Kicking violation or not?

[jdmara]

Looking at another forum the following question came up:

"A loose ball is rolling away from a player who runs to it and places his/her foot on the top of ball to stop it from rolling (much like a soccer player would do). Clearly the use of the foot in touching the ball to stop it from rolling was intentional. Would you rule this a kicking violation? What are your thoughts?"

Although I know many of us look at both, what are everyone's thoughts on this?

Personally, I would call it a kick ball violation to "play" the ball intentionally with any part of the leg. But as I've said before, I'm always willing to change that opinion if the facts say that I'm wrong.

-Josh

[Adam]

I think that's how most of us do it as well. There is an NCAA ruling stipulating this; the NFHS has been silent on the question as far as I know.

[Bad Zebra]

I think everyone would agree it was intentional...and that the foot is part of the leg. The only question then becomes "does stopping a rolling ball with the bottom of the foot constitute a "strike"? Me? I'm calling a kick...Partly because I believe the spirit of the rule is to not use any part of the leg to control a basketball.

[Clark Kent]

4-29 says "Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot"

I assume we'd all agree that it was intentional and obviously he/she used a part of his/her leg or foot to stop the ball from rolling, so I guess it comes down to the definition of "striking"

M-W.com defines "Strike" in a plethora of ways, however all seem to be in an aggressive manner, such as "to deliver a blow, stroke or thrust". Placing one's foot on top of the ball to stop it from rolling, seems innocent enough and I would assume the player didn't feel that it was a violation or he/she wouldn't have done it. However I would agree and have to say that I would blow my whistle and call it a kick.

[IREFU2]

I agree, it needs to be more clearly defined by NFHS. Right now its up to ones interpretation of the rule.

[jdmara]

I really think it's clear the intent of the rule is not to be able to play the ball with your foot/leg. However on the other site some believe very strongly that this is not a violation because stopping the ball is not striking

-Josh

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I agree, it needs to be more clearly defined by NFHS. Right now its up to ones interpretation of the rule.

You need call it a kick...that is now your official interp.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You need call it a kick...that is now your official interp.

But is it really a kick? Are you stricking the ball with your foot? Things that make you say Hmmmmmm!!!!!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

But is it really a kick? Are you stricking the ball with your foot?

Yes, it's really a kick. You are striking the ball -- ever so gently -- but striking, nonetheless.

[tjones1]

Agreed, I'm calling a violation.

[mick]

Kick

[Zoochy]

VIOLATION all the way. Player used the leg to control the ball.
I had a player lying on the ground with the basketball between the legs, near the feet. The player used their foot to pull the ball towards the body and hands. I called a 'Kick Ball' violation!

[IREFU2]

I guess you could look at the definition of kick, which is to stike, and that definition also has the word to hit, which also means to come into contact with forcefully and suddenly, so if you process all of that, then its a violation!!!!!! Still needs a clearer clarification from the FEDS!

[Camron Rust]

Intent is to no play the ball with the legs/feet....it is a kick. Gotta know the intent of the rule (not just the letter).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I guess you could look at the definition of kick, which is to stike, and that definition also has the word to hit, which also means to come into contact with forcefully and suddenly, so if you process all of that, then its a violation!!!!!! Still needs a clearer clarification from the FEDS!

You have your marching orders. Just shut up and color.