Took two tries to answer a question...

[BatteryPowered]

If I am not mistaken, under the NFHS rules for it to be considered a kick it has to be intentional. I don't consider a ball that hits the feet of a player sitting on the court...after it hits the back of the foot of a player running away from the player on the floor...to be an intentional act.

I just used the term "control" because he did and it made the explanation quick (as I suspected it would). I am assuming he thought it was a kick because from his angle it looked like she controlled the ball with her feet (i.e. held it between them). It would be really hard to "accidently" gain control of the ball. At some point the actions of the player on the floor would have to become intentional in nature.

If my OP confused you, I apologize.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

If I am not mistaken, under the NFHS rules for it to be considered a kick it has to be intentional. I don't consider a ball that hits the feet of a player sitting on the court...after it hits the back of the foot of a player running away from the player on the floor...to be an intentional act.

That's all correct. It has nothing to do with "control."

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's all correct. It has nothing to do with "control."

I know that...you know that...99% of officials know that...

Never mind...moving on.

[so cal lurker]

FWIW: When you use the wrong language because the coach did, you help perpetuate myths. Your answer (the ball moving) doesn't mean anything in terms of whether there was a kicking violation -- if she intentionally moved the ball with her leg to make it easier to get her hands on it (a common action) it would be a violation. IMO, you would have been far better off answering: "Coach, from my angle she never intentionally used her foot or leg on the ball."