Loose ball kicking of an opponent (Video)

[JRutledge]

Peace

[crosscountry55]

I had a frustration kick like that last year after a common foul caused two players to end up on the floor tangled up. Minimal contact, but the guy did connect. NFHS...I ruled it a flagrant T (false double foul situation) and DQ’d him. Easy justification: punch, kick, etc. are fighting acts.

Frankly in this case I think an argument could be made for F2.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Heck, you could make a case for fighting -- he looked back to see the opponent and then looked the other way to see what happened.

[Nevadaref]

He’s gone.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am going to throw a knuckleball into the discussion.

1) I have a Common Foul (CF) on W3 against G20.

2) W3's CF causes the Ball to become Dead.

3) Therefore, any contact by W3 against G4 after W3's CF against G20 is one of two things: i) NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's: Incidental Contact; or ii) NFHS: Flagrant Technical Foul (TFT), NCAA Men's: Flagrant 2 Technical Foul (F2TF), NCAA Women's: Disqualifying Foul (DF).


While no one has ever accused me of being adverse to labeling the intentional kicking of an opponent Flagrant. Since the Officials did not judge W3's jumping on G20 a PF I would be cautious in considering W3's contact with G4 being anything more that Incidental Contact because the Ball is still Live and W3 is attempting to get his balance and return to his feet. Yes, it did not look good, but in this case, in my humble opinion, this was nothing more than Incidental Contact that looked bad. And remember, I am a Buckeye talking about a player from That School Up North, .

MTD, Sr.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to throw a knuckleball into the discussion.

1) I have a Common Foul (CF) on W3 against G20.

2) W3's CF causes the Ball to become Dead.

3) Therefore, any contact by W3 against G4 after W3's CF against G20 is one of two things: i) NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's: Incidental Contact; or ii) NFHS: Flagrant Technical Foul (TFT), NCAA Men's: Flagrant 2 Technical Foul (F2TF), NCAA Women's: Disqualifying Foul (DF).


While no one has ever accused me of being adverse to labeling the intentional kicking of an opponent Flagrant. Since the Officials did not judge W3's jumping on G20 a PF I would be cautious in considering W3's contact with G4 being anything more that Incidental Contact because the Ball is still Live and W3 is attempting to get his balance and return to his feet. Yes, it did not look good, but in this case, in my humble opinion, this was nothing more than Incidental Contact that looked bad. And remember, I am a Buckeye talking about a player from That School Up North, .

MTD, Sr.

This is a reasonable counterargument, but I still disagree on two points:

1. Ugly as it looks, I don't have a common foul on W3 because this was not a case of "piling on." He ended up on top of G20 due to incidental tangling and loss of balance. To me, in a D1 game, that's not a foul. The officials seemed to agree as they were very patient watching this play out.

2. When I'm attempting to get my balance, I don't wildly scissor-kick into the air. That is not a normal human thing to do. He was frustrated that he ended up on the deck in a pile, and the kick--at the very least--was a childishly immature way to show that frustration. That's ejection-worthy enough for me. Short of that, I think you start to promote what you permit; the F1 ruling sends the message that what is arguably a fight instigator won't cost you an early trip to the locker room and a disciplinary review by your conference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Heck, you could make a case for fighting -- he looked back to see the opponent and then looked the other way to see what happened.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He’s gone.

I think he is lucky that was not considered here. I was thinking the same thing when I saw this the first time.

Peace