Intentional Foul???

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by refnrev

Eastersire,
Your argument here just won't hold water. Your mixing apples and oranges. If she's a leaper than you've penalized her for being athletic. And, as you know, in soccer, just because the foot is above the waist, it isn't necesasarily dangerous play. What if her foot is is facing away from the opponent rather than towards it? Where's the danger?

She kicked the player in the arm. In soccer, I've got a foul and a unsporting behavior caution for a reckless foul. It it was done with any force I've got a foul and a serious foul play send off for excessive force. If she hadn't made contact, I've got a dangerous play.

The point is, even in soccer, an attempt to play a ball being controlled by the opponent above the waist with the foot is going to be a violation even if you miss.

If her foot was away from her opponent, she wouldn't be trying to play the ball and we wouldn't have an issue.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're contradicting yourself unless you're saying rockyroad's presentation of the play is inaccurate. The situation was that the player was attempting to contact to the bal....but missed.

I'd agree if I felt the defender was simply kicking the other player with no attempt on the ball OR if there were excessive force. Neither were the case in the play presented.

Kicking the ball simply isn't trying to play the ball. The scenario is a second case scenario from your list.

Beyond that, in a sport where intentional leg contact with the ball is disallowed, there is a serious safety issue when players start kicking above their waist. For the players' safety, you need to heavily penalize this act. Even in soccer, this play would be a caution at least, which is half way to an ejection.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

She kicked the player in the arm. In soccer, I've got a foul and a unsporting behavior caution for a reckless foul. It it was done with any force I've got a foul and a serious foul play send off for excessive force. If she hadn't made contact, I've got a dangerous play.

The point is, even in soccer, an attempt to play a ball being controlled by the opponent above the waist with the foot is going to be a violation even if you miss.

If her foot was away from her opponent, she wouldn't be trying to play the ball and we wouldn't have an issue.



Kicking the ball simply isn't trying to play the ball. The scenario is a second case scenario from your list.

Beyond that, in a sport where intentional leg contact with the ball is disallowed, there is a serious safety issue when players start kicking above their waist. For the players' safety, you need to heavily penalize this act. Even in soccer, this play would be a caution at least, which is half way to an ejection.

While the attempt is admirable, comparing rule enforcement reasoning in two different sports doesn't always apply. Would you use the soccer example to penalize a football punter if he kicked a defender in the head on the follow-through on his punt? Would you say dribbling with the hands is ok in soccer, because, hey, it's not only accepted but required in basketball? Perhaps over-the-top examples, but it illustrates the faulty reasoning to compare rule enforcement between sports.

Stick to basketball rules when discussing the game of basketball. Is there any specific basketball rule that tells us to "heavily penalize this act"?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While the attempt is admirable, comparing rule enforcement reasoning in two different sports doesn't always apply. Would you use the soccer example to penalize a football punter if he kicked a defender in the head on the follow-through on his punt? Would you say dribbling with the hands is ok in soccer, because, hey, it's not only accepted but required in basketball? Perhaps over-the-top examples, but it illustrates the faulty reasoning to compare rule enforcement between sports.

Stick to basketball rules when discussing the game of basketball. Is there any specific basketball rule that tells us to "heavily penalize this act"?

Yes, the rule that says excessive force is an intentional foul. It's a slam dunk (ha) that kicking a standing opponent in the arm is excessive in basketball where kicking the ball at all is illegal. That such an act is heavily penalized in soccer, where kicking the ball is legal, helps clarify for those not accustomed to the dangers of kicking opponents the level of danger B1 has put A1 in.

Failing to call an intentional foul for excessive force in this play is a complete failure of the official to provide for basic player safety.

Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul. It's ludicrous that we're still discussing this at all. It's no different than the bear hug from behind. There's no possibility of legally contacting the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Yes, the rule that says excessive force is an intentional foul. It's a slam dunk (ha) that kicking a standing opponent in the arm is excessive in basketball where kicking the ball at all is illegal. That such an act is heavily penalized in soccer, where kicking the ball is legal, helps clarify for those not accustomed to the dangers of kicking opponents the level of danger B1 has put A1 in.

Failing to call an intentional foul for excessive force in this play is a complete failure of the official to provide for basic player safety.

Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul. It's ludicrous that we're still discussing this at all. It's no different than the bear hug from behind. There's no possibility of legally contacting the ball.

I'm sorry, but there's no rules basis for saying it's a slam dunk that kicking is excessive contact. By definition, that requires a level of contact that may or may not accompany a kick.

Having a "possibility of legally contacting the ball" isn't required, anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a defensive violation to kick at the ball regardless of whether contact is made.

That said, a player kicking a ball that's being held is certainly going to be more scrutinized by me, and the bar dropped significantly for an intentional.

I just can't agree that it's an automatic.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm sorry, but there's no rules basis for saying it's a slam dunk that kicking is excessive contact. By definition, that requires a level of contact that may or may not accompany a kick.

Having a "possibility of legally contacting the ball" isn't required, anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a defensive violation to kick at the ball regardless of whether contact is made.

That said, a player kicking a ball that's being held is certainly going to be more scrutinized by me, and the bar dropped significantly for an intentional. I just can't agree that it's an automatic.

My points exactly.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm sorry, but there's no rules basis for saying it's a slam dunk that kicking is excessive contact. By definition, that requires a level of contact that may or may not accompany a kick.

Having a "possibility of legally contacting the ball" isn't required, anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a defensive violation to kick at the ball regardless of whether contact is made.

That said, a player kicking a ball that's being held is certainly going to be more scrutinized by me, and the bar dropped significantly for an intentional.

I just can't agree that it's an automatic.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Failing to call an intentional foul for excessive force in this play is a complete failure of the official to provide for basic player safety.

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.