Never seen this before !
I saw an intentional striking of the ball
with a foot and did NOT call a violation.
Was I correct?

Offensive player with the ball, bends over,
holds the ball below his knees and begins
a faking motion (side to side) prior to
beginning a dribble.
The defender kicks at the ball, but does not
dislodge it. (NO ADVANTAGE) It had no affect on the
offensive player, who then head-faked and went around the defender to score a lay-up.

Very unusual.
My decision was a no-call.

Your opinions please.

..
 

im thinking that would be a T for unsportsmanlike conduct regardless if there was advantage or not



[Edited by South Bay HHVBC on Jan 28th, 2003 at 02:59 PM]

bossref,
Yeah, very strange indeed. ...A soccer player. :rolleyes:

I'll call the kick and talk to the kicker. I don't want that happening again.
mick

Why a T ?
 

South Bay HHVBC, I'm curious on why you might consider it unsportsmanlike. Part of the game involves trying to get the ball from the opponent. I don't know of anything that singles out the feet as being unsporting. Sure, its a violation to kick the ball, but a T? Frankly, I liked the nocall from bossref.

I understand the advantage/disadvantage logic behind taking away an easy two from the offense, however when the defender INTENTIONALLY kicked/touched the ball w/ his/her foot we need a kick here IMO. I think mick is correct in talking to the kicker as if some contact was created because of the kick, tempers could start flaring quickly. Unless this action was done w/ the intent of hurting the offensive player we would quickly get into trouble bringing the word "T" into this case play.

Re: Why a T ?
 

A T for screwing with the official's head,maybe?:D

You could get away with a no-call since the "kick" did not affect play....based upon what I see here, I would lean that way.
Calling the kick would not be incorrect, by rule, though...it's an advantage-disadvantage judgement call.

Under NO circumstances would I call a "T" for this.....again, there was no game disruption, so what's the point??
Don't look for reasons to call a "T".....Find ways to avois them.

Lets look at it from a defensive standpoint. You just created a DISADVANTAGE for the defense by allowing the violation (good defense possibly in this case) to go uncalled and allowed the offense an easy lay-up...

I did not see the play, so abviously it is tough to get a true feel. I see what you are saying, but I don't agree that you are creating a disadvantage with a no-call---
Similar to a little contact on a rebound that goes goes out of bounds off of the player who caused the contact. Are you going to call an foul on this when the right team will get the ball out of bounds anyway?? Of course not! (unless the contact was severe, of course)
Suppose the player slapped the ball with his/hand??? You probably get the same head fake and same lay-up, ie, same result. IMHO, the "kick" was inconsequential.

Okay suppose we do it your way.
 

Mlancaster,
Okay suppose we do it your way and the same defensive player does the same thing. No call again?
Don't think so.
Make the call once, and make it go away.
mick

The defense created its own disadvantage by kicking the at the ball and trying to create an advantage for itself, it backfired and gave the offense the advantage. Kinda like a flop when trying to draw a charge, you could call a block (or a T for that matter) but all the player did was take him/herself out of the play and gave an advantage to the offense.

Great point as I love employing the advantage/disadvantage aspect to the game. However ultimately I agree w/ Mick, we have to call this to make it go away or otherwise players start to play "kick defense" out there and someone is going to get hurt. I am thinking explaining advantage/disadvantage to a coach who's star pointguard who just got kicked in the hand might be a tough sell especially when any intentional striking is suposed to be called a kick. (I think most howlers know that?!?) :rolleyes:

don't call it
 

You guys are getting way off point.
No reason to make it "go away"!

It is the first time I've seen this
in over 30 years of reffing.
NOBODY in the game complained.

I assign thousands of games a year
and nobody has ever had this happen.

The D was not acting in an unsporting manner,
therefore no T.
The offense was not affected, therefore no call.

Just thought I'd bring something to the forum for
food for thought.

In this case, I gotta go with the boos (and don't call me a suck-up!). Happens once, and no advantage, it's not a call. Let the offense take advantage of a bad play. Same player does it again, I think you gotta call it.

In the first case, I think you just don't see it. The second one is sometimes easier to see (maybe you got a better angle) ;)

Re: don't call it
 

You asked for opinions at the bottom of your first post,BossRef.Could you tell me exactly why you think that your "opinion" is now right,and everybody else that responded contrary to your "opinion" is wrong? Can you cite a rule or casebook play that will back up your "opinion" that it should be a no-call,and negate the precise language of Rule 9-4? If you can,would you please do so?

I'm not being smart.I'm just very interested to see if you do have something that will back up your call,and prove the other poster's wrong.

Oh, my !!!
 

...except for the rule.

However ultimately I agree w/ Mick, we have to call this to make it go away or otherwise players start to play "kick defense" out there and someone is going to get hurt. I am thinking explaining advantage/disadvantage to a coach who's star pointguard who just got kicked in the hand might be a tough sell especially when any intentional striking is suposed to be called a kick.[/B][/QUOTE]Tell him that the hand is part of the ball.

Then run!:D

After getting that out of my system,I agree completely with you,MN3.The kick was deliberate. It had to be called.

just an opinion
 

Not surprised by your response!

Some of us are LEGALISTIC officials.
Some of us are REALISTIC officials.
(my preference - common sense)

AND .... some of us are Jurassic officials.
You'll probably never change your stripes.

PHBT Whack or whatever !

My point wasn't about legalistic vs. realistic calls.It was about you asking for opinions,and then stating that those opinions are wrong because they happen to disagree with yours.Why bother asking for 'em in the first place,then?

Next time that you ask for an opinion,Barry,I'll ignore your post.As usual,you really didn't want it,so it's pointless to respond anyway.

Btw,your opinion in this sitch isn't backed up by any rule.Mick's is.That's realistic!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 30th, 2003 at 04:03 AM]

JR
You are right to criticize boss for not being open to opinions when they were requested. However, a quick glance at the responses shows a split poll, while you suggest that all respondents were in opposition to his no call. I think that most (if not all) would agree that you call it if it you see more than one incident. All should agree that you can call it by rule the first time it occurs. The only real disagreement is whether or not you choose to enforce the initial violation.

There are many technical violations of rules that go unenforced (3 seconds!) except when an advantage is gained by the offender. There are other violations that are strictly black and white, and some that appear to be a little of both depending on circumstance. Here, boss saw advantage was given not gained by the defense's action and chose to pass on the call. This is done in many circumstances, so it is hard to say he was wrong to do so.

Hawks Coach,

Sitch: 6 seconds left. You are tied and are full court pressing; opponent makes a long pass down court to only two opponents in the area. The ball is received by both players who then stumble with your player falling to the floor. Opponent grabs the loose ball and starts for the unguarded hoop. Your player kicks at and touches the ball. You say, "That's okay. Don't do it again." :rolleyes:

Re: Re: don't call it
 

You asked for opinions at the bottom of your first post,BossRef.Could you tell me exactly why you think that your "opinion" is now right,and everybody else that responded contrary to your "opinion" is wrong?[/B][/QUOTE]Hawks Coach,there is my exact statement from the earlier post.I wondered why EVERYBODY that responded whose opinion was different than his was wrong.I then gave MY opinion,which was that I agreed with mick and MN3.I don't have a problem at all with the other posts,and I never commented at all on them.To be quite honest,if a T were called,it probably could be backed up using language in the rulebook concerning unsportsmanlike acts.

This is great thread because it makes us all think about rules knowledge vs. game management and the impacts/ramifications.

(I am sicking to my guns on this one....NO CALL!!
w_sohl said it well that the defensive player put himself at a disadvantage....Why penalize the offense??)

Because the defender was smart enough to use the rules to his advantage. When a team is down 4 with 30 seconds to go, what do they do? They put themselves at a disadvantage by committing a foul. Do we call it? OF COURSE!! The fact that they are breaking the rules to their advantage does not change the fact that they are breaking the rules. We force the team that's ahead to shoot 1-and-1, even tho it would be to their advantage to simply let the clock run.

Similarly, the NBA used to give a delay warning to the defense for stepping over the OOB line during a throw-in. Teams would intentionally break the rule in order to see the offensive set. The officials correctly enforced the rule even tho the defenders gained an advantage from it (or at least, they thought they did). They've since changed that rule b/c it was deemed an unfair advantage.

If you want to change the kick rule to eliminate this possiblity, then by all means, change it. Otherwise, call the kick.

Chuck

If you put it that way I would be inclined to call a T for unsporting behavior.

C'mon, w-sohl,
Why stop with the "kick"?
Yeah, you can call all fouls and all violations "unsporting behavior".
Not all rules are in place, but the "kick" is an easy call and we don't have to justify it to anyone.
mick

The kick here isn't a typical kick that happens in every game. It isn't a reaction to a pass that might get by them. They are doing something that, as someone said in an earlier post, could create a serious problem if someone took it the wrong way. This particular kick would be unsporting and a good way to start a fight.

While you don't want to make a molehill out of a mountain, you don't want to make a mountain of the molehill either. He kicked the ball, not a player. So penalize the kick. It's the easy call. And what's better is. . . it's the right call!

Chuck

Here's a twist for ya...
 

Hawks Coach,there is my exact statement from the earlier post.I wondered why EVERYBODY that responded whose opinion was different than his was wrong.I then gave MY opinion,which was that I agreed with mick and MN3.I don't have a problem at all with the other posts,and I never commented at all on them.To be quite honest,if a T were called,it probably could be backed up using language in the rulebook concerning unsportsmanlike acts. [/B][/QUOTE]

Seems to me like the offense is illegally using his legs. Call the kick on him. Or give him a T for unsportsman like acts. When the ball is in the hands, the defense can go for it, but if it is between the legs, how is the defense going to get it? Kick at it, dive for it, or bend all the way down which takes them out of a good defensive position. I think the offense should be penalized for this, not the defense.

Was it below the waist? Was it intentional? What makes it atypical?
It's a kick. Call it.
Done. ;)

it was VERY atypical
 

I'm glad that my original question has
allowed for this length of discussion
and has caused at least one ref to think
about the big picture and not the strict
interpretation of the rules.

This situation (actual) was VERY ATYPICAL!

The D was trying to distract a very good
offensive player (who had already score 30 points).
Or maybe he thought it was legal to try to dislodge
the ball with his foot.
He DID NOT act in an unsporting manner.
He did NOT create or cause any disdavantage.
He did NOT do it repeatedly.
NOBODY complained.

Although I don't agree with everyone's reply, I do
understand that there is more than one way
to view a play. You probably won't EVER see this
play (my first in over 15,000 games), but if it
does happen, you'll be better prepared to deal with it.

Re: it was VERY atypical
 

This is probably a play we would have to see to call. I'm calling intentional contact w/ the baal by the foot of a defender a kick because thats what it is. Barry does not think so and chooses to give the advantage to the offensive player. If the defender kicked at the ball and took himself out of position and the offensive team ggot an easy 2 then the "kick" was penalized even though it wasn't. My question however is that if this was smart defense to counteract a talented offensive players move then we are penalizing the defense. That is why giving the defender the benefit of the doubt I will call this a kick. I haven't seen this happen in a game but I am sure that if I did 500+ games a year I would have(15000+games/30+yrs) and then I would have to decide for myself. Of course I'm sure I would be on my 3rd leg transplant by then...:rolleyes:

That is the great thing about this forum we don't have to disagree as long as looking at anothers point of view makes us a better official. IMO however when we are always right and the other person must be wrong at all costs to inflate our own ego, we are actually hurting ourselves and becoming more closeminded officials. JMO

Mick
I can give you that call, though you may want to look more at a T if the player endangered the other player by kicking at the ball to get a stoppage. Now we are beyond the original situation and we have a player taking a strategic, but reckless, act. That requires a different response in my book.

Now take a different situation. Tie game, 4 minutes left, B1 tries his goofy defensive kick and A1 blows by B1 for lay-up. It is the only time you have ever seen this. Is it possible that you blinked and missed that attempted kick, and would only notice a recuurence of that action ;)

The only reason one kick requires a different response is because the rules have been mentally modified. If we twist here, then we hafta tweak there. Where may it end?

Can I miss that call? Only if it's in my partners area. I understand what you're saying, but for me, this is a no brainer (<i>Of course, that's my modus operandi</i>).

Sitch : Tie game, 4 minutes left A1 passes to A2 but the ball gets kicked in the air to A2 for an uncontested dunk.
We all have that kick, though the result is the same as bossref's original case.

You can defend this no-call all you want, but in the end you still demand consistency. ...A kick every time, not just sometime. ;)

mick

You can defend this no-call all you want, but in the end you still demand consistency. ...A kick every time, not just sometime. ;)

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree completely,mick.The downside isn't worth it:
-what do you do if A1 misses the lay-up,and then starts bi*ching at you for not calling the kick? Awful tough to justify any response,isn't it?
-also,you lay off the whistle,A1 looks at you,sees "no call" is coming,drops the ball and then smacks B1 upside the head.This is rec ball,remember.Have fun writing that report up!

You can't say that these will never happen.The kick by the defender did,even if it took 15,000 games.

Too many bad things can happen if you ignore calls like this. You can't defend yourself if they do. JMO.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 31st, 2003 at 04:29 AM]

not an every day play
 

Lots of "what ifs" by you guys.
And "it has to be called".

Have you ever seen a play where the
defender tried to kick the ball out
of the hands of a stationary player
with the ball, about to make a move?
Probably not.

The sitch that I originally spoke about
was a rare occurrence.
I judged that no advantage was gained.

I'm sure that if I (or another official)
had blown the whistle and called a kick,
it would be viewed as a good call too.

I hesitate to add another thought here, but it seems likely to me that most of the time if a player succeeds in kicking a ball being held by another player, more likely than not, there is a foul in there too . . . .