A couple of my esteemed colleagues have taken the position (no pun intended) that if a B1 takes a stance wider than his normal shoulder width stance so as to take away a passing lane has committed a kicking violation if the ball hits his leg even if he foot is touching the floor before the passed ball makes contact with his leg. I think they are trying to apply a screening rule to a non-screening situation.

Remember, a kicking violation is an intentional action taken by a player to kick the ball. If player’s foot is in contact with the floor when the contact with the ball occurs, there can be no kicking violation.

MTD, Sr.

Never said that being outside the frame was the sole reason....and the arms are clearly not the feet. I don't think we disagree on that point.

I disagree with this. In a past NFHS statement referring to kicking, they said that game was intended to be played with the hands, not the feet. I can't recall safety ever being mentioned. It is not very likely that another player will get hurt in 99.999% of the occurrances of a kick. A punch, on the other hand, I can believe....it's is likely to be near other players heads it there is any reason to punch the ball at all.

Agree....the design of the game is to play the ball with the hands, not the feet. The purpose of the feet is only to move the body. If the feet are used to play the ball (and not in a way to move the body) and make contact with the ball, I've got a kick.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
If the player's leg is in contact with the floor when there is contact between the player's leg and ball, there cannot be a kicking violation.


HawkeyeCub:

What is there to disagree with. What you are proposing is, that if B1 is standing between A1 and A2, and A1 attempts to pass the ball to A2 by throwing a bounce pass through B1's legs and instead his pass hits B1's shin while he is standing between A1 and A2, then B1 has committed a kicking violation. If that is what you are advocating, that is wrong. Just because the contact created an advantage for B1, the contact was not intentional and therefore is not a violation.

MTD, Sr.

That sounds good in theory, Camron, but in the OP it just doesn't feel right to me. If the defender jumps as the ball-handler fakes, and the ball is then thrown when the defender is on the way down, the feet are moving to get under the body and land safely. I don't see how that could be a kick.

Otherwise, the ball-handler could just aim right and use B1 to make it look like a kick when in fact the kick was finished, and unsuccessful.

Why in the he!! would they do this? Defenders try to kick for a reason, to stop a pass from going through.

Oh wait, I figured one out; an AP throwin. If a thrower can coax the defender into stretching her legs out of position, then throw the ball at the legs, they get a new throwin and get to keep the arrow.

Or they're kinda trapped, and getting a kick called gives them a way out.

But otherwise, do you see my point about the OP not being a kick?

I do. I'm torn, actually.

On the one hand, if the defender attempts to kick the ball and misses only to succeed immediately after, it sure seems like it should be a kick. I mean, the defense was trying to get the kick, to be honest.
OTOH, if the offense throws it at her leg purposefully to get out of a jam, it seems a bit unfair to go with the kick.
My read on the OP, though, doesn't involve this. I see it as a player jumping and extending to block the passing lanes, knowing full well that the offensive player will probably throw where her legs are going. She swung her leg with the intent of kicking it, the player faked the throw, and then released it prior to B1 landing. B1's initial attempt at a kick is successful. I think I'm with MTD on this, if her feet hit the floor first, I'm letting it go. If her feet hit the ball prior to touching the floor, it's probably a kick.

However, it's definitely a "had-to-be-there" play.

I don't mean to speak for Hawkeye, but I agree with him in this way - in your scenario, if A1 attempts to pass teh ball to A2 by throwing a bounce pass through B1's legs, and B1 quickly puts his legs together in the path of the ball - even if both feet are in contact with the floor when the ball strikes them, I've got a kick. B1 is purposefully striking the ball with his leg.

Or, B1 is in a normal guarding stance, A1 attempts to pass around him and B1 "lunges" to the side and strikes the ball with his knee while his foot remains on the ground - also a kick.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!

MTD, Sr.

Can you explain to me how either of the scenarios I've described is not intentionally striking the ball with the leg?

Until then, I don't see how I'm wrong.

Mark, I was in agreement with you up to this statement. The rule says absolutely nothing about the foot needing to be in contact with the floor. Now, if you want to say that in most cases, a kick usually doesn't happen with the player's foot on the floor, and that's a good guideline to follow, I can agree with that. But to make it an absolute is wrong, imo. jdw3018's play is a perfect example - the player's foot may be on the ground, but if they throw any part of the leg in the way of the pass, it's an intentional act - their leg contacted the ball, so it's a violation. Let me throw another one at you: in NCAA, it is considered a kicking violation it a player holds the ball between their legs. (Remember the case play where A1 is on the ground, holds the ball between their legs, and B1 comes in and grabs it? It is not considered a held ball, it is a violation on A1.) This is another example where both feet can be on the floor, and a violation be called.

A ball is rolling out of bounds and a player takes his foot and stops the ball with his foot (on the floor by the way)by placing his foot between the playing area and the sideline. Sort of like a soccer play. No violation?

M & M and Ronny:


I agree with the exceptions that you have pointed out. M&M's play where the player laying on the floor and "intentionally" grabbed the ball between his knees is a violation; and Ronny's play where a player stops a rolling ball by "intentionally" moving his foot to a place on the court to stop the ball; excellent examples of kicking violations that one would not associate with the act of kicking a ball. In fact, I had Ronny's play a few weeks ago in a girl's H.S. game where the girl had the ball roll up her leg so she could grab it with her hands without bending over.

The points that I have been trying to make throughout this entire thread are: (1) Kicking is an intentional act; (2) That except for very few exceptions, if the foot is in contact with the floor when contact between between the ball and the leg occurs, no violation has occured; and (3) That unless the kicking in intentional it is not a violation even if the contact creates an advantage for the player who kicked the ball, no violation has occured.

What troubles me the most is I see far too many kicking violations when an offensive player either throws a pass or dribbles the ball and the ball makes contact with the leg or foot of a defender who is only moving his feet to maintain a legal guarding postion or move to another positios on the court. Those actions by the defender do not constitute a kicking violation. Juulie made a great point about hoe B1 jumps straight up and A1 attempts a pass the ball under B1 and the ball makes contact with B1's legs or feet while he is in the air: no violation has occured. More and more officials are adopting the mind set that if the leg or foot made contact with the ball it is always a violation and it is not.

MTD, Sr.

As I have said a couple of times:

Ball comes to foot/leg = legal.

Leg/foot goes to ball = illegal.

To me that means a foot/leg can be in contact with the floor or in the air and you could/couldn't have a violation.

To say just because a leg is in the air it's a kick or just because it's on the floor it isn't is too simplistic.

The rule says an intentional act to contact the ball...they really need to remove the word strike...sticking a leg into the passing lane and having a delay and the ball go to that leg is stretching the rule if you call a kick.

Any baseball fan remembers Reggie Jackson sticking a thigh out to interfere with a throw against the Dodgers in the World Series...perhaps MTD was the umpire in that game.;)

This sounds perfect to me. The parallel I draw is to soccer. Handling (hand ball) is only supposed to be called if a players hand/arm plays the ball. If the ball plays the hand/arm then there is supposed to be no call unless....

And this is something that people have sort of discussed and this is the other reasoning I use to determine whether the ball was played intentionally with the leg.

In soccer handling can also be called if the ball plays the hand/arm of a player whose hand/arm is in a position that is unnatural to normal play. I think this works perfectly for hoop. If the legs are in an unnatural position for normal play then the player has possibly made a move to stop the ball with his/her leg.