Nope. a kicked ball is a <b>deliberate</b> act by a player to either kick the ball or block it's passage with the KoB. If the "deliberate kicking" action ended before the ball hits the KoB, there's nothing that can be called, by rule imo, if the ball then hits the KoB. If the ball hit's the hand first, and then the KoB, that's still one helluva tough call to make if you want to call the violation. If there's even the tiniest doubt in your mind, forget about it! If you are 100% sure that the player was still trying to "kick" the ball after it hit his hand, then make the call.

My most creative call . . . ever.
 

B1 jumps like a jumping jack to deny the pass. A1 throws the ball after the defender has left the ground. B1's legs are on their way back to closed position, in order to land. Ball strikes leg below the knee. (Note that I did not say 'leg strikes ball'.) I do not rule this a kick. A1, w known whiner flow another planet, stands there while B1 takes the ball to the other end and scores . . .

My gut reaction was that the 'intentiona;' part ended when the legs reached full spread. On the other hand, you can make the case that legs both going out and coming in are part of the kick intention, whatever secondary purpose they may have (defense against the evil forces of gravity).

This is un undecidable proposition . . . good 'un!

Re: My most creative call . . . ever.
 

Make that undecidable (not to mention 'intentional' and 'whiner FROM another planet). I have distypsia.

You really need to look why there is this rule. What is the purpose of the intentional striking rule?

I will post my additional thoughts later.

Basketball is played with the hands, not the feet. That's why the rule was put in. Simple as that.

Not a kick, imho, but (a) explan it to the coach and (b) laugh at the fans.

<Font Color= "RED"><B> "AND"<B></Font Color>

No violation in mine either. But it's a completely different situation. There's no intent to block a pass with your leg in this one.

Am I missing something? A kick is an intentional act. A punch is not the only act for which we have to judge intent. Although Chuck, in the original post, did not say the player jumped and stuck out his leg and arms in attempt to block the pass, I assumed he wasn't doing jumping jacks. :) His intent was to block the pass with his arm or leg, and that's exactly what happened. (If he were jumping to, say, block a shot and the shooter drop the ball and it hit player's foot, different story.)

I would judge otherwise.

I go with a kicking violation. If the player had jumped and NOT stuck out a leg, I would interpret that as not kicking. If you jump and stick out a leg, you are intentionally trying to stop the path of the ball. It's just luck that it hit the hand first. But the leg was stuck out in an attempt to stop the path of the ball and it was hit by the ball.

No kick in my book. Player jumped and blocked the pass with a hand. The deflection hit a foot/leg. They player did not, even if they tried to, use the foot to block the pass.

Re: Re: My most creative call . . . ever.
 

Make that undecidable (not to mention 'intentional' and 'whiner FROM another planet). I have distypsia. [/B][/QUOTE]

Great word, Jeff. I can't find it in my (admittedly limited) dictionary. Did you hear it from a doctor, or make it up yourself?

Re: Re: Re: My most creative call . . . ever.
 

Great word, Jeff. I can't find it in my (admittedly limited) dictionary. Did you hear it from a doctor, or make it up yourself? [/B][/QUOTE]