loose ball situation

[Spence]

Originally Posted by rlarry

I don't want to argue with you but to your question, yes "clutching the ball with ones legs" involves intent

Not looking to argue. I'm a new ref and I just want to learn and interpret the rules correctly. My questions arose because there is no wording dealing with the "clutch" issue.

[Adam]

It's generally accepted that for this purpose, "clutching" is similar to "striking."

[rlarry]

I'm pretty sure the rule is the same in HS as NCAA. I can't find an Interp for HS, Here is the Ncaa interp and rule:

A.R. 100. A1 is dribbling the ball and falls to the floor while still dribbling.
While seated on the floor, A1 loses the ball and it is rolling
away. As B1 comes in to try to get the ball, A1 reaches out
with his or her legs, clamps the loose ball between his or her
feet and brings it toward his or her body. A1 never places his or
her hands on the ball. The ball is between A1’s legs as B1 gets
both hands on the ball.
RULING: A held ball cannot be called because A1 does not have his
or her hands on the ball. A1 is intentionally using his or her feet to
play the ball. This is illegal and a kicking violation shall be called on
A1.

Rule 4 Section 45. Kicking the Ball
Art. 1. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg
or the foot.

Hopefully one of the veterans can set it straight.
Have a good season Spence

[Back In The Saddle]

AFAIK, there is no corresponding NFHS interp. We've discussed this many times. I think most here are in agreement that "clutching," which is intentionally contacting and playing the ball with the legs, is a violation of the prohibition against kicking. I've even called one of these in the last month. But there is no direct rule or case support for it in NFHS.

[rockyroad]

"Intentionally striking" does not have to be a violent act. I think the confusion is arising because some of us are looking at those words and thinking that the ball has to go sailing up into the 4th row as a result of the "stiking" with the legs. If the player clamps his/her legs around the ball, then they have "struck" (strucken? stricken? whatever) the ball with their legs, and it's a violation. Don't let commonly held definitions of a word limit what you are visualizing the rule to cover.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

"Intentionally striking" does not have to be a violent act. I think the confusion is arising because some of us are looking at those words and thinking that the ball has to go sailing up into the 4th row as a result of the "stiking" with the legs. If the player clamps his/her legs around the ball, then they have "struck" (strucken? stricken? whatever) the ball with their legs, and it's a violation. Don't let commonly held definitions of a word limit what you are visualizing the rule to cover.

I agree with the interpretation that "clutching" is striking. And I really want to go along with what you're saying, because it would give rules backing for that interp.

But words have widely accepted meanings. One should choose carefully among the various synonyms to ensure the correct shade of meaning is communicated. "Striking" is a pretty, well striking word for the rules writers to have chosen if their intent was to include all types of deliberate contact between leg/foot and the ball. They need to either select a different word or phrase -- like "deliberately contact" -- which could be done as an editorial change, or they should expand the definition of kicking to include "trapping or grasping the ball with the leg/foot", or else issue a case play or interp. The NCAA already has.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree with the interpretation that "clutching" is striking. And I really want to go along with what you're saying, because it would give rules backing for that interp.

But words have widely accepted meanings. One should choose carefully among the various synonyms to ensure the correct shade of meaning is communicated. "Striking" is a pretty, well striking word for the rules writers to have chosen if their intent was to include all types of deliberate contact between leg/foot and the ball. They need to either select a different word or phrase -- like "deliberately contact" -- which could be done as an editorial change, or they should expand the definition of kicking to include "trapping or grasping the ball with the leg/foot", or else issue a case play or interp. The NCAA already has.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But I think even though the word is, well, pretty striking, I think we all know the ball doesn't have to be strucken, stricken, strucked, er, hit real hard to be a violation, even though the word implies that. The player might swing their leg hard enough to put it in the 4th row, but if the ball just grazes off the leg enough to get re-directed, we all know it's still a violation.

I would also like to see the Fed. come out with an interp like the NCAA's though, just to make it crystal-clear.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Spence

Not looking to argue. I'm a new ref and I just want to learn and interpret the rules correctly. My questions arose because there is no wording dealing with the "clutch" issue.

You are correct. You'll find that many rules are written in a compact and simple manner...without fully detailing all possibilities. You often have to understand what the purpose of the rule is in order understand all the scenarios that it applies to (or doesn't apply to). The letter of the rule is not alway sufficient to properly apply the rule. This is necessary in order to prevent the rulebook from rivaling the US Tax Code.