Clarification on Kick Rule
 

I am looking for clarification on the kick rule. I understand that an intentional use of the leg to block a pass is a kick. The question is, if a defender raises both his arm and leg, and the passed ball first hits the hand, then hits the lower leg, is it ruled a violation due to kick, or a legitimate steal due to it hitting the hand first?

That is why we get paid the big bucks
 

You have to determine whether it was intentional or apart of another movement. And intentional kick has nothing to do with what it hits first. If a player intentionally kicks the ball it is a violation, that simple. The play you described does not give the player the right to kick the call on purpose. But you have to make that determination when it happens.

Peace

Rut's answer is correct. If the ball hits the arm and then bounces off the defender's leg accidentally, no violation. If the ball hits the arm and the defender then intentionally strikes the ball with his/her leg, you have a violation. As the official, you have to judge if it was intentional or not.

You noted the "lower leg" in your last sentence which is another good point. If it hits the defenders leg <b> above </b> the knee, it would not be a violation regardless of whether or not it was intentional.

Z

The leg was definitely raised intentionally to block the pass. The arm and leg were raised in unison, the pass first hit the hand, deflected slightly downward and then hit the lower leg. It sounds like from your response this should indeed by a violation.

Howard,
Just guessing here, that after the ball was deflected by the hand, the player did not, then, intentionally kick it.
mick

hhhmmmm sounds like a no call to me!

Nope, this is a no call. In this case, he didn't kick the ball. He blocked the pass with his arm, and then the ball hit his leg. No violation.

Tony knows this rule good...
 

cuz he's a FootBallRef too.

Of course this is fed only, the ncaa definition of kick states intentionally striking with any part of the leg or foot. And I agree Howard's play sounds like a no call.