Kicking Violation Philosophy
 

Game played with Fed rules

Play: A1 has picked up her dribble near the division line. A2 is about 10 feet away (3.048 metres, Mark :p), and also near the division line. B1 is about 4 feet from A1, between A1 and A2. A1 fakes a pass to A2. B1 then jumps in the air and both legs somewhat extended from the perpendicular to the floor. Once B1 is at her peak, A1 then passes the ball to A2. The ball hits B1's foot and "dies" right there for B1 to gain possession rather easily.

Ruling:

Very much a "gotta see it" play. Did the player kick the ball intentionally? Personally, I like to let them play through stuff like this unless it is an obvious kick. The fewer times I have to stop the game, the better.

Also agree it's a "gotta see it" but I'd think normally it's going to be a kicked ball violation. When the player has her leg extended (at least in the way I have envisioned), I'm looking at it as a defensive maneuver designed to make it difficult to pass around her. And that means she's intentionally putting her foot in the path of the ball. Violation.

But isn't the entire idea of guarding intentionally putting the defensive players body in the path of the ball to make it difficult for the offense to score? I understand what you're saying, just stirring the pot of discussion a bit.

Absolutely. But intentionally sticking a leg out to contact a passed ball is a violation. :D

Before I call a kick, I need to see a foot movement toward the ball.

As described, I'd say play on.

A question: Was B1's foot in the spot it contacted the ball, or on the way there, before A1 began the motion of making the pass? If so, I think I'd have to say play on. Is a ball contacted by a defender's leg while the defender is airborne always a kicking violation? As I understand it, no. Therefore, unless B1 made a move to put his leg in the path of the pass after A1 started the motion of passing the ball, I don't have a violation.

Agreed a have to see it but, If the ball hit the leg, play on. If the leg hit the ball, violation.:D

...If the leg moved toward the ball.... :)

Kicking violation for dummies:

Did the ball hit the leg = legal.

Did the leg hit the ball = illegal.

:D

This is good. We have something similar in baseball:

Fair ball hits dropped bat = legal, play on.

Dropped bat hits fair ball = illegal, batter out.

B1's foot was already in the spot. Her legs were extended outward at about a 45 degree angle from the vertical position. She did this leg extension in reaction to A1's fake. There was no positive movement towards the ball.

General Reply:

I was the covering official and I did not have a whistle; I let the play stand. Coach was fuming about the no-call and said that I needed to read the rulebook. I am 100% confident in my no-call, but it has been _years_ since I recall talking about this situation with anyone.

BZ:

"Did the leg hit the ball = illegal." Not quite. B1 is shuffling his/her feet to maintain a defensive position against A1. A1 attempts a bounce pass to A2. In the process of moving to maintain his/her defensive position B1's moving foot hits the ball. Legal play. The key to the kicking violation is INTENT. Did the player intend to strike ball with his/her foot. Without INTENT there can be no violation.

MTD, Sr.

Just some devil's advocate here: B's leg was extended purposely away from his/her body, with the intent being to use the extended/outstretched leg to deflect a thrown ball by A1. This happened, no?

Yup. That's the kicker. (Pun intended.) However, since A didn't release the ball, she cannot then throw the ball off B1's leg for a subsequent team B violation.