Kicking Violation Philosophy

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

Whew...we actually agree. I was worried you had gotten into a stash of Padgett's meds.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

I have seen this in younger officials, but I haven't seen it that often in more experienced officials. Maybe it's because more and more officials are younger than us every year?

[HawkeyeCubP]

MTD -

I was imagining two of the exceptions that have been listed - the primary being the player laying or sitting on the floor and intentionally striking the ball with their leg or foot. I just meant I disagreed with it as a blanketing, universally true statement.

[blindzebra]

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.

[biz]

Ball comes to foot/leg = legal.

Leg/foot goes to ball = illegal.

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.