My points exactly.

So you're willing to accept players kicking each other above the waist as part of the game of basketball?

I'm not Snaqs, but where did he say that?

It's the end result of treating it as a common foul. Players will do things that are common fouls in order to stop baskets. There are simply less expected points from 2 free throws than a layup.

If kicking is an acceptable (common) foul, it will be added to that arsenal of moves used to foul players breaking away. I'm not saying it will be done often. But it will be done regularly.

It's a player safety issue. Kicking at players is excessive for basketball.

That's your take-away from my refusal to call this automatic? Seriously?

I think I'm on record as saying I would have called this play intentional; but I'm not basing that on reasoning from soccre roules.

Kicking at the ball happens all the time, it's part of the game. As an outnumbered defender on fast breaks, I used it all the time back in high school. I used it to prevent post passes.

In the OP, it's a defender using feet because of poor positioning; not really much different in theory than a single defender using it during a fast break to make the offense set up again.

The only difference is that in the OP, the offense is "holding" the ball when the kick attempt is made. I'm less inclined to call that a common or shooting foul because of safety concerns; but that inclination has really little to do with whether it's above or below the waste.

Oh?

Does that mean that we should simply ignore NFHS rule 4-27-2 which states that severe contact may also be incidental contact?

And do we also ignore NFHS rule 4-40-7 which states the exact same thing about severe contact?

Whether a foul is intentional or flagrant in nature was, is and always will be a judgment call.

It can be.

But since your comment is an absolute, can you point me to the rule or case play that backs up that statement?

Well, she actually "caught the arm". I think there is an implied level of contact here that, while it is sufficient for a foul, is really minimal. Yet, you're taking it to the level of excessive.

And this is NOT soccer.

Sure it is. I don't see how an attempt to contact the ball can be construed as anything but playing the ball. It is not much different than a player swatting near a ball that the opponent has completely wrapped up. There is no chance to actually contact the ball and a foul is the only likely result....yet that is playing the ball.

There was NO hint in the OP that the force was excessive. In fact, the wording in the OP implied that the contact was slight.

If the same amount of contact had occurred with the arm, would it have been intentional? No. Contact is excessive or not based on the amount of contact, not which limbs are involved.

The contact wasn't designed at all, it was unintentional. The design was to knock the ball out of the opponent's hands. That part of the intentional rule is for contact that is intended for the sole purpose of contact alone to prevent the player from being able to make any sort of play.
Legally contacting the ball is not necessary....was the purpose of the action to contact the ball or to simply contact the player? The OP was pretty clear on that.
.
No one said that. The player didn't "kick" the player. If they had "kicked" the player, it would probably be a flagrant foul. In this play, they kicked at the ball and missed....then made contact with a player's arm.

Let me add this - if the contact in the original situation had been "excessive" and ripped the shooter's arm off or knocked her down, then I would not have need to post the question. As it was, the "kick" to the arm was enough to knock the shooter's right arm off the ball and cause her to lose control of the ball as she was beginning her habitual shooting motion.

So the OP is NOT a case of excessive force or anything like that. Had the defender kicked the shooter in the head, the chest, etc. - easy Int. call...so I guess my question (which has gotten several different answers on here and from friends I have discussed it with in person) is "Should the mere fact that she kicked the shooter be an Int. foul as kicking is not really making a play on the ball?"

Consensus I have come up with is leaning heavily toward "No, but"...

Fisting ???
 

Same reason for the "old not striking the ball with a fist" rule.

Gasoline, Meet Fire ...
 

NFHS 4-18-1: 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: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

The implication in this rule is that the target is another player, not the ball.

Yeah, the growing consensus seems to be: kicking an opponent is not an automatic INT/flagrant foul, but the bar is lowered significantly due to this not being a "basketball play."