The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2002, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2002, 10:38am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Lightbulb That is why we get paid the big bucks

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard Kogan
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?
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2002, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
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 above the knee, it would not be a violation regardless of whether or not it was intentional.

Z
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2002, 11:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2002, 11:21am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard Kogan
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


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2002, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 385
hhhmmmm sounds like a no call to me!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2002, 08:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally posted by Howard Kogan
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2002, 09:16pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Thumbs up Tony knows this rule good...

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.
cuz he's a FootBallRef too.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2002, 09:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman


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

Z
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1