Sorry

[Hawks Coach]

I think that extending the foot into the passing lane was an intent to block the ball with the leg/foot. The fact that it hit the hand first does not mean that the subsequent kick has to happen in response to the new angle it took from the deflection. The combination of foot and hand was intended to block the pass, and it did.

But like mick said, I think you have to see it to call it. If the passer was close to the defender occurred, and the foot and hand are pretty close together and working together to deny the passing lane, you could easily rule that the defender intended the foot to block the pass - kick. If the hand is clearly extended to block a pass that is made at a decent distance from the defender, and the foot happens to hit the deflection, it would probably look a lot more incidental. Gotta see this play.

The second situation, if you mean a ball is thrown into a non-moving foot/lower leg, is most certainly not a kick. You must be moving your foot as an initial precondition to kick the ball.