Held Ball /TO?

[SWMOzebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"Kicked" ball violation on A1. B gets the ball. Ask B if they still want the TO.

Pretty sure he's serious and it's the smart way to go. Sounds from the description that player A intentionally contacted the ball with leg. I would think that call comes before a held ball call.

[OHBBREF]

Sorry "Loses"

[Camron Rust]

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.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

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

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.