player control?

[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?

[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?