player control?

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.