The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Kicked Ball? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99285-kicked-ball.html)

parrot Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:28am

Kicked Ball?
 
I'm not an official, I'm a coach. We had an unusual occurence in a game the other day that I've never seen before and doubt I'll ever see again but I'm still curious.

The other team is pressing us in a JV game. In the midst of a scrum for a loose ball, one of our players ended up with the ball between his feet. He squeezed the ball between his feet, jumped and flipped it behind him down the floor to one of his teammates soccer/hacky-sack style. He didn't kick it at all, just flipped it with his feet. The crew let it go. Is this legal?

deecee Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:36am

No, that's a kickball violation.

Raymond Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:39am

Kicked ball. If it happened as described, the crew missed the call.

justacoach Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:40am

No.
Rule 4, section 29 (in its entirety, emphasis mine)
"Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot."

parrot Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justacoach (Post 954482)
No.
Rule 4, section 29 (in its entirety, emphasis mine)
"Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot."

I guess my question is what constitutes "striking it"? Does any kind of impetus on the ball constitute striking it?

Camron Rust Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justacoach (Post 954482)
No.
Rule 4, section 29 (in its entirety, emphasis mine)
"Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot."


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.

parrot Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 954480)
Kicked ball. If it happened as described, the crew missed the call.

Honestly I think they were so surprised when it happened they just couldn't really process it. The whole gym blew up in laughter.

Shooter14 Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:01pm

I have called a jump ball this season where one player had the ball pinned, intentionally, between his thighs and the opponent had two hands on the ball. Neither could break away so had to whistle it. I don't believe that this is a kicked ball situation. He didn't "kick" it or "strike" it. He simply possessed it, in my opinion.

Should that be a kicked ball? In order to secure it between his legs he obviously must have first intentionally touched it with his legs. But just doesn't seem right to me.

Bad Zebra Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 954495)
I have called a jump ball this season where one player had the ball pinned, intentionally, between his thighs and the opponent had two hands on the ball. Neither could break away so had to whistle it. I don't believe that this is a kicked ball situation. He didn't "kick" it or "strike" it. He simply possessed it, in my opinion.

Should that be a kicked ball? In order to secure it between his legs he obviously must have first intentionally touched it with his legs. But just doesn't seem right to me.

See Cameron's post above...NFHS has made clear that using any part of the feet/legs to play the ball should be ruled a kick...so yes, that should be a violation.

parrot Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 954487)
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.

Thanks. That's what I was really wondering.

Shooter14 Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra (Post 954498)
See Cameron's post above...NFHS has made clear that using any part of the feet/legs to play the ball should be ruled a kick...so yes, that should be a violation.

Ok thanks! I definitely missed that one then. Won't miss it again....I hope!

Camron Rust Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 954502)
Ok thanks! I definitely missed that one then. Won't miss it again....I hope!

Additionally, the held ball rule requires that both opponents have their hands on the ball. So, even if it were not a kick, a ball pinned with anything other than with the hands is not a held ball.

Mark Padgett Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shooter14 (Post 954495)
one player had the ball pinned, intentionally, between his thighs and the opponent had two hands on the ball..

Did you tell them to get a room? :D

Shooter14 Tue Feb 10, 2015 01:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 954506)
Did you tell them to get a room? :D

I actually did LOL when I read that!

crosscountry55 Tue Feb 10, 2015 08:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 954479)
No, that's a kickball violation.

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

BillyMac Tue Feb 10, 2015 08:25pm

Anybody Remember Flipping Baseball Cards ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 954544)
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 Tue Feb 10, 2015 09:49pm

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 Tue Jan 26, 2016 04:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 954487)
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 Tue Jan 26, 2016 06:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by devdog69 (Post 978249)
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 Tue Jan 26, 2016 06:43pm

Let's Go to The Videotape ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978252)
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 Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 954487)
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 Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1012732)
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 Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:52am

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 Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1012734)
Other than the case play cited by Billy?

Yes.

Freddy Tue Dec 12, 2017 06:28am

W.t.f.???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 954487)
. . . 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 Tue Dec 12, 2017 07:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1012786)
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 Tue Dec 12, 2017 08:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1012786)
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 Wed Dec 13, 2017 06:18pm

Anything?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 954487)
...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 Wed Dec 13, 2017 07:37pm

It Doesn't Get Clearer Than That ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1012841)
OK, given the lack of anyone posting how "the NFHS has made it clear...",

Tea leaves.

Camron Rust Wed Dec 13, 2017 08:46pm

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):
Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 978260)
*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:
Quote:

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1012843)
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):


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:



Camron:

I could have not said it any better. I like both the use of both a NFHS CB Play and a NCAA A.R.

MTD, Sr.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1