player control?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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'm not quibbling about how hard the contact must be to qualify as "striking." A player placing the ball between the legs is not striking the ball with the leg (though might be striking the leg with the ball, which is not a violation).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not quibbling about how hard the contact must be to qualify as "striking." A player placing the ball between the legs is not striking the ball with the leg (though might be striking the leg with the ball, which is not a violation).

Simple physics here -- the ball is intentionally striken by the legs. Where I think the disconnect it is that the fact that the ball remains stationary it cannot have been struck.

But it was! Each leg strikes the ball exerting forces of equal strength on the ball in opposite directions. One leg negates the other and therefore the ball remains in place without it bouncing around.

Really simple as you can see...

[ma_ref]

Another scenario:

A1 inbounds the ball to A2 in their front court, who is well behind the 3 point arc, closer to mid-court. A2 catches the ball. He then takes the ball and holds it against his upper thigh (still part of the leg), so he can hold up his other hand to signal an offensive play formation. Forget the questions about the ball between the legs (plural). Nothing in the rule says you need both legs to strike the ball. It only takes 1 leg. Ball is now wedged between the player's leg and hand. Violation? I still say no. But those that have said it is a violation to have the ball between both legs (even if put there on purpose), would have to say yes. Any of them want to admit they'd call a kicking violation on A2?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not quibbling about how hard the contact must be to qualify as "striking." A player placing the ball between the legs is not striking the ball with the leg (though might be striking the leg with the ball, which is not a violation).

I was just trying to make the point that "striking", in this case, doesn't necessarily indicate the level of force used, but rather the intention, if that makes sense.

Yes, I'm basing my ruling on the NCAA case, and the Fed. doesn't have an equivalent case. But I feel it goes to a basketball basic, in that intentional movement or holding of the ball is done by the hands, or more specifically, not by the legs or feet. There is no other rule or case that I'm aware that allows movement of the ball by the leg or foot. In this aspect, there's really no difference between NF, NCAA, or NBA

If you want to use your leg on the ball, play soccer.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Another scenario:

A1 inbounds the ball to A2 in their front court, who is well behind the 3 point arc, closer to mid-court. A2 catches the ball. He then takes the ball and holds it against his upper thigh (still part of the leg), so he can hold up his other hand to signal an offensive play formation. Forget the questions about the ball between the legs (plural). Nothing in the rule says you need both legs to strike the ball. It only takes 1 leg. Ball is now wedged between the player's leg and hand. Violation? I still say no. But those that have said it is a violation to have the ball between both legs (even if put there on purpose), would have to say yes. Any of them want to admit they'd call a kicking violation on A2?

Isn't the player using his hand to hold the ball against the leg? He's not using his leg to hold the ball against his hand, right? It still goes back to the original basis: is the ball "striking" the leg, or is the leg "striking" the ball?

However, if the player is using both legs, there's no question the leg is being used.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Exactly! If NFHS wanted to adopt the same ruling, it would be in the case book, right?

I don't think that's necessarily true.

FWIW, I think the rule / interp is the same, but I agree that there's nothing definite in the current FED book.

[mbyron]

Uh oh. I'm on the wrong side of Bob.

I wouldn't be surprised if the interp were the same.