i would call it kick as well under NFHS as well -- as this would constitute striking the ball with the leg.

Sorry "Loses"

Kick. Intentional contact with the leg is a kick. The rule makes no mention of how hard the contact must be to be illegal.

Among the meanings of strike are influence, touch, affect, and hit.

I pretty sure it says "intentionally striking" the ball with any part of the leg or foot.

I believe that this qualifies as a kicking violation as well and the definition for that has been well cited, but for those who would call a held ball, I need to refer you to the definition of a held ball under NFHS rules.

4-25
HELD BALL
A held ball occurs when:
ART. 1 . . . Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.
ART. 2 . . . An opponent places his/her hand(s) on the ball and prevents an airborne player from throwing the ball or releasing it on a try.


The situation described in the OP with one player having his legs wrapped around the ball doesn't meet the definition. A held ball is clearly an incorrect call here. I think that your two choices are a kicking violation against A1 or granting B1 a time-out.

Instructive thread!

Yes...that is why I included a few definitions of the word strike...an action which is more often interpreted to be a more forceful action but can also mean merely contact.

Now this is out of my (fiba) rule book. But it says that intentionally kick or stop the ball with any part of the leg ... is a violation.
So this would be a kick for me, and I don't care about the time out requests scince I am a fiba ref :p

They do not have timeouts in FIBA? :eek:

The point of adding the time out request was to see if anyone would offer a time out to a player (A1) with the ball trapped between the legs?
Since CB's have so aptly put it there is no Control by team A.

According to Padgett, they don't have time-outs; they just surrender.

They do, but they cannot be granted during a live ball. The coach submits the request to the table, and at the next whistle, the request is granted. (And I can't believe that I know that!)

There might be team control by Team A during a loose ball, but there's no player control. In any event, nobody who works FIBA would grant it! :D

So... in FIBA there is no technical foul provision for asking a TO which one does not have? I mean, how could you have to submit a TO request to the table without knowing whether you had a TO remaining? or you could still ask for you at the cost of a T? ...not that I really care!