more firsts

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

2. Kicking violation by the offense. Visitors point guard mishandled a pass. it bounced off his hand, then hit his lower leg and started to roll away. He casually reached out with his foot and raked the ball back to himself.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Did the player actually strike the ball with his foot? I think that the intent of this rule and the wording of this rule conflict. I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking.

You can rake all day, but the thing you're trying to move won't move unless you strike it with the rake. The ball moved.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can rake all day, but the thing you're trying to move won't move unless you strike it with the rake. The ball moved.

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

So, if a player makes contact with a player and the player moves, are you going to call this striking and eject the player for a flagrant foul?

Per 10-3-5 slapping or striking the backboard is a technical foul. If a player touches the backboard, are you going to call a technical foul?

Just curious. As I stated earlier, I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking. Based on the multiple definitions of striking that are in the Rules Book, one could still interpret your play, in my opinion, as being legal -- even though I believe that the intent of the rule is to make it illegal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

So, if a player makes contact with a player and the player moves, are you going to call this striking and eject the player for a flagrant foul?

Per 10-3-5 slapping or striking the backboard is a technical foul. If a player touches the backboard, are you going to call a technical foul?

Just curious. As I stated earlier, I believe that the intent of the rule is to prohibit a player from intentionally USING a foot to play the ball. The wording indicates INTENTIONALLY STRIKING the ball with the foot or leg is prohibited. One could argue that raking is not striking. Based on the multiple definitions of striking that are in the Rules Book, one could still interpret your play, in my opinion, as being legal -- even though I believe that the intent of the rule is to make it illegal.

Your other references have no relevance in the discussion of this play. Apparently you are disturbed by the use of the verb rake in this situation.
Okay, the player intentionally used his foot to play the ball. He extended the foot, gently struck the ball, and pushed it back to himself. It was a kicking violation.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your other references have no relevance in the discussion of this play. Apparently you are disturbed by the use of the verb rake in this situation.
Okay, the player intentionally used his foot to play the ball. He extended the foot, gently struck the ball, and pushed it back to himself. It was a kicking violation.

JAR,
This has NOTHING to do with your use of the verb rake. It has everything to do with the use of the word "striking" when discussing a kick and in these other references in the Rules Book. Players placing their foot on top of the ball and rolling the ball back to themselves have USED their foot, but they have not "struck" the ball in the sense that the word "striking" is used elsewhere in the Rules Book.

I am not objecting as to whether the INTENT of the Rules Book is to consider this use of the foot to be illegal. I am merely suggesting that in lieu of using the words "intentionally striking the ball with the foot (or leg)" the wording should be changed to "intentionally contacting the ball with the foot (or leg)". This change in the wording would eliminate any question as to the intent of this rule.

[Adam]

This is a case where the intent of the rule must be known to determine how to apply it. When you take that into account, the rule is fine as is.

Not that it wouldn't be improved if done as you suggest.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is a case where the intent of the rule must be known to determine how to apply it. When you take that into account, the rule is fine as is.

Not that it wouldn't be improved if done as you suggest.

Shaqs,
The problem that I see with the current wording is that there are many officials who KNOW the Rules Book, BUT do NOT know the game. For these folks, the clearer the wording, the better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

The problem that I see with the current wording is that there are many officials who KNOW the Rules Book, BUT do NOT know the game. For these folks, the clearer the wording, the better.

And does your research also tell you that there are many coaches that know the game but don't have a clue when it comes to rules?

Does your research also tell you that there are many coaches who don't know the game OR the rules?

Btw, just to be explicit, what is the exact percentage of officials that know the rulebook but don't know the game, according to your extensive research?

PS- my own extensive research tells me that 41.36% of all coaches know the game but don't know the rules. And 49.85% of all coaches don't know the game or the rules. Which leaves 8.79% of all coaches that know both the rules and the game. I know that figure might sound high to my officiating brethren, but that's what my extensive research came up with.