Was this a kick

[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.

[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.

[tjchamp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

It actually was bam bam. The hand hardly changed direction of the ball, the foot was barely behind hand at point of contact. Less than a foot away.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

It actually was bam bam. The hand hardly changed direction of the ball, the foot was barely behind hand at point of contact. Less than a foot away.

In that case, I'd say a kick violation is probably a good call. If it's a significant deflection, I'd lean towards no call.

[tref]

Is intentionally striking the ball with the leg the same thing as an attempt to strike the ball with leg that deflects off the hand first?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

Is intentionally striking the ball with the leg the same thing as an attempt to strike the ball with leg that deflects off the hand first?

I don't think so.

As I see it, the rule means "placing the leg in the current (or expected next, if it's jsut before the ball is released) path of the ball."

New path, as on a (anything other than minor) deflection, means the leg need to be moved again.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think so.

As I see it, the rule means "placing the leg in the current (or expected next, if it's just before the ball is released) path of the ball."

New path, as on a (anything other than minor) deflection, means the leg need to be moved again.

I was just about to reply with more or less what bob said.....

So, what bob said.

If it has missed the hand, would it have then missed the foot? If so, no kick.

[mbyron]

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.

Where in the rule does the kicking violation say it applies only to a pass? If this pass deflected off another player's hand and then was kicked, wouldn't you be calling the violation? What difference does it make whose hand it deflected off?

The player intentionally contacted the (live) ball with his leg. Doesn't matter what it touched before that. Violation.

It sounds to me that you're ruling that this was not intentional contact: the initial attempt to kick failed, the ball deflected off his hand, and then the ball accidentally hit his leg. I'd be OK with that ruling, if that's what you're judging happened.