul is called has many more factors then are listed word for word in just one section of the rule book. So someone who has a limited or literal understanding of the rule is watching something they could quite literally argue as illegal.

B) I don't think I'm ever determing incidental contact was "legal" just passing on it. I think a better analogy might be to compare it to actual legal situations where someone is speeding but only by a couple of MPH's or a criminal does something but because of lack of evidence they don't get prosecuted. THis doesn't mean they didn't do something illegal it means that they weren't charged, fined or prosecuted. In regards to the OP this is more inline with the coaches complaint and issues then trying to explain how an action is legal this time but not legal that time.