Tue Mar 01, 2005, 05:10pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
that kinda implies to me that force had to be applied to the ball to get it to do those little tricks--stop it first and then give it a complete change of direction. Simply touching the ball would also affect it-even minutely- by applying a l'il bit of friction, wouldn't it? Isn't the over-all effect to actually control the ball with the foot, no matter what?
|
We're just talking semantics, now, b/c I totally agree that the original play is illegal. The spirit of the rule is to prevent a player from using his/her feet to play the ball.
And on top of that, the word "strike" doesn't even appear in the kick rule, except in a note that mentions "unintentionally striking" the ball.
Having said all that, applying a force is not striking. Pushing a shopping cart is applying a force, but that doesn't mean you're striking the shopping cart. Preventing a seated person from rising is applying a force, but is not striking that person.
|
So.......you're saying that the wording used by the FED in R4-29 is inaccurate, in that the only action covered in the rule is the act of "striking". What do you propose as an alternative to that egregious mis-use of the language by the FED?
|
The vast majority of the time we see the kick and the ball flying, thus the word striking.
It should read intentionally CONTACTING the ball with the leg or foot.
|