player control?

Originally Posted by AKOFL

To have player control, one of the criteria is to be "holding" the ball. It does not say with the hands. Question? Can you "hold" the ball with your leggs?

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

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I've stated my opinion - a player intentionally holding the ball between his/her legs has struck the ball.

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...

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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!

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

To have player control, one of the criteria is to be "holding" the ball. It does not say with the hands. Question? Can you "hold" the ball with your leggs?

Yes you can - however it is a violation

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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?

No there is no advantage gained.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

NCAA Case Play
RULING: ... The intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by deecee

Is that your opinion or fact?

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

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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?

[AKOFL]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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

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.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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?

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

[deecee]

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.