kicking not a violation? possible ?

[bossref]

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.

[South Bay HHVBC]

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]

[mick]

Originally posted by bossref

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.

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

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

[CYO Butch]

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.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
South Bay HHVBC, I'm curious on why you might consider it unsportsmanlike. 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?

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

[Mlancaster]

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.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Mlancaster
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...

[Mlancaster]

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mlancaster
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.

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

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
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...

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.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by w_sohl

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?!?)

[bossref]

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.

[Hawks Coach]

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)

[Jurassic Referee]

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

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

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.