Was this a kick
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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!". :rolleyes:

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.

Listen to Camron because he got it correct.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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

Peace

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have " ".

Did you mean Ø?
;)

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.