She "kicked" it, and then I kicked it

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule says "intentionally strike the ball." Most interpret "strike" to include any movement of the leg with the intent of touching the ball. Now, in my situation, before the ball was trapped, it actually bounced of one leg.

I know it's the wrong forum, but to steal from the football forum, "touching" precedes "catching," which also makes tremendous sense, and this logic could theoretically be applied here. And I've also had the NCAA situation read to me that was cited above, and think it makes pretty good sense and is clearly applicable in the OP situation.

[blindzebra]

Using your leg(s) to gain an advantage is a kick...it doesn't have to be a violent striking to be a kick.

Let's say the ball is loose on the floor with 3 players still on their feet trying to grab it, when one player uses their foot to move the ball closer to them to grab...gonna call that a kick?

I see no difference between a subtle little "kick" like that and pulling the ball in or trapping it with your legs, so you can grab it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mick

Thanks, Snaq.
Even more clearly now, I do not think think she intentionally kicked the ball.

Apparently, my whistle agreed with you.

[mick]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Using your leg(s) to gain an advantage is a kick...it doesn't have to be a violent striking to be a kick.

Let's say the ball is loose on the floor with 3 players still on their feet trying to grab it, when one player uses their foot to move the ball closer to them to grab...gonna call that a kick?

I see no difference between a subtle little "kick" like that and pulling the ball in or trapping it with your legs, so you can grab it.

Surely, I have a kick on that.
Yet incidentally trapping the ball with her legs, when her hands failed her, still doesn't feel like an intentional kick.
But it may be.

[Adam]

Her hands didn't fail. They couldn't get to the floor quickly enough, so she purposefully used her legs to trap the ball and buy herself some time.

[bigdogrunnin]

So, she intentionally contacted the ball with her legs, AND gained an advantage by doing so. You wouldn't consider that a violation?

NFHS Rule 4-29 [Kicking the ball is intentionally striking with any part of the leg or foot.], and Rule 9-4 [A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below.].

The player consciously and intentionally moved her legs to stop or catch the ball. TWEET! Violation. Coach may not like it, but it would seem to be the right call.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Her hands didn't fail. They couldn't get to the floor quickly enough, so she purposefully used her legs to trap the ball and buy herself some time.

I dunno! I dunno! I dunno!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mick

I dunno! I dunno! I dunno!

It's one of those location plays. You had to be there.

[blindzebra]

If only the rule makers would use the correct words when they write the rules.

Kicking is intentionally contacting the ball with any part of your leg.

Remove the violent term of striking and the intent of the rule becomes clear.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

If only the rule makers would use the correct words when they write the rules.

Kicking is intentionally contacting the ball with any part of your leg.

Remove the violent term of striking and the intent of the rule becomes clear.

Seconded..............

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

If only the rule makers would use the correct words when they write the rules.

Kicking is intentionally contacting the ball with any part of your leg.

Remove the violent term of striking and the intent of the rule becomes clear.

Forgive me - I don't have my books with me. Does the rulebook ever actually say "contacting" or does it only say "striking"? There's a big difference in my eyes between those two words, so I'm still as confused as Mick about trapping the ball between the legs and how that relates to the intent of the rule.

[Adam]

Smitty,
The rule book says "striking." However, the NCAA Ruling on this says pretty clearly that trapping the ball with the legs fits the definition. HS refs generally defer to this interpretation due to the lack of an official interpretation from the Fed.

In my scenario, picture a hockey goalie squeezing his shins together to prevent the puck from going between his legs. That's what the player did in my game. The ball actually bounced off of one leg (while she was moving them together to redirect the ball) before she got it trapped, while she was moving her hands down to grab it.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Smitty,
The rule book says "striking." However, the NCAA Ruling on this says pretty clearly that trapping the ball with the legs fits the definition. HS refs generally defer to this interpretation due to the lack of an official interpretation from the Fed.

In my scenario, picture a hockey goalie squeezing his shins together to prevent the puck from going between his legs. That's what the player did in my game. The ball actually bounced off of one leg (while she was moving them together to redirect the ball) before she got it trapped, while she was moving her hands down to grab it.

I totally understand the scenario and I know that probably most people would call this a kick - I just don't see it clearly being so based on the wording of the NFHS rule. I didn't realize that the NCAA ruling actually referenced this exact scenario, so that would definitely make me lean more toward that way of thinking. It's difficult to back it up with an explanation based on that darn "striking" word, though, in a purely NFHS scenario. I would be much happier if they changed "striking" to "contacting". Thanks for the NCAA interpretation.

[mick]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

If only the rule makers would use the correct words when they write the rules.

Kicking is intentionally contacting the ball with any part of your leg.

Remove the violent term of striking and the intent of the rule becomes clear.

If Washington had drowned crossing the Potomac, we may all be speaking English.

9-4 "strike it with fist" is a violation. Is contact with fist a violation?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by mick

9-4 "strike it with fist" is a violation. Is contact with fist a violation?

I can't think of a situation where it shouldn't be.