I was working with a guy last night and he posed me with a question about something that took places in a previous game was curious what you guys thought.

JV girls game the gaurd is dribbling the ball then loses the ball(on own not deflected). She runs to retrieve the ball and the ball is about to cross the line so she uses her foot and stops it by placing her foot on top and rolling it backwards, and picks it up. He called a voliation I can't recall which one he called.

It can't be a kick she is on offense right?

Not a travel never moved when she picked it up right?

Could have been a double dribble if she would have dribbled but did not right?

Just a odd ball things was wondering what you guys thought


Thanks

A kicked ball violation applies to any player on the floor- offense or defense. You can't use your feet to gain an advantage. If you do, violation. See rule 4-29. That definition says "intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot. That covers your play. Violation as per rule 9-4.

A coach question, can someone explain what "intentionally" striking it with leg or foot means please? I have been in games lately where that is called a lot, especially if the offense makes a bad pass and it deflects off the thigh, knee or shin of a defensive player. The ref will call a kicked ball and it returns to the offense. Seems like it is a bad pass to me and the defense is penalized for getting in the way.

I still can't seem to get a handle on how and when this is called. Any explanation would be appreciated so I can teach it correctly to my girls.

thanks,
Coach Gbert

Similar to a "hand ball" in soccer...did the ball hit the foot, or did the foot hit the ball? If a pass hits a leg, without the defender moving the leg, or making an attempt to move the leg, it should be "play on." However, if the defender made the slightest move to deflect the ball with a leg, it should be ruled intentional, and a violation called. IMO

That's an excellent description of how the play should be judged.

Does "placing" one's foot on top of the ball really equal "striking" it?

If I place my hand on your head, have I really punched you? :confused:

Yes.

1) Yes

2) From what I've heard...if you place your hand on my head...you must be standing on a chair. :D

Moving your leg in the path of the ball with the intention of keeping it from going where it's headed.

If the bad pass hits your player's leg it is not a kicked ball.

If this bad pass is struck by your player's leg it IS a kicked ball.

The key word in the rule is INTENTIONALLY.

It is not a kicked ball if:

1. The ball hits you.

2. You dribble it off your leg.

3. The ball is knocked into your leg.

4. The ball is loose and the player is doing the old Charlie Chaplin...or was it Buster Keaton?...bend over, reach and accidentally kick it trick.

2) From what I've heard...if you place your hand on my head...you must be standing on a chair. :D [/B][/QUOTE]LOL. What's the old saying? Chuck has to stand on a chair to kick a duck in the a$$.

LOL. What's the old saying? Chuck has to stand on a chair to kick a duck in the a$$. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's pretty good JR. :)

I thought I would give Chuck a chance to respond to my good natured insult.
I just knew he was going to say something like, "Yea, if my hand was on your head...it would probably be because you were on your knees." :D

Call me a thug...but, that's how I would have responded. ;)

Short jokes aside, you conveniently forgot to answer the second question in my post. I agree that the spirit of the rule is to prevent using the feet to control the ball. However, without a specific definition to the contrary, touching is not striking.

(A specific definition to the contrary would be like the definition of "intentional" as it pertains to intentional fouls.)

I depends on whether or not you've bought me dinner first.

Chuck, the original post said that the player stopped the ball from rolling OOB by placing her foot on it. She then rolled the ball <b>backward</b> to herself. Now, I certainly don't have a Ph.D in anything, but that kinda implies to me that force had to be applied to the ball to get it to do those little tricks--stop it first and then give it a complete change of direction. Simply touching the ball would also affect it-even minutely- by applying a l'il bit of friction, wouldn't it? Isn't the over-all effect to actually control the ball with the foot, no matter what?

Btw, I thought the "intentional" part was a given.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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)