Ball held with legs

[ranjo]

UPDATE -

I posed the question to our state interpeter and got the following response:

GREAT question! I had to look up the actual wording used in Rule 4 to define kicking. The definition says that kicking the ball is intentionally STRIKING the ball with any part of the leg or foot. In the play as you described it, the player did not "strike" the ball but simply used his legs to gather or collect it. In my opinion, no violation occurred.

Originally Posted by ranjo

UPDATE -

I posed the question to our state interpeter and got the following response:

GREAT question! I had to look up the actual wording used in Rule 4 to define kicking. The definition says that kicking the ball is intentionally STRIKING the ball with any part of the leg or foot. In the play as you described it, the player did not "strike" the ball but simply used his legs to gather or collect it. In my opinion, no violation occurred.

I guess you do what you have to do if that's what they're telling you. I think it is pretty bad if a state interpreter has to even look that up without knowing it off the top of his head.
I think he is being too literal about his definition of striking.

Ask him to determine if it is really a held ball then.
4-25-1 A held ball occurs when: Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

If that is what the definition says, then how can it be a held ball?? Legs aren't hands.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by PYRef

I guess you do what you have to do if that's what they're telling you. I think it is pretty bad if a state interpreter has to even look that up without knowing it off the top of her head.
I think she is being too literal about his definition of striking.

Ask her to determine if it is really a held ball then.
4-25-1 A held ball occurs when: Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

If that is what the definition says, then how can it be a held ball?? Legs aren't hands.

Just needed to make a couple corrections for accuracy. I'm sure Rainmaker would appreciate that.

[ncaabbref]

Well don't we occassionally have an instance where a player obtains a held ball status with more forearm than hand? I have had plenty of cases where the forearm stops the ball and becomes "held" equally by 2 opposing players and we obtain a held ball status. I think this is succumming to the "paralysis of over-analysis"...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by ncaabbref

I think this is succumming to the "paralysis of over-analysis"...

I think that's what PY was saying, also. The state interpreter said that it couldn't be a kick because the ball wasn't "struck" with the leg. But if we're being that literal, then we shouldn't call a held ball in that situation either because it wasn't held with the hands.

Go with the obvious kick call, even if it's not literally "struck" with the leg. I think that was PY's point.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I
Go with the obvious kick call, even if it's not literally "struck" with the leg.

If the leg is moved intentionally to make contact with the ball, that's striking in my book. The amount of force is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think that's what PY was saying, also. The state interpreter said that it couldn't be a kick because the ball wasn't "struck" with the leg. But if we're being that literal, then we shouldn't call a held ball in that situation either because it wasn't held with the hands.

Go with the obvious kick call, even if it's not literally "struck" with the leg. I think that was PY's point.

Thanks Scrapper, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Just needed to make a couple corrections for accuracy. I'm sure Rainmaker would appreciate that.

I expect the state interpreter, whose gender is presented more accurately now, will appreciate it even more than I do.