In hopes that others don't blow it as I did tonight - not that the coaches or crowd disagreed, here was a case where getting it wrong got me off easier - I had the girl-on-ground has ball between legs, in this case thigh high, and opponent is trying to wrestle it away situation.

Reacting, I believe, to the . . . ahem . . . intimacy of the situation, I was pretty quick with the whistle, but called a held ball where, I do believe, kick is more better righter.

Held ball (4-25-1) stipulates using hands.

Kick (4-29), the most recent incarnation of kick, specifies intentionally striking the ball with any part of the leg or foot. Squeezing it with the thighs is TWO kicks at once, in opposite directions . . .

Holding is not kicking. Please do not discard common sense here. Kicking involves striking the ball with the leg, not touching the ball with the leg.

It's clearly a "kicked ball" violation in NCAA.

Not covered in FED, so you're right no matter which path you take. ;)

What?
 

A ball held between a players legs is considered a kick ball? Really? Can someone supply case and point, please? Thanks.

I'm not talking about touching - I'm talking about holding, clamping, grasping, playing. You can reasonably think of it as two simultaneous, equal and opposite kicks. If control cannot be obtained without undue roughness, you better call something . . . and 4-25-1 stipulates 'hands'.

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 11th, 2006 at 11:26 AM]

Re: What?
 

There is no definitive ruling in the FED rule book re: this particular play. We've discussed it before a few times.

I'm on the side of the people who would call it a violation. I think that the purpose and intent of the rules is to have the game played with the hands and not the legs or the feet.

And....as you posted in the linked thread below, you will find the following in "Naismith's Original 13 Rules":
#4- <i>"The ball must be held in or between the hands; the arms or <b>body</b> must <b>not</b> be used for holding it".</i>
Whointhehell am I to argue with Naismith? :)

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/24810

Re: Re: What?
 

Don't get me wrong here. I have no preference either way. I just want to be able to cite to a coach, if needed, why I called a violation on a kid who is sitting on the floor, no hands on the ball, but with the ball resting squarely between his/her thighs.

Re: Re: Re: What?
 

lmeadski, for clarity, in the situation I had the ball was not merely resting between the thighs. It was being held between the thighs, against the nascent effort of an opponent to dislodge it with her hands.

Don't get me wrong here. I have no preference either way. I just want to be able to cite to a coach, if needed, why I called a violation on a kid who is sitting on the floor, no hands on the ball, but with the ball resting squarely between his/her thighs. [/B][/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong either. I'm telling you that you <b>won't</b> be able to cite anything to a coach- whether you called a violation or you ruled it a legal play. It is just not covered definitively under NFHS rules.

Personally, if I can't find anything in the book that will back up myself if I do call a violation on this play, then I ain't gonna call that violation.....and I say that while thinking personally that it really <b>should</b> be a violation.

I know I have read somewhere that this is a violation. I don't remember whether it was HS, College, or pro though.

See Bob Jenkins' post above- it's a violation as per an AR in the NCAA rule book.

Here you go ladies and gents:

Basketball
NCAA
Rule 4: Definitions
Section 43: Kicking the Ball - Article 2


Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.


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 strike 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, B1's firm placement of his or her hands on the ball does not constitute a held ball.

So does B1 have to try to get the ball for it to be a violation on A1?

No! I had this play earlier in the year where A1 was on the floor on her back with the ball 6 inches below her feet. She stretched and picked it up with her feet...then tossed it up to her hands (with her feet) and made an outlet pass to A2. It was a very athletic play but unfortunately a kicked ball. No one from B made a play on the ball.

Thanks for the reference and examples, chayce.

As a thought experiment, how would you - FED rules - handle a player sitting unintentionally on the ball? 5-second closely guarded limit in the frontcourt . . . 10-seconds in the backcourt . . . 3-seconds in the lane?

I have never had this happen - but it doesn't strike me as THAT farfetched.