Had another odd situation last night (after the Thunder Stix :) ). Ball was loose on the floor and several players were on the floor trying to secure it. What do we see coming out of the scramble? One player has the ball securely between his feet and he's pivoting on his butt to get the ball away from the other players. I've seen this on a soccer field, but never in hoops.

Just to be clear, he's sitting on the floor and the ball is clearly and intentionally between his feet. His feet are elevevated slightly off the floor and he's rotating away from the other players. While he's doing this, he's yelling "Time out! Time out!"

My partner called a kick, reasoning that he intentionally moved his leg to contact the ball. What do you think of this call? I can see the logic of his reason, but it certainly was not anything like any kick I've ever seen before.

The funny thing was that after the violation was called, the kid gets up and tells me, "How could I kick it on purpose? I didn't even know where the ball was!" :rolleyes:

Chuck

If I think the kid is intentionally cradling the ball with his legs, I think I'd call a "kick" too. I think the intent of that "kick" rule is to not allow a player to use their legs to intentionally "influence" the ball.

Z

As I said in another thread, I think the soccer simplified explanation of handling the ball is a great analogy to BBall kicking: "Ball to hand = no call; hand to ball = foul." If the ball gets caught between/under the legs during a scrum, I think that should be a no-call; but if the ball is played with the feet, I would consider that within the meaning of "struck" in the rules and call the kick. Curious, did you guys get any flack for the call?

Control of the ball on the floor(between his legs and off the floor),followed by pivoting on his butt? I got travelling!

[/B][/QUOTE]Control of the ball on the floor(between his legs and off the floor),followed by pivoting on his butt? I got travelling!
[/B][/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly.

Mregor

Kicking is intentionaly "striking" the ball.
Doesn't sound like that happened.

to be traveling the player on the floor must either try to get up or roll over. doesn't sound like that happened either.

I'm granting the TO request and trying to keep a straight face when I report it to the table.

I'm with you PaulK1, especially since he didn't change his pivot cheek!

I agree that the foot did not strike the ball. However, sometimes we have to look at the intent of the "closest rule to match the situation" as no rules book can ever cover every single variation of what might happen. It seems to me that the intent of the kicking rule is to prevent players from intentionally using their feet/lower legs to play the ball. In this situation, the player intentionally used their feet/legs to control the ball and keep it away from the other team. Violation and the "kick" is the closest I can find.

Z

So if a player grabs the ball with both feet it is kicking
then if the player grabs the ball with both fists is it fisting and a violation also.

Zebra44
Do you think he "perched" on his butt in this situation?

Just checking.

PAULK1,

Like I said, the <b> intent </b> of the kicking rule is what you have to try to comprehend. It seems to me as if the "kicking" rule is to prevent players from using their feet and legs on the ball (preventing soccer). You're comparing "apples to oranges" when you compare it to fisting because using the hands is legal (except for the specific instance when a fist is made and the ball is punched). My point is that not every situation can be addressed by a specific rule so we have to use the closest one we can find. It seems as if everyone in this post agrees that the action of the player was illegal. I think I'd have a hard time selling a travel because it didn't sound to me as if the player made any attempt to get up. I do think I could sell a kick call to a coach in that situation though.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jan 24th, 2003 at 10:48 AM]

I am just playing out your interpt to a logical conclusion
you said that in the rule striking the ball also included controlling the ball with the feet. In the same rule its says illegal striking the ball with your fist so If they meant the didn't want you to control the ball with your feet they also must mean they didn't want you to control the
ball with your fist either. How can it be apples and oranges
within the same rule.....? I am saying that the rule is specific enough either they struck the ball or not. No broader interp should be needed

PAULK1,

OK, fair enough. You make a good point. So answer me this: Ball is rolling past B1 and he sticks his foot out and uses it to stop the ball. Then he picks it up. Are you going to play on? I think 99% of refs will call that a kick even though he didn't "strike" the ball. What about you?

Z

I would call a kick ,If they used the knee or below same as if they stopped the ball on the pass by using the knee or below to stop it.

Well, I didn't pay much attention to this silly thread at first, but tonight I had a similar thing happen and since I hadn't really read the comments it was new to me. Kid was on the floor on his back, gets the ball between his feet, sits up and grabs the ball from between his feet and manages to pass it off. I've got a great game going and I'll be darned if I'm going to make up something just to have a whistle, I no-called it. The other coach wanted a travel, but don't they always when a player and ball are both on the floor at the same time. Not to pick on ya, Z, but I think your interpretation is a stretch at best. Why insert ourselves into the game when we don't have to, is my motto, JMHO.