Can the offense have a "kicked ball"called

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mcdanrd
[QUOTE

This has been debated before.

The intent of the rule is making it illegal to gain an advantage by CONTACTING the ball with your leg.

The rule would be better served if it read intentionally contacting the ball and not intentionally striking the ball.

I know this has been debated before and I don't buy the "intent of the rule" argument. If a player wants to hold the ball between his/her knees I don't see an infraction. I'll discontinue my post on this subject because I'm sure we'll only agree that we disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]

Whoa, hold on here.

Don't run away yet.

What if the player uses his foot to sweep the loose ball towards him? And then holds it between his knees?

He didn't "strike" it, did he?

[tjones1]

Originally posted by refnrev

__________________________________________________ _________
Come on Tanner. You don't mean you really think there are fans who don't know the rules do you? After all, every howler monkey is a genius! Right? (LOL)

Maybe one out of a million!

[Stat-Man]

A few years back when I was officiating a 2nd & 3rd grader's intramural game, the ball became loose and someone who was on the original offensive team kicked it away from the players trying to go for it, so I called a kick violation and commented to myself "gee, this is the first time Ive seen an offensive player called for a kick."

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mcdanrd
[QUOTE

This has been debated before.

The intent of the rule is making it illegal to gain an advantage by CONTACTING the ball with your leg.

The rule would be better served if it read intentionally contacting the ball and not intentionally striking the ball.

I know this has been debated before and I don't buy the "intent of the rule" argument. If a player wants to hold the ball between his/her knees I don't see an infraction. I'll discontinue my post on this subject because I'm sure we'll only agree that we disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]

As posted before, it's specifically in the NCAA book, and was in some old FED interp.

[mcdanrd]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Whoa, hold on here.

Don't run away yet.

What if the player uses his foot to sweep the loose ball towards him? And then holds it between his knees?

He didn't "strike" it, did he? [/B][/QUOTE]

My apologies to you all. I have never looked at the NCAA rules. I just looked up "Kicking the Ball" in the NCAA rule book and found the following:

A.R. 30. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1
attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however,
A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining
possession of the ball. RULING: A1 has committed a violation. The intent of this Rule
is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg.
Although A1 did not kick or strick the ball with any part of the leg, the player did
gain an illegal advantage, which may also lead to undue roughness. Since A1 was not
holding the ball in his or her hands, B1Â’s firm placement of his or her hands on the
ball does not constititute a held ball.

So, As hard as it is to admit...gulp....you were right and I was wrong.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by mcdanrd
So, As hard as it is to admit...gulp....you were right and I was wrong.

What the heck are you doing? How am I supposed to get my entertainment watching arguments if one person just gives up and admits the others are right?

What's this forum coming to?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mcdanrd

Whoa, hold on here.

Don't run away yet.

What if the player uses his foot to sweep the loose ball towards him? And then holds it between his knees?

He didn't "strike" it, did he? [/B][/QUOTE]

My apologies to you all. I have never looked at the NCAA rules. I just looked up "Kicking the Ball" in the NCAA rule book and found the following:

A.R. 30. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1
attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however,
A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining
possession of the ball. RULING: A1 has committed a violation. The intent of this Rule
is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg.
Although A1 did not kick or strick the ball with any part of the leg, the player did
gain an illegal advantage, which may also lead to undue roughness. Since A1 was not
holding the ball in his or her hands, B1Â’s firm placement of his or her hands on the
ball does not constititute a held ball.

So, As hard as it is to admit...gulp....you were right and I was wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]

I get 1 right per week, although I kinda wish I could have saved it for my aau games this weekend. Oh well...

[WeekendRef]

The original post states NFHS rules.....while the NCAA rule is clearly written the rule in HS is nebulous .
I would have a hard time calling a "kicked ball" if a player fumbled the ball and then held it between his thighs to hold on to it .....especially before last year when the upper part of the leg was included in the definition of a "kicked" ball .
As someone noted earlier I think the language needs to be cleaned up on this rule...

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by WeekendRef
The original post states NFHS rules.....while the NCAA rule is clearly written the rule in HS is nebulous .
I would have a hard time calling a "kicked ball" if a player fumbled the ball and then held it between his thighs to hold on to it .....especially before last year when the upper part of the leg was included in the definition of a "kicked" ball .
As someone noted earlier I think the language needs to be cleaned up on this rule...

I don't know if this will help, but I remember reading somewhere (maybe comments on rules, or something buried deep in the casebook, perhaps notes from one of Dr. Naismith's classes, etc.) that basketball was meant to be played with the hands, not the feet. This was to distinguish it from other sports like football and soccer. That's why you can't kick (intentionally strike) the ball with the leg, offense or defense. That's soccer, not basketball. Granted, the NFHS rules aren't written as clearly as NCAA, but using that logic it should be easy to follow that holding the ball with the legs is not allowed as well.

[mcdanrd]

[i]I would have a hard time calling a "kicked ball" if a player fumbled the ball and then held it between his thighs to hold on to it .....especially before last year when the upper part of the leg was included in the definition of a "kicked" ball .
As someone noted earlier I think the language needs to be cleaned up on this rule... [/B]

Now that I'm on board with what appears to be the general consensus, I think the important thing to note is the word advantage. A player merely holding the ball between his/her legs may not be a violation but when that player uses his/her legs to prevent an opponent from gaining access to the ball it becomes an advantage and therefore a violation.

[JRutledge]

I would not rule holding the ball with their legs a kick. Absent of a specific ruling that would suggest that as the proper interpretation, I will just stick with a "striking" action as my general rule of thumb. I think that would be too broad if you penalized every player for holding the ball underneath them.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I would not rule holding the ball with their legs a kick. Absent of a specific ruling that would suggest that as the proper interpretation, I will just stick with a "striking" action as my general rule of thumb. I think that would be too broad if you penalized every player for holding the ball underneath them.

Peace

I would probably agree that I would have a lot of explaning to do if I called a violation just because a player was on the floor with the ball on their legs. But the NCAA does specifically address using the legs to hold the ball firmly. The violation wasn't just because the ball was there in the first place, but that the player then used the legs to hold unto it firmly while the defender tried to get it. That's certainly not "striking" the ball, but it is using the legs as an unfair advantage. It seems a lot like the errant pass going off a defender's leg - the ball hitting the leg is not a violation, but intentionally moving the leg into the path of the ball is. I would think that same line of reasoning applies to NFHS, even though only the NCAA spells it out.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by M&M Guy


I would probably agree that I would have a lot of explaning to do if I called a violation just because a player was on the floor with the ball on their legs. But the NCAA does specifically address using the legs to hold the ball firmly. The violation wasn't just because the ball was there in the first place, but that the player then used the legs to hold unto it firmly while the defender tried to get it. That's certainly not "striking" the ball, but it is using the legs as an unfair advantage. It seems a lot like the errant pass going off a defender's leg - the ball hitting the leg is not a violation, but intentionally moving the leg into the path of the ball is. I would think that same line of reasoning applies to NFHS, even though only the NCAA spells it out.

I understand why you feel that way, but for this discussion I am not talking about the NCAA rule. Even at the NCAA level, it has got to be pretty obvious a player is doing that. The NF has not addressed this kind of action (at least in the casebook they have not). I have a hard time trying to translate NCAA rulings to NF games or rules.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by JRutledge
The NF has not addressed this kind of action (at least in the casebook they have not). I have a hard time trying to translate NCAA rulings to NF games or rules.

Peace

I would be in big trouble if I tried to apply most NCAA rulings to HS. But I think I understand the logic the NCAA is trying to use in this case, which is the game is meant to be played with the hands, not with the legs. It was just giving an example of using the legs without actually "striking" the ball. I would think the NF would be using this same logic as well. Now we're back to the well-worn discussion of just because a set of rules does not specifically outlaw an act, does that mean it is actually allowing it? It would be interesting to get an opinion from the NF - anyone have a direct line to Mary Struckoff? From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this situation happen, because usually the player on the ground is trying to grab the ball with their hands as well, and not just trying to hold on with only their legs. So, like you said, it would have to be real obvious what's happening to make that call.

[blindzebra]

The holding the ball play is pretty rare, but the one you will see is when the ball is loose and the player is on the floor and "pulls" the ball in with their foot or leg.

To me this is clearly intentionally "striking", again contacting the ball with the leg is much better.

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 22nd, 2005 at 04:51 PM]