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.

I've gotcha, JR. Definitely a tough sell, I'd imagine.

Hawkeye Cub:

Is B1's foot in contact with the floor when it and the ball make contact with each other?

MTD, Sr.

I've got a kick on this.....B1's leg was extended in a position to block an anticipated pass. Even if it was there before the pass was released, it was still intentional.

True, but they can still attempt to throw it to a teammate. If they mis-throw and it gets B1's leg which is in a position that can only be intended to block the pass, its a kick.

No, still in the air, extended away from B's body - unless I'm reading the OP wrong - which is always possible.

Agreed. The intent was to stop a pass, whether that pass had been thrown yet or not. At least, that's the way I'm envisioning this play...

You are not reading the OP incorrectly.

This is a big can of worms, I believe.

At any time a player is "stuck", you are saying that they can fake a pass, and if an opponent's leg moves at all, a subsequent pass to that leg's new position is now a kicked ball.

The defender intentionally extended her leg - the ball hit it. That's a kick.

I had one last night that I got right but didn't like it. A 2 on 1 fast break, A1 passes to A2 who is wide open under the basket. B1 kicks at it and hits the ball pretty good - but the ball bounces right to A2 for a bunny.

I called it a kick. Nobody said anything. But I thought to myself, "boy, I just screwed A with that call." Of course, not calling it would have probably got me a lot of heat.

Okay, what if B1 makes an overt move to get his leg in the passing lane but only does so by sticking his leg beyond his frame with his foot still on the floor, there is a delay and the pass then hits his leg.

You calling a kick on that too?

In my opinion if the ball comes to where the leg already is, it isn't intentionally striking the ball, it's a bad pass.

Ball comes to leg = legal.

Leg goes to ball = illegal.

BZ:

It appears that you are starting to adopt my type of thinking.

Kicking the ball is a violatioin ONLY when the player INTENTIONALLY strikes the ball with his leg. Contact between the ball and the leg when the player's leg movement is a normal movement to maintain a defensive postion or to move from one positon to another is not a violation. 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.

If a defensive player throws his leg out at a ball to block a passing lane afther the ball has already left the thrower's hand and the contact between the ball and the defensive player's leg occurs before the defensive player's foot regains contact with floor: that is an example of a kicking violation.

But, if a defensive player throws his leg out at a ball to block a passing lane afther the ball has already left the thrower's hand and the contact between the ball and the defensive player's leg occurs after the defensive player's foot regains contact with floor: there is not kicking violation.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, BZ, run!!! :D

Maybe. A player can't intentionally use their leg/foot to contact the ball. Period. If I judge that the player has "used" it in such a manner (to actually block a pass or discourage a pass that eventually hits the leg), it's a kick....no matter if they had it there before the ball was thrown or not.

If that leg is in more of a typical guarding stance....knees slightly out...no kick.

Mostly, I agree....except for when the defender extends the leg with the purpose of taking away a passing lane with the leg (and not for moving themselves in that direction). The defender doesn't get to cover 2 extra feet of space with their legs if they can get them there before the ball.

I understand everything you're saying, but I disagree with this statement.

If a player isn't allowed to go outside his/her frame why isn't touching a pass with an out-stretched arm illegal?

The reason behind a kick and punching the ball being illegal is for safety not gaining an advantage by making yourself bigger.

I really think the spirit and intent of the rule needs to be used on this one.

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.

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

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?

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.