She "kicked" it, and then I kicked it

[mick]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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

A pass hits a running player on the back of a closed hand....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

I should clarify, the NCAA interp addresses a loose ball situation. A1 squeezes the ball between his legs while B1 grabs it with his hands. This is, according to the ruling, a kicking violation on A1. In light of this and in the absence of an alternate ruling from the Fed, I have to interpret "striking" as "moving to contact."

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by mick

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?

Two entirely different issues.

Kicking the ball is gaining an advantage by extending your reach, making it easier to defend a pass, or in this case moving and/or stopping the ball so you can grab it.

Striking with the fist is all about the safety issue of fists flying on the court.

[mick]

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.

Generally ?
C'mon, Snaq !
I can think of at least one or two guys that have never seen, or heard, that interpretation.

[Adam]

Interesting connection, Mick. The rule says nothing about intent with the fist; so by rule, any contact with the fist should be a violation. going to depend on the play, though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mick

Generally ?
C'mon, Snaq !
I can think of at least one or two guys that have never seen, or heard, that interpretation.

Yeah, fair enough.

[mick]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Two entirely different issues.

Kicking the ball is gaining an advantage by extending your reach, making it easier to defend a pass, or in this case moving and/or stopping the ball so you can grab it.

Striking with the fist is all about the safety issue of fists flying on the court.

'Zactly !
One is hittin' and the other is gittin'.

[HawkeyeCubP]

What would be the argument against changing the wording in both to "intentionally contacting the ball with (fist, any part of the leg)"? -As this is what the intent of the rule seems to be. I think I'm going to write my Congressman right now.

[mick]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

What would be the argument against changing the wording in both to "intentionally contacting the ball with (fist, any part of the leg)." As this is what the intent of the rule seems to be. I think I'm going to write my Congressman right now.

Aha, Hawkeye ! Good idea.
But don't ask the lame duck ask the real one.

So, yeah, if they wrote that even I could understand.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

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?

You ump baseball, don't you, Mick?

Interesting point on the distinction between strike and contact, btw. Can't say I have any clue how I'd call it.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

You ump baseball, don't you, Mick?

Interesting point on the distinction between strike and contact, btw. Can't say I have any clue how I'd call it.

YU.P., Mark. I do.

[tonyp]

Originally Posted by mick

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?

Since we're discussing the fine points between "strike" and "contact", I should point out that it was the Delaware in which Washington didn't drown.

BTW if contacting the leg is a violation, what if I stand with the ball on my hip.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tonyp

BTW if contacting the leg is a violation, what if I stand with the ball on my hip.

Is your hip part of your leg?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by tonyp

Since we're discussing the fine points between "strike" and "contact", I should point out that it was the Delaware in which Washington didn't drown.

Hmmm...seems we needed a Mr Annoying History Guy and were too dumb to know it. Welcome aboard, Rainmaker will show you how the coffee machine works.

[mick]

Originally Posted by tonyp

Since we're discussing the fine points between "strike" and "contact", I should point out that it was the Delaware in which Washington didn't drown.

BTW if contacting the leg is a violation, what if I stand with the ball on my hip.

Good call, tonyp. The Potomac was the "silver dollar" story, eh?

The hip thing made me think of this scenario.
Let's say the ball was held with one hand on the ball against the hip.
The ball slips and the player grabs the ball with his knees.
I don't have a kick there either.