Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55
... didn't think it was possible for the offense to commit a kicking violation.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
... why you think spirit of the rule about kicking the ball was intended only for the defense.
|
I don't fully subscribe to the theory (
only for the defense), the interpretation most certainly doesn't come from the NFHS, but I've heard it more than once over my career.
The theory is based on the intent (intentional) part of the definition, and rule.
Unless a player is an expert soccer player, or an expert football kicker, most players would have very little control over an intentional kick, thus, an intentional kick would certainly be an inaccurate, and ineffective, method of passing the ball from an offensive player to a teammate (exception in my post above). Due to the difficulty of doing it accurately, and effectively, offensive players would probably never intentionally choose to pass the ball in such a manner. No intent means no violation. A ball ricocheting off the leg of an offensive player could be considered accidental, not intentional.
Defensive players will intentionally do almost anything to disrupt the offensive plays of the opponent, including intentionally kicking the ball to prevent a pass from being successful. Intent means a violation. A ball ricocheting off the leg of an defensive player should almost always be considered intentional, not accidental.
Don't kill the messenger, I don't fully subscribe to the theory, I'm just repeating what I've heard over the past thirty-five years.