using the foot question

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

We're just talking semantics, now, b/c I totally agree that the original play is illegal. The spirit of the rule is to prevent a player from using his/her feet to play the ball.

And on top of that, the word "strike" doesn't even appear in the kick rule, except in a note that mentions "unintentionally striking" the ball.

Having said all that, applying a force is not striking. Pushing a shopping cart is applying a force, but that doesn't mean you're striking the shopping cart. Preventing a seated person from rising is applying a force, but is not striking that person.

So.......you're saying that the wording used by the FED in R4-29 is inaccurate, in that the only action covered in the rule is the act of "striking". What do you propose as an alternative to that egregious mis-use of the language by the FED?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

So.......you're saying that the wording used by the FED in R4-29 is inaccurate, in that the only action covered in the rule is the act of "striking". What do you propose as an alternative to that egregious mis-use of the language by the FED?

The vast majority of the time we see the kick and the ball flying, thus the word striking.

It should read intentionally CONTACTING the ball with the leg or foot.

[bigzilla]

You all are starting to sound like lawyers. You have the required ability to argue over the reasoning while agreeing on the end result. Welcome to what I get to hear all day long, day after day, year after year...argument
ad infinitum.

[FrankHtown]

"ad infinitum" I believe the proper Latin phrase is "ad nauseum"

[Adam]

Ad Nauseum? Isn't that a museum for really bad TV commercials?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
"ad infinitum" I believe the proper Latin phrase is "ad nauseum"

One means to sickness the other never ending, both can describe it, but his was the better choice for his post.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[So.......you're saying that the wording used by the FED in R4-29 is inaccurate, in that the only action covered in the rule is the act of "striking".

Pretty much, yes. Earlier in the thread, somebody equated "touching" with "striking" and I was merely commenting that the two are not the same. That's all.

I would agree with the person who posted that the wording should be intentionally "contacting" the ball with the leg, rather than intentionally kicking the ball. You can still call it a kick if you want, but define a kick as any intentional contact with the ball on the leg. That would cover the original case in this thread. Because pretty clearly in the original case, the ball was not kicked by any normal standard of the word.

As I've already said (twice, I think), the original play should be ruled a violation; but technically, it's probably not if we go strictly by the wording of the rulebook.

[refnrev]

The soccer hand ball is still the best answer. Was it ball to leg which can happen in many ways?(no violation) Or was it leg to ball? - pretty straight forward(violation)