can't have offensive "kicking" violation?

[vbzebra]

In a game tonight, A1 dribbling, loses PC, kicks ball. I blow a kicking violation. at half, partner says you can't have an offensive kicking violation. I didn't know that. correct call? or correct partner?

[APG]

There is no provision in the rule that allows an offensive player to kick the ball. A kick ball violation is a violation for all.

I've had partners say this before. I usually always have my rule books with me and ask them kindly where I can find this "exception."

[Adam]

Now, the question is, did he kick it on purpose? That's all that matters. Typically, in your situation, the offensive player accidentally kicks it while running; no violation in that case.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Now, the question is, did he kick it on purpose? That's all that matters. Typically, in your situation, the offensive player accidentally kicks it while running; no violation in that case.

I had a partner at camp last weekend who insisted on calling a kicking violation every time ball touched leg. Once it hit the back of the defender's leg.

[bainsey]

I had an attempted steal bounce off my leg and out of bounds. The coach wanted a kicking violation on me. I told him it wasn't intentional.

[CoachCER]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had a partner at camp last weekend who insisted on calling a kicking violation every time ball touched leg. Once it hit the back of the defender's leg.

That seems to be a trend among some officials in Georgia, so much so that most coaches believe that any contact with the leg is automatically a kick. This just happened to come up in conversation with some coaches in our program the other night.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by vbzebra

In a game tonight, A1 dribbling, loses PC, kicks ball. I blow a kicking violation. at half, partner says you can't have an offensive kicking violation. I didn't know that. correct call? or correct partner?

Plus, once he or she loses PC he's no longer offensive player, right?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

Plus, once he or she loses PC he's no longer offensive player, right?

No, there would still be team control.

[BillyMac]

I had a recreation league game many years ago in which Team A was about to start a three on one fast break. Somehow the ball gets loose on the floor. A1 kicks the ball ahead to A2 for the uncontested layup, which didn't count because I called a kicking violation. Come to find out that A1 was a star player on the high school soccer team who was playing basketball in the winter to stay in shape.

[SmokeEater]

I posted once a few years ago about a girl catching the ball on purpose between her legs. I called a violation and then took some time to explain intentional contact with the leg is a violation before she got T'd up. Honestly I could see it in her face as I made the call that an explanation was needed.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, there would still be team control.

Ahhh. I'm a dope. Because there could still be a backcourt violation... Duh!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

Ahhh. I'm a dope. Because there could still be a backcourt violation... Duh!

Or a team control foul...or 3 seconds.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

Ahhh. I'm a dope. Because there could still be a backcourt violation... Duh!

Well, we don't say there's still team control because there could be BC violation. That's a symptom, not a cause.

There's still team control because none of the 3 things that ends team control has happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, we don't say there's still team control because there could be BC violation. That's a symptom, not a cause.

There's still team control because none of the 3 things that ends team control has happened.

Grammaticist!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Come to find out that A1 was a star player on the high school soccer team who was playing basketball in the winter to stay in shape.

Soccer - that's that game for kids who can't use their hands.