player control?
 

Not near rule book. Player on floor with ball firmly between legs. Player control?

Also reference # on player control. Thanks

Kicking violation.

kicking violation.

only if intentional....

I'm assuming that if we're wondering if a player can control the ball with his/her legs, he/she is intentionally holding it there...

There is no rule that defines whether this is holding the ball.

There's also no rule that says this is kicking the ball.

I believe this scenario fits the definition of a kicking violation.

So what your say in is that holding the ball between your legs ( which requires voluntary muscle response) is not an intentional act?

It is a kicking violation. there is a specific play in the NCAA case book that covers this. The rules are the same in FED and NCAA except for the issues with the shot clock.

You might wish to revise your belief.

4-29: KICKING -- Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot.

What I'm saying is that kicking the ball is defined as intentionally striking it. Squeezing the ball between your legs is NOT striking.

OHBBREF, if you think that NCAA and NFHS rules are the same except for the shot clock, you're sadly mistaken.

And I believe it fits that description. It may be a light strike, but it's a strike.

I guess the contact with both legs holding the ball is neither intentional nor a strike...:rolleyes:

Are you talking specifically about the rules for kicking violations? If not, you couldn't be more wrong.

The question isn't whether it's intentional; it's whether it constitutes a strike. In college, it's clear due to the ruling (not the rule) that it's a strike. In high school, no such ruling exists.

Just to play devil's advocate:
B5 is standing still with his back to the play (guarding A5) when the ball comes flying from the backcourt, bounces right behind him, and gets lodged between his legs due to no effort or movement from him.

Reading everyone's posts regarding this, I think there's a misunderstanding. This OP isn't clear, but I'm going to guess the question is regarding player control for the purpose of calling timeout. But I'll wait for the OP poster to come back and clarify his post.

I understood the OP. The player can't call TO because he/she doesn't have PC because he/she has violated.

Violated how? It isn't an intentional striking of the leg like some suggest. What if he was on the floor and the ball dropped into the legs? That's why I said the original OP isn't clear.

Sure he can, the ball is now dead and anyone can request a TO. :)

Touche. :D

I believe - and have been taught - that holding the ball between the legs is a violation. If the ball just dropped onto the legs, that's neither control nor a violation, same as if the ball landed on a player's back.

The only way a player can have player control is to be legally holding the ball or dribbling.

Disagree. The rule clearly states that to be a kick the player must intentionally strike the ball with the leg or foot. Leg strikes ball.

The ball "striking" or otherwise contacting the leg (lightly or otherwise) is not a kick, absent a ruling to the contrary from NFHS.

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

What would you have in my post #15 in this thread?

FED RULE
Rule 9
SECTION 4 TRAVEL, KICK, FIST
A player shall not travel with the ball, as in 4-44, intentionally kick it, as in 4-29, strike it with the fist or cause it to enter and pass through the basket from below.
NOTE: Kicking the ball is a violation only when it is an intentional act; accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg is not a violation.

FED definition
Rule 4
SECTION 29 KICKING THE BALL
Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot.


NCAA RULE
Rule 9
Section 6
A Player shall not travel or with the ball, intentionally kick it, strike it with the fist or cause it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below.
NCAA Definition
Rule 4
Section 45
Art 1 kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the foot
Art 2 Accidentally stricking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.

NCAA Case Play
Kicking the Ball
A.R. 104. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part
of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing
two hands firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like
force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession
of the ball.
RULING: A1 has committed a kicking violation. Kicking the ball is
defined as striking the ball intentionally with any part of the leg. The
intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by
using any part of the leg. Since A1 was not holding the ball in his or
her hands, B1’s firm placement of his or her hands on the ball does
not constitute a held ball.
(Rule 4-45)


Where are the differences?

That's why i asked if you were talking specifically about kicking rules, or about all the rules in general being identical except for the shot clock. The way your post was worded, you were speaking of all the rules; but the context of the thread made me think maybe you were talking about kicking only. Thanks for clarifying.

see your point- sorry if I confused anyone!

If the player allows the ball to drop to the floor immediately and noone else is trying to gain control of the ball I got nothing however if the player grabs the ball from between the legs or moves in any direction with one foot I have a kick. Because either of the other actions requires control of the ball.

I would suspect that additional replies will not change jwd's opinion, but I think there is insufficient detail in the OP to reasonably offer an interpretation. Possible scenarios:

1) loose ball and during scramble A1 secures the ball between his legs with his hands. Even though his hands are on the ball are you really going to call a kicking violation? I'm not.
2) similar to #1, A1 now takes his hands off the ball to signal for a TO; NOW you are going to call a kicking violation? That would be a tough sell in my opinion.
3) OK, how about A1 has the ball lodged between his legs during the scramble but is prevented from reaching his hands down to the ball because...........B1 is holding him? PF on B1 right?
4) Wait, how about this one............A1 is trying to secure the ball with his legs while laying on the floor and intentionally not use his hands? Yes, I could see that in this sitch, A1 would actually "intentionally strike" the ball in trying to secure the possession. In that case, I agree with jwd, kicking violation.

I am sure I missed a couple of other possibilities............. :D

have to see this one but if the player has hands on the ball they can control it that way, might not be a kick.

How is this a tough sell?
Player is not required to signal time out -they can say it.
By allowing the player to hold the ball with the legs - which is not control - and signal time out, if you grant it you have given them an advantage. Clearly a kick.


Which happened first? if the ball is between the players legs you may have a violation before you have a foul?

Trying means intentional. so contact with the legs is would be a kick.

If you use your legs to try to control the ball it is a kick it isn't that hard.

My sit. was A1 dives on a loose ball, he lands on it chest first and is unable to get it with his hands. Momenum rools him across the top of the ball causing it to come to rest between his leggs, with him now on the floor on his chest. What are you going to allow him to do to prevent the kick ball violation.

Immediately release the ball.

Just an observation about all the situations saying the ball gets lodged between the legs. If im doing a game and a ball gets lodged in any part of a players body, I'm getting another ball to throw at it hoping to dislodge it.

Okay. So if a women squeezes a man between her legs, she's striking him? :D

OK. Milk just came out my nose.:D I love it when a good sit becomes foder for the masses.

If you're in Hackensack, it sure is!!:eek:

Someone asked me to research it. He only asked me if controlling the ball between your legs(watch it Padgett!) constitutes player control.

You need to be specific, because we have imagination. We can come up with allot of interesting stuff which will both amuse and confuse.:p

... and bemuse?

On another thought
 

Lest we forget to diffuse this ruse?

I'm going to....
 

eject him for making a travesty of the game :p

This is another example of where the NCAA rules are clearer and better than NFHS rules, in my not-so-humble opinion. The game is not meant to be played (as I now put myself in the omnipotent position of the creator and all-knower of basketball) by intentionally contacting the ball with a leg, just like the game is not meant to be played by people laying or rolling around on the ground (wheelchairs excepted) - both clearly defined as illegal in NCAA, but legal (laying on the ground and causing a legally moving player to trip and go down) or ambiguous (leg vice not clearly equaling a kicking violation) in NFHS.

Self-righteous rant off.:)

I am picturing someone gently holding a baby.....Is that person striking the baby????

If he's lucky.

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??? :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. :)

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...

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?

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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