I kick crossover 2-3 times a night during a basketball night.

Some kid told me it was a cheap thing to do.

I always thought it was good defense to stop a drive.

I feel like If your crossover is good I wouldn't be able to kick it.

I just never thought it was like w cheap play..

Is it?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never seen it done. Foot in the bounce pass lane is moderately frequent.

Yeah...if it was any good you'd just ridiculous trying and then be off balance to defend the next move

Yes, and a referee can judge it unsportsmanlike if you do it repeatedly. This would result in a technical.

Im surprised if anyone would actually sit here and believe that intentionally kicking the basketball because you arent good enough to play defense isnt cheap lol.

Wow! Since High School, I just thought you'd do this because someone had a weak-ass crossover. I had no idea it was cheap. Good to know.

How does it mean you aren't good enough? I would try to kick in-bounds passes too, and be congratulated for it. I think it takes really good timing.

I don't know if it's cheap. I certainly don't think it's good defense, though. I think putting a foot in the passing lane is good defense but I've never seen anyone try to kick a crossover, honestly.

I don't care to know the truth. I put my foot toward the defender when he is crossing over and he bounces it off my foot. I thought it was smart, if it's not I won't do it.

Just thought it was a good play.

rydawg5;1709568 wrote:How does it mean you aren't good enough? I would try to kick in-bounds passes too, and be congratulated for it. I think it takes really good timing.

Because it doesnt really accomplish anything. The other team just gets to inbounds the ball. Why not play real defense and try and force a bad shot and get a stop?

Im not going to sit here and say I never kicked the ball on an inbounds play. But the only time I see it as advantageous is when the opponent is trying to make an entry pass to the post, meaning that his teammate probably has good post position. You dont want the pass to be made in that instance.

In every other case, you arent even gaining an advantage. Ive seen plenty of times someone kicks the ball when the opponents pass likely is stolen. Or when he is inbounding it into the corner and a trap would occur only for the next inbound to result in an open 3 or layup. You may very well be stopping a layup...but just as easily you can be bailing out the other team, especially when a shot clock is involved. All these scenarios play out into a situation where you are guaranteeing you dont gain an actual advantage. The other team always keeps the ball.

rydawg5;1709562 wrote:I kick crossover 2-3 times a night during a basketball night.

Some kid told me it was a cheap thing to do.

I always thought it was good defense to stop a drive.

I feel like If your crossover is good I wouldn't be able to kick it.

I just never thought it was like w cheap play..

Is it?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you serious?

If all you are doing is putting your foot down towards him, I dont really see the point?? You are making it so you are way off balance in case the ball misses your foot, and if it does hit your foot you havent gained anything as he keeps it.

Why not take a step back instead??

Laley23;1709573 wrote:Because it doesnt really accomplish anything. The other team just gets to inbounds the ball. Why not play real defense and try and force a bad shot and get a stop?

Im not going to sit here and say I never kicked the ball on an inbounds play. But the only time I see it as advantageous is when the opponent is trying to make an entry pass to the post, meaning that his teammate probably has good post position. You dont want the pass to be made in that instance.

In every other case, you arent even gaining an advantage. Ive seen plenty of times someone kicks the ball when the opponents pass likely is stolen. Or when he is inbounding it into the corner and a trap would occur only for the next inbound to result in an open 3 or layup. You may very well be stopping a layup...but just as easily you can be bailing out the other team, especially when a shot clock is involved. All these scenarios play out into a situation where you are guaranteeing you dont gain an actual advantage. The other team always keeps the ball.

These are very valid reasons. I think it started when I'd play 1 on 1 against people and was probably disrespecting their obvious "go to" moves.

It was humbling to my friends and they would tell me they needed more offensive ideas.

I am being honest about it because the first time someone ever called me out was tonight and I don't want to be seen as a cheap player.

I like your points though, stopping a crossover by stopping play doesn't get you anywhere but checking up.

Granted I think I do it 1 time per game. I usually want my defender to think I'm not going to fall for his really obvious weak move.

Also tall guys block shots out of bounds on purpose so where is the advantage in that?

SportsAndLady;1709574 wrote:Are you serious?

yes "serious"

rydawg5;1709576 wrote:Also tall guys block shots out of bounds on purpose so where is the advantage in that?

I think tall guys are primarily just trying to get the block, and not so much concerned with where it goes after.
I don't think it's cheap. Annoying, sure. You're coordinated enough to be able to time and kick a crossover, but can't just reach your hand out to deflect it instead?

Laley23;1709565 wrote:Yes, and a referee can judge it unsportsmanlike if you do it repeatedly. This would result in a technical.

What!? Here are some links (NFHS). Show me verbatim, please.

Rules: http://www.juneau.org/parkrec/adult/documents/2011-12NFHSRulesBook.pdf

Case: http://www.sportsschedulingsystem.com/rboweb/assets/pdf/casebook.pdf

ernest_t_bass;1709617 wrote:What!? Here are some links (NFHS). Show me verbatim, please.

Rules: http://www.juneau.org/parkrec/adult/documents/2011-12NFHSRulesBook.pdf

Case: http://www.sportsschedulingsystem.com/rboweb/assets/pdf/casebook.pdf

All I know is Scott Foor told my referee class that if someone is intentionally kicking a basketball repeatedly and it isn't "reactive", ie...it's premeditated that he has issued a technical for unsportsmanlike behavior (after a few warnings of course).

Well this is reactive isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Laley23;1709634 wrote:All I know is Scott Foor told my referee class that if someone is intentionally kicking a basketball repeatedly and it isn't "reactive", ie...it's premeditated that he has issued a technical for unsportsmanlike behavior (after a few warnings of course).

Still awaiting a rulebook quote, please. That interpretation is made up, and opinionated. It has no basis of fact based on the rules.

ernest_t_bass;1709639 wrote:Still awaiting a rulebook quote, please. That interpretation is made up, and opinionated. It has no basis of fact based on the rules.

Thats great. I'm not gonna search through that. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't really give a shit.

But if Scott Foor has done it, then there must be some language that allows it.

Laley23;1709640 wrote:Thats great. I'm not gonna search through that. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't really give a shit.

But if Scott Foor has done it, then there must be some language that allows it.

There isn't.

rydawg5;1709576 wrote:These are very valid reasons. I think it started when I'd play 1 on 1 against people and was probably disrespecting their obvious "go to" moves.

It was humbling to my friends and they would tell me they needed more offensive ideas.

I am being honest about it because the first time someone ever called me out was tonight and I don't want to be seen as a cheap player.

I like your points though, stopping a crossover by stopping play doesn't get you anywhere but checking up.

Granted I think I do it 1 time per game. I usually want my defender to think I'm not going to fall for his really obvious weak move.

Also tall guys block shots out of bounds on purpose so where is the advantage in that?

Makes that player and maybe also his teammates think that they better rush or change their shots a bit.

Laley23;1709640 wrote:Thats great. I'm not gonna search through that. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't really give a shit.

But if Scott Foor has done it, then there must be some language that allows it.

The thing that drives me nuts about situations like this, and it's not your fault, is that there are people out there (everywhere) either making rules up, or misinterpreting the rules, or interpreting the rules to fit something they feel should be penalized. The worst, obviously, are the fans. I hear it on a nightly basis, fans are dead certain that something is a violation or a foul, but they have no real basis for their complaints other than, "I heard it somewhere else before."

ernest_t_bass;1709848 wrote:The thing that drives me nuts about situations like this, and it's not your fault, is that there are people out there (everywhere) either making rules up, or misinterpreting the rules, or interpreting the rules to fit something they feel should be penalized. The worst, obviously, are the fans. I hear it on a nightly basis, fans are dead certain that something is a violation or a foul, but they have no real basis for their complaints other than, "I heard it somewhere else before."

I agree. But, don't blame me for something the head of referees told a class of future referees. That's on him and the refs for getting it wrong.

Laley23;1709851 wrote:I agree. But, don't blame me for something the head of referees told a class of future referees. That's on him and the refs for getting it wrong.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "and it's not your fault."

You're a basketball guy, Laley. Just curious your interpretations of these.

a) A1 shoots ball, realizes it's short, runs to catch his airball rebound, puts it up for 2. (Violation?)

b) A1 shoots ball, off rim, A2 deflects ball to the backcourt where A2 runs to get it. (Violation?)

c) A1 shoots ball, off rim, A2 grabs rebound and hurls it toward backcourt where A2 runs to get it. (Violation?)

d) While dribbling, A1 releases ball, steps out of bounds, re-establishes position in bounds before resuming dribble (Violation?)

e) A1 deflects ball from B1 towards A1's basket. A1 steps out of bounds after deflection, re-establishes position in bounds before touching ball again. (Violation?)

ernest_t_bass;1709856 wrote:You're a basketball guy, Laley. Just curious your interpretations of these.

a) A1 shoots ball, realizes it's short, runs to catch his airball rebound, puts it up for 2. (Violation?)

b) A1 shoots ball, off rim, A2 deflects ball to the backcourt where A2 runs to get it. (Violation?)

c) A1 shoots ball, off rim, A2 grabs rebound and hurls it toward backcourt where A2 runs to get it. (Violation?)

d) While dribbling, A1 releases ball, steps out of bounds, re-establishes position in bounds before resuming dribble (Violation?)

e) A1 deflects ball from B1 towards A1's basket. A1 steps out of bounds after deflection, re-establishes position in bounds before touching ball again. (Violation?)

A. No
B. No
C. Yes
D. No
E. No