Wow, did they play with pantyhose back in the days of the skirts for women's basketball??? :p

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but how about this situation:

It is illegal to strike the ball with a closed fist. Player holds the ball in front of him/her between two closed fists. Violation?

I say no, but if you're saying that holding the ball between the legs is the same as striking the ball ("a light strike") then my scenario is no different...

No violation from me!

Yes you can - however it is a violation

No there is no advantage gained.

once you read the intent of the rule, it is clear how to enforce the rule.
If a player gains an advantage by using the legs to Hold/Control/Deflect/etc. is the use of the legs a violation.

Please explain how to read the intent of the rule. Where is that written, exactly?

You're importing an NCAA ruling into NFHS. You think that's legitimate, and I don't.

Since the rules are the same it could be deduced that the intent is the same.

That's fallacious. The case plays and approved rulings provide insight into intent of the rules.

Yes, the rules are the same. But the rulings are different (NCAA has one, NFHS does not). Therefore, the intent seems to be different.

Is that your opinion or fact?

It's elementary, dear Watson. The premises are all facts.

So because the NFHS doesn't have a ruling on this play, the intent of the rule is different?

We officiate almost all rules at both levels from the very point the NCAA makes about this rule in the case play, advantage/disadvantage. The purpose of most of the rules regarding fouls and violations that govern the game are so that no player gains an advantage over another through a specified action.
So where would this interpretation deviate from that intent?
and If I am so wrong show me then;
What then is the intent of the NFHS rule?

The kick violation is so there is no advantage gained by the defence, or offence, by using his legs to block the ball or kick it away from someone to get it for themselves. I would call a violation if someone used thier legs to get a ball or corral it back to themselves. But just ending up with it between the legs and holding it there seems different to me. Thoughts?
You are allowed to accidentally "strike" the ball with leg or foot without a violaton being called.

Aren't these mutual exclusive actions? How can you accidentally hit something on purpose?

I believe most of us understand the difference between "the leg hitting the ball", and "the ball hitting the leg". Iow, the word "strike" is used to show intent, not necessarily the amount of force used. How many of us would NOT call a violation when a player sticks their leg out to block the pass, but the ball only grazes the leg? That's certainly not a "strike" in the general meaning of that word, but it would still qualify as a violation because we all understand it is based on the intent of the player, not the total amount of force.

So, if a player is "holding" the ball between their legs, it will be a violation in my game.

If a woman squeezes her legs around me, will I call it a "strike"? Depends on how bad I've been that day. :D

Exactly! If NFHS wanted to adopt the same ruling, it would be in the case book, right? So they must mean something else by the rule.

I read the intention right out of the rule: if the leg intentionally strikes the ball, then it's a kick. Holding the ball between the legs does not meet that definition.

Is there a threshold of contact, where above which would be considered a "strike", and below that would not be considered a strike? And when a player intentionally sticks their leg out, if you make a judgement that the contact doesn't rise to the level of "strike", do you say there was no violation?

I disagree here -- the FED has screwed up before and overlooked things in the past. In some cases they might not feel the need to spell everything out beacuse they might feel it unnecessary. I do think this is one of those scenarios.

If the FED were to rule opposite of the NCAA it would only be because they read my post and they want to prove me wrong. :)