Intentional Foul???

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just because it was with an illegal appendage doesn't make it an intentional foul when it contacts the arm instead of the ball.

That's how I'm leaning. You can always go with "excessive force" if the foot made excessive contact, hence the intentional foul.

On an unrelated angle...If the player, with that foot, had contacted the ball instead of the arm, would have you called a kicked ball and killed the shot?

I think you'd have to. If you block the shot with an arm, there's a chance you can recover the ball. If you use the leg, the consequence is that the other team gets the ball automatically.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's how I'm leaning. You can always go with "excessive force" if the foot made excessive contact, hence the intentional foul.

I think you'd have to. If you block the shot with an arm, there's a chance you can recover the ball. If you lose the leg, the consequence is that the other team gets the ball automatically.

If someone in my game loses a leg, we probably have a flagrant foul and much more.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If someone in my game loses a leg, we probably have a flagrant foul and much more.

Nice catch, Cam. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Kicking at the ball is not an attempt to play the ball. It is an attempt to violate.

Why can't it be both?

There's no rule against attempting to play the ball with the leg, unless the ball makes contact with the leg. The leg-ball contact has its own consequence. Without contact, there's no consequence.

Then, you'd have to judge the excessive nature of any leg-arm contact. If you think that any such contact is excessive, then I suppose you have a ground for an intentional foul.