Kicked Ball?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

A kickball violation is a rules infraction during the coolest game played in 3rd Grade PE.

For me, it was sixth grade, after lunch, recess. And it was played "sandlot style". No teachers to referee. We settled arguments by ourselves, which included a lot of do-overs. Those were great kickball games. Man, we hated it when the whistle blew, and we had to go back to our classrooms.

[La Rikardo]

Had a play like this today. Player near the end line in his frontcourt dove and saved the ball from going out of bounds. The ball rolled on the ground to an opponent who moved his foot to stop the ball before picking it up. I was mildly surprised I didn't hear any argument from players/coaches/fans when I called the violation.

[devdog69]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then, the question that would follow would be whether the player was striking the ball in the OP. While the answer is no, the NFHS has made it clear that deliberate use of the feet/legs to play the ball violates the intent of the rule.

I believe you, in that the NFHS has made it clear that this (pinning the ball with the knees or lower legs) is a violation, but where does the rule justification and/or clarification lie? I know this is an old post, was just hoping I could revive it and get a rule reference or case play to aid in my argument with my group. Thanks in advance.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by devdog69

I believe you, in that the NFHS has made it clear that this (pinning the ball with the knees or lower legs) is a violation, but where does the rule justification and/or clarification lie? I know this is an old post, was just hoping I could revive it and get a rule reference or case play to aid in my argument with my group. Thanks in advance.

4.29 A and B

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

4.29 A and B

4.29 SITUATION A: During A1's attempt to pass to A2, B1 (a) intentionally uses
his/her thigh to deflect the pass; (b) intentionally kicks the ball with his/her foot;
or (c) has the ball accidentally hit his/her lower leg. RULING: In (a) and (b), there
is a kicking violation and Team A will receive the ball out of bounds nearest the
violation. In (c), the ball remains live and there is no violation. (9-4)

*4.29 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball for a throw-in. A1 rolls the ball to A2 who
stops the ball by putting his/her foot on top of it, then bends over and picks up
the ball. RULING: Kicking violation on A2 for intentionally striking the ball with
his/her foot. (9-4)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then, the question that would follow would be whether the player was striking the ball in the OP. While the answer is no, the NFHS has made it clear that deliberate use of the feet/legs to play the ball violates the intent of the rule.

I know this is true, but I'm trying to track down NFHS documentation that the "striking the ball" in 4-29 should be interpreted to mean more than just that and what Camron says above.
Anybody got any references I can cite in a meeting tonight?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I know this is true, but I'm trying to track down NFHS documentation that the "striking the ball" in 4-29 should be interpreted to mean more than just that and what Camron says above.
Anybody got any references I can cite in a meeting tonight?

Other than the case play cited by Billy?

[rsl]

This is NCAA, and from a post in 2006 (I don't do college, so I am trusting the orginal post). Seems to appropriate for this discussion.

A.R. 30. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession of the ball.
RULING: A1 has committed a violation. The intent of this Rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg. Although A1 did not kick or strike the ball with any part of the leg, the player did gain an illegal advantage, which may also lead to undue roughness. Since A1 was not holding the ball in his or her hands, B1's firm placement of his or her hands on the ball does not constitute a held ball.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Other than the case play cited by Billy?

Yes.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

. . . the NFHS has made it clear that deliberate use of the feet/legs to play the ball violates the intent of the rule.

Around here the members of our association are taught to play kinda a game we call, "WTF???" That is, "Where's That, Freddy?" If I can't prove it by documentation from the rules book, casebook, an interpretation, or other NFHS written ruling, it's nothing more than mere opinion.
Can anybody point me to documentation that verifies what Camron says above? I don't doubt that, I just need to legitimately substantiate it.
Thanx for your help in advance.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Around here the members of our association are taught to play kinda a game we call, "WTF???" That is, "Where's That, Freddy?" If I can't prove it by documentation from the rules book, casebook, an interpretation, or other NFHS written ruling, it's nothing more than mere opinion.
Can anybody point me to documentation that verifies what Camron says above? I don't doubt that, I just need to legitimately substantiate it.
Thanx for your help in advance.

Ask them to show you where the rules say to award the first free throw of a one and one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Around here the members of our association are taught to play kinda a game we call, "WTF???" That is, "Where's That, Freddy?" If I can't prove it by documentation from the rules book, casebook, an interpretation, or other NFHS written ruling, it's nothing more than mere opinion.
Can anybody point me to documentation that verifies what Camron says above? I don't doubt that, I just need to legitimately substantiate it.
Thanx for your help in advance.

Well, I had this call last night. I guess one of your fellow members would have tried to over rule me.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...the NFHS has made it clear that deliberate use of the feet/legs to play the ball violates the intent of the rule.

OK, given the lack of anyone posting how "the NFHS has made it clear...", I guess I've gotta go on . . .

Anyone?

With no further input, I'll drop it.

Thanx, in advance....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

OK, given the lack of anyone posting how "the NFHS has made it clear...",

Tea leaves.

[Camron Rust]

Here is one situation from the NFHS that is related:

Not sure which year this came from, but as cited above by Billy (from 2016):

Originally Posted by BillyMac

*4.29 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball for a throw-in. A1 rolls the ball to A2 who stops the ball by putting his/her foot on top of it, then bends over and picks up the ball. RULING: Kicking violation on A2 for intentionally striking the ball with his/her foot. (9-4)

I suggest that the action in this case is far from "striking" the ball if you go by the normal definition of striking. Yet, merely putting the foot on the ball is sufficient to be considered striking according to this play.

There is an NCAA case directly regarding this situation. The rules are identical, so it would seem, short of anything to suggest otherwise, the intent is the same:

Kicking the Ball
A.R. 196. A1 is on the floor with the ball lodged between the upper part of the legs. B1 attempts to gain possession of the ball by placing two hands firmly on the ball; however, A1 applies vice-like force with the upper legs, which prevents B1 from gaining possession of the ball.
RULING: A1 has committed a kicking violation. Kicking the ball is defined as striking the ball intentionally with any part of the leg. The intent of this rule is to prevent a player from gaining an advantage by using any part of the leg. Since A1 was not holding the ball in his hands, B1’s firm placement of his hands on the ball does not constitute a held ball.