Intentional Foul???

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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?

[Camron Rust]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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.

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.
.

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul.

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.
.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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

[BillyMac]

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.

[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.