Was this a kick

[tjchamp]

Defender B1 reaches low, and sticks his foot out to block a pass. The ball deflects off his hand, then hits his extended foot/ankle.

[just another ref]

Yes. If he deliberately stuck out the foot/leg, what it hit first is irrelevant.

[Bad Zebra]

4-29 Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the foot or leg.

Sticking a foot out to block a pass sounds pretty intentional to me.

[stiffler3492]

I had a play similar to this last night. I saw the touch with the hand, but couldn't tell for sure whether or not he touched it with his leg.

[zm1283]

I had a coach yell for a kick last night when the other team was trying to run clock and a pass deflected off of one of their players' foot. He was running and the pass hit him on the foot and deflected to a teammate. It was not intentional. The coach said something like "His foot was moving forward, that's a kick!".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

Defender B1 reaches low, and sticks his foot out to block a pass. The ball deflects off his hand, then hits his extended foot/ankle.

Nothing....he hit it with his hand....he missed it with the foot. The hand knocked it into the foot. So, while he tried to use his foot to stop the ball, that isn't what actually happened.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nothing....he hit it with his hand....he missed it with the foot. The hand knocked it into the foot. So, while he tried to use his foot to stop the ball, that isn't what actually happened.

I think I'm leaning toward a kicking violation here. Spirit of the rule kind of thing. I see it not too differently from this possible, similar scenario:

A1's low pass is deflected by B1's hand, and strikes B2's foot, which was returning to the ground after he/she initially raised it up to deflect the pass with it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I think I'm leaning toward a kicking violation here. Spirit of the rule kind of thing. I see it not too differently from this possible, similar scenario:

A1's low pass is deflected by B1's hand, and strikes B2's foot, which was returning to the ground after he/she initially raised it up to deflect the pass with it.

Listen to Camron because he got it correct.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

Defender B1 reaches low, and sticks his foot out to block a pass. The ball deflects off his hand, then hits his extended foot/ankle.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nothing....he hit it with his hand....he missed it with the foot. The hand knocked it into the foot. So, while he tried to use his foot to stop the ball, that isn't what actually happened.

He stuck out his foot to block a pass, and it happened. The fact that the path of the ball was changed (how much? 2 degrees or 90 degrees?) does not change the bottom line.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

He stuck out his foot to block a pass, and it happened. The fact that the path of the ball was changed (how much? 2 degrees or 90 degrees?) does not change the bottom line.

Sure it does. He blocked the pass with his hand....legal. If the foot was in the original path of the ball, and the ball still hit it after a minor deflection, I could agree with still calling a kick as the foot was put in the path of the ball and became relevant.

If they miss the ball with the foot then knock it down with the hand (e.g., 90 degrees) such that the foot was never in/near the actual path of the ball until the hand put it there, the foot had nothing to do with blocking the pass.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nothing....he hit it with his hand....he missed it with the foot. The hand knocked it into the foot. So, while he tried to use his foot to stop the ball, that isn't what actually happened.

I am with you on this one. Sounds like the ball hit the leg by accident.

Peace

[Blindolbat]

I can't believe that people want to call this a kick ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it does. He blocked the pass with his hand....legal. If the foot was in the original path of the ball, and the ball still hit it after a minor deflection, I could agree with still calling a kick as the foot was put in the path of the ball and became relevant.

If they miss the ball with the foot then knock it down with the hand (e.g., 90 degrees) such that the foot was never in/near the actual path of the ball until the hand put it there, the foot had nothing to do with blocking the pass.

How do we know from the OP which of these happened?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How do we know from the OP which of these happened?

The way it is worded lends itself to being the former...that the contact with the hand changed the direction of the ball....and I have a hard time envisioning a player putting their foot out to kick a ball and putting their hand out in front of it. It just seems like an extremely unlikely position.

And if you can't tell from the OP, how can you have a violation? If it is uncertain, you don't make the call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The way it is worded lends itself to being the former...that the contact with the hand changed the direction of the ball....and I have a hard time envisioning a player putting their foot out to kick a ball and putting their hand out in front of it. It just seems like an extremely unlikely position.

And if you can't tell from the OP, how can you have a violation? If it is uncertain, you don't make the call.

I really can't imagine the player reaching for the ball with both hand and foot, and hitting it with both. I'll just say it could still be a violation, but not enough info here to say.