PDA

View Full Version : Really? Two questions........



taff426
14-04-15, 00:04
So, 2 questions.....
1. Referee apparently wearing leggings...... Should this be allowed (only after opinions please gents, I am in no way looking to abuse or demean the referee)
2. Would you have given a knock on? (I will give ,y view later on after the general consensus have answered)

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/american-teen-attempts-brian-odriscoll.html

The Fat
14-04-15, 01:04
Technically, it is a kick but only because he effed it up and hit the ball with the back of his leg and NOT the heel as he was attempting to do.
Fully understand ref's decision to call a knock on though.

menace
14-04-15, 01:04
Simple.
1. No....but if they want to look like a tool and stay warm then that's up to them.
2. Yes. Knock on. He lost it forward. Off the heel is NOT a kick.

chrismtl
14-04-15, 01:04
1) No...I think leggings look ridiculous in a match
2) Technically he throws the ball backwards out of his hand, but off the heel isn't a kick, so knock on: A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward [...] and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

HOWEVER, in the BOD example, he catches the ball without it touching another player or the ground, so it's fine for me. Then again, a defender with half a brain will just level him as he's running past as by the letter of the law, he's still in possession of the ball until it would hit the ground again or until an opponent would touch it.

The Fat
14-04-15, 02:04
I don't think he got it to his heel, looks to me like he gets the ball with the back of his leg just below the calf so technically still a kick.
In a game situation I would still probably blow for a knock on as did this ref

leaguerefaus
14-04-15, 02:04
I'm with Fat - even if it did hit part of his heel, it also hit part of his leg.

I'd probably allow it.

Browner
14-04-15, 02:04
1) of course it should be allowed. The referee might have circulation/warmth issues. But it's to be avoided ( this looks like a low level school game, being refereed perhaps by a teacher?)

2) it can't be a knock-on as it left the hand backwards not forwards.
I don't think the heel kick definition ban was trying to restrict this type of open play ingenuity, ( I'm recalling that someone OB?? has suggested the PK/FK disguise kick as being the reason for the definition specifics) Play on for me.

IF this was a BoD copycat attempt???, then it demonstrates why the internet is such a powerful and immediate conveyor of all 'messages' and why things like MMA throat strangulation ( +others) offences must be dealt with more harshly than they are!!!!!

Browner
14-04-15, 02:04
1) No...I think leggings look ridiculous in a match
2) Technically he throws the ball backwards out of his hand, but off the heel isn't a kick, so knock on: A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward [...] and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

HOWEVER, in the BOD example, he catches the ball without it touching another player or the ground, so it's fine for me. Then again, a defender with half a brain will just level him as he's running past as by the letter of the law, he's still in possession of the ball until it would hit the ground again or until an opponent would touch it.

That would be a late tackle offence, for me.

chrismtl
14-04-15, 03:04
That would be a late tackle offence, for me.

Here's the WR definition for a kick.

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

Since it hits his heel, it isn't a kick. That means he's lost the ball forward, and he's still in possession of the ball even though it's in the air, and that makes him a free target the same way as bobbling a ball would mean that you technically haven't knocked on yet, but you're still in possession and therefore you can be hit as it's not technically a knock on until an opponent touches the ball or it hits the ground.

didds
14-04-15, 04:04
it clearly hits his calf, not his shin.

The ball clearly goes backwards from his hand.

At this juncture its difficult to see where any knock on or throw forward occurs.

In the interests of some sort of vague consistency it makes some sense to call it KO/TF - but this is what happens when laws are shoe horned into covering situations because somebody somewhere "doesn't like the look of them" and then has to find a law reference toi stop a practice. ie something that looks like the shoe-horn happens but in reality its a new situation that doesn't confirm to the old shoehorn.

didds

menace
14-04-15, 06:04
The definition of knock on is
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Fine, the kid deliberately puts the ball behind his back to he can be a smart-Ass tricky player by attempting a super impressive heel 'kick'..but how it can be justified as not 'loses possession' once it dribbles down the side of his leg is beyond me. He is not tying to kick it as a heel kick is not a kick. The player is running forward, IMO he actually loses possession and it dribbles forward off his leg and that meets a criteria of a lost forward/knock on as writ in law (Let's not start up this debate that dropping it forward to kick it is now 'lost/thrown forward' )

Regardless of whether you thinks it's lost forward or not, I think he deserves to lose possession for trying to be too cute. He only had the fullback to beat...why even try a stupid tactic like that.

Ps- I also think you'll find that after it comes off his leg it flips up to his hand/wrist/forearm and then goes forward. A knock there anyway.
3211

The umpire
14-04-15, 08:04
It's a knock on, as others have said before, he loses possession and it goes forward not from a kick (whether we are trying to split hairs over was it his heel or an inch above it, or not), In fact it and BOD's more successful wttempt may even be considered a deliberate knock on, as it is propelled forward by 'not a kick'. What would you give if someone stretched out their arm forward, throws the ball against their head and nuts it forward?
It's a knock on. Blow for the scrum and tell him not be such a smart ar$e.

Balones
14-04-15, 08:04
In slow motion you can see that the ball hits his calf first before hitting his heel so perhaps could be classified as a kick. However after it hits his calf the ball hits his hip/back. He is therefore in front of the kick and therefore offside! Whether the ref wants to go for a penalty or an accidental offside will depend on how strict he wants to be or set standards for later in the game.
(Is there a tongue in cheek icon?)

crossref
14-04-15, 08:04
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or ....

for me, that's exactly what happened.

didds
14-04-15, 10:04
Not sure I can see the ball C&O hitting his hand/arm after it hits his leg. Certainly not from the video or the still. It may be in the vicinity of his hand/arm, but its not C&O.


(In my initial post above I meant "heel" not shin incidentally and hopefully "of course"!)

If the player wants to be a show off that is his (and his coach's!) concern. It was a daft thing to try, but nevertheless I don't see anything there that is C&O knock on/throw forward.

the law quote menace kindly provided doesn't encompass what happened - the ball was not lost forward from hand/arm. Its also where the shoehorn interpretation of a "heel kick" still falls down. The ball never gets lost forward from hand or arm - it always travels backwards. This is then used to shoehorn the "heel kick" = KO/TF . Presumably because it offends some sort of purists streak?

didds

didds
14-04-15, 10:04
He is therefore in front of the kick and therefore offside!


No he is not, under any tenet of the laws.

"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."

Unless you have some bizarre notion that a player is a team mate of himself? Really?


didds

Balones
14-04-15, 10:04
Didds
Perhaps it is an attitude of mind rather than a matter of law?
Should we discriminate against someone with such a mental state?
How many of us haven't spoken to ourselves at some time?
(Still can't find the tongue in cheek icon.)

leaguerefaus
14-04-15, 10:04
For those who don't think it's a kick, then it is a knock on. Even if you want to argue it's left his hands backwards, it is not a pass so the direction of the hands do not matter in the slightest. The ball travels forward.

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward... Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

didds
14-04-15, 10:04
still don;t really see what is wrong with this tactic. (Leaving aside the "You blithering idiot" reasons).

This still seems like a case of shoehorning some law into a non-intended reason.

If the PTB don;t want heel/calf kicks then it wouold be easy enough to specifically say so.

didds

crossref
14-04-15, 11:04
if he had successfully pulled off the manoevre and kicked the ball with his heel, I would have said OK play on -- but to me he fumbled it, he lost control of the ball, and it went forward.

same as if he had attempted a normal grubber kick and somehow managed to drop the ball onto his moving thigh...

didds
14-04-15, 11:04
even though the ball has backwards propulsion from his hand onto his thigh?

so if he misses the thigh/leg completely it isn't a knock on, but if he doesn't miss - it is? even though it wasn't a hand or arm that actually put the ball "forward" ?

I do understand this is how it is ruled - I am just intrigued as to the rationale as to how a ball which is not lost forward from hand or arm, can be so if some other body part intervenes but otherwise isn't. Particularly when the laws could easily say "any part of the body except for the top of the foot from ankle to toe". But it chooses not to.

didds

didds

crossref
14-04-15, 11:04
well now we're right back into some old chestnuts
- if a player tries to kick the ball, but misses and the ball hits the ground is it a knock on?
- if a player tries to catch a ball, fumbles it, drops it, but manages to get a toe to it before it hits the ground, is it a knock on?
- a player has hand outstretched to take a catch, it goes through his hands (touching them) hits his chest and bounces forward, is it a knock on

(in my mind : yes, yes and yes)

Browner
14-04-15, 12:04
Open play ingenuity , such as BoDs disguised over head kick, shouldn't be outlawed IMO, let's encourage flair.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/04/3105/dimitri-yachvili-forgets-hes-playing-rugby-backheels-pass-for-erik-lund-try

I'm sure I once saw Carlos Spencer backheel/grubber the ball through a defence whilst facing toward his own goal line ( clip anyone?)
without penalising it for 'not being a kick" ( what was that then - A pass ? A pass forwards??? A zombie kick ???? A mirage ?)

If I saw a player swing his heel backwards and deliberately heel his opponent in the face , then it wouldnt meet the referenced definition of a kick.....but it would for me.

For all purposes, other than the taking of a FK or a PK or a Conversion , then a heel strike of the ball in open play should be considered a normal kick. IMO.

There are lots of flaws in using the kick definition 'absolutely' as written. See if you can find any !!

Kick: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?search=Kick)A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

IMO its written for PK & FK tapping only.

OB..
14-04-15, 12:04
I'm with didds.

Possession: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?search=Possession)This happens when a player is carrying the ballOnce the player releases the ball, he no longer has possession - feet and legs do not come into it.

For those who don't think it's a kick, then it is a knock on. Even if you want to argue it's left his hands backwards, it is not a pass so the direction of the hands do not matter in the slightestThe law sensibly does not talk about a pass, but a throw forward - there is no need for a receiver. We all accept that if you throw the ball backwards over your shoulder it is not a throw forward even if the ball travels forward with respect to the ground.

At this point therefore there has been no possibility of a knock-on.

Assuming for simplicity a clean hit with his heel, that does not constitute a kick, but neither is it illegal. The law simply means that you cannot score from such contact.

I see no infringement.

didds
14-04-15, 13:04
ISTR there was a clarification regarding the thigh-kick ? And that this WAS a knock-on or throw-forward. As such as best it is a one off specific ruling, though I was fairly uncomfortable with it as it seemed to assume the ball was always released forward to achieve it, when it is clearly possible to direct the ball backwards onto the thigh.

We have also discussed a deliberate head-on, with the ball similarly directed backwards onto the forehead. (as an aside, I once headed a ball into touch completely accidentally cos I cocked up my catch!)

didds

Browner
14-04-15, 13:04
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vTuy8D56NRI
That genuis Carlos again!
Superb 'kick' skill OR not a kick so thrown forward ?

didds
14-04-15, 13:04
it was in 2000 so he was 4 years early before it being effectively banned :-)

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2004&clarification=51&language=EN

didds

crossref
14-04-15, 13:04
Assuming for simplicity a clean hit with his heel

but that's the point - he didn't

If he had pulled off his intended heel-kick, then it's not a knock on, it's a kick
but he lost control of the ball, missed the kick, and it went forward.

crossref
14-04-15, 13:04
this would actually be an excellent question to send to SAREFS, or WorldRugby
(the attmepted heel kick that is - not the leggings)

didds
14-04-15, 13:04
but that's the point - he didn't

If he had pulled off his intended heel-kick, then it's not a knock on, it's a kick
but he lost control of the ball, missed the kick, and it went forward.

except ISTR somewhere in the laws a heel is not part of a kick anyway, and the ball only went forwards because it actually hit another part of his body (but no his hands or arms).

The next time you see a drop kick come off a (lower) shin you will blow for a throw forward won't you?

didds

Ian_Cook
14-04-15, 13:04
This is a knock-forward. That it goes "backwards out of his hands" is irrelevant. The only criteria in a knock on is

1. the the original player loses possession of the ball.
2. the ball first strikes the ground or another player somewhere in front of the original player.

Imagine the scenario where a player tries to catch a high ball; it ricochets "backwards out of his hands", it bounces of his chest and hits the ground six feet in front of him. Are you going to rule a knock-forward? Of course you are!

Imagine another scenario where ball carrier loses the ball, he fumbles it "backwards out of his hand", it bounces of his chest and hits the ground six feet in front of him. Are you going to rule a knock-forward? Of course you are!

OB..
14-04-15, 13:04
but that's the point - he didn't It doesn't actually matter whether it hit his heel or his calf, because it does not matter if it is a kick or not.


but he lost control of the ball, missed the kick, and it went forward.He released the ball backwards out of his possession under Law 12, which means it was not a throw forward or a knock-on.

The fact that he then played it with his leg makes no difference, and that was not illegal either.

OB..
14-04-15, 14:04
This is a knock-forward. That it goes "backwards out of his hands" is irrelevant. The only critereial ina kock on is

1. the the original player loses possession of the ball.
2. the ball first strikes the ground or another player somewhere in front of the original player.
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forwardThe bit about hitting the ground or another player is only relevant if the ball initially went forward. Since we agree it didn't, there can be no knock-on.


Imagine the scenario where a player tries to catch a high ball; it ricochets "backwards out of his hands", it bounces of his chest and hits the ground six feet in front of him. Are you going to rule a knock-forward? Of course you are!

Imagine another scenario where ball carrier loses the ball, he fumbles it "backwards out of his hand", it bounces of his chest and hits the ground six feet in front of him. Are you going to rule a knock-forward? Of course you are!In previous discussion on this point we have recognised that in practice it is not always possible to be sure what part of the player's body it hit last. For most practical purposes it is usually ruled a knock-on unless very clearly not eg chesting the ball down with hands out to the side.

In this case it is crystal clear that he released the ball backwards. I see no basis for confusion there.

Browner
14-04-15, 14:04
it was in 2000 so he was 4 years early before it being effectively banned :-)

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2004&clarification=51&language=EN

didds

WADR, I dont think that the clarification you reference deals with Carlos' knee chip over a defender, as Clarification 10/2004 was dealing with the subject of how a PK/FK is taken, which brings us back to the definition wording which is also written to deal with the same issue

Request[/COLOR]The WRU has requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch & line-out and Law 21 Penalty and Free Kicks


(2) A player in possession of the ball drops it onto his thigh and propels it forward. What is the correct decision?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
(2) If this occurred in general play the following would apply. By definition 'A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee…'. In the case described the ball has not been kicked but has been dropped onto the thigh and this is ruled as a knock-on or throw forward. If the action as described was taken by a player after his team had been awarded a penalty kick or free kick, then a PK or FK has not been correctly taken. Under Law 21.3(b) bouncing the ball on the thigh can in this case be taken to include the knee as this is also in the definition above. Thus, the player has infringed this Law and a scrum to the opposing team should be ordered.]

21.3. How the penalty and free kicks are taken(a)

Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from knee to the foot, excluding the knee and the heel.



(b)


Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.

IMO (B) should really say ......."bouncing the ball on the knee/thigh is not taking a Free Kick or a Penalty Kick"

OB..
14-04-15, 14:04
ISTR there was a clarification regarding the thigh-kick ? And that this WAS a knock-on or throw-forward. As such as best it is a one off specific ruling, though I was fairly uncomfortable with it as it seemed to assume the ball was always released forward to achieve it, when it is clearly possible to direct the ball backwards onto the thigh.It was not spelled out, but I got the impression that the thigh-kick was seen as potentially dangerous. It's advantage over a real kick is that it can be done faster and therefore closer to the defender; if done just as he starts to tackle, he is likely to get a knee in the face.

It would be difficult to be sure on each occasion if the ball went forward first, so it was thought best to make that assumption automatic.

Yes, it is a fudge but I can see a rationale for it.

OB..
14-04-15, 14:04
21.3. How the penalty and free kicks are taken(a)

Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from knee to the foot, excluding the knee and the heel.



(b)


Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.

IMO (B) should really say ......."bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a Free Kick or a Penalty Kick"Why? The Definitions already say it is not a kick. Law 21 is simply making the point clear because payers were trying to do it in that context.

The Definition was modified in 1999 to exclude use of the knee.

didds
14-04-15, 15:04
yup - wrong clarification. DOH!

Browner
14-04-15, 15:04
Why? The Definitions already say it is not a kick. Law 21 is simply making the point clear because payers were trying to do it in that context.

The Definition was modified in 1999 to exclude use of the knee.

Which is my point. The 'kick' definition is intended to clarify FK & PK commencement legality.

Its not to criminalise hitting the shin,knee,thigh,heel as a way to project the ball forward ( knocked on or thrown forward excepted ) in open play.

There are lots of flaws in the wording of definitions, this one is not absolute.

Eg.... a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground. Does this mean the ball can only be kicked if it is IN a hand??? Or its not a kick if it goes ABOVE the ground - say like a normal punt into touch?????

Of course not, sometimes the bigger picture needs to be seen.

If a player was skilled enough to turn facing his own goal line and back heel grubber the ball into the oppositions for a onside player to ground it , you'd want to cancel the try , cos it was kicked with his heel ???

I wouldn't.

crossref
14-04-15, 15:04
mods - could we have a poll ? in that specific video : is it a knock on or not? Might be interesting.

chrismtl
14-04-15, 15:04
Which is my point. The 'kick' definition is intended to clarify FK & PK commencement legality.

Its not to criminalise hitting the shin,knee,thigh,heel as a way to project the ball forward ( knocked on or thrown forward excepted ) in open play.

There are lots of flaws in the wording of definitions, this one is not absolute.

Eg.... a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground. Does this mean the ball can only be kicked if it is IN a hand??? Or its not a kick if it goes ABOVE the ground - say like a normal punt into touch?????

Of course not, sometimes the bigger picture needs to be seen.

If a player was skilled enough to turn facing his own goal line and back heel grubber the ball into the oppositions for a onside player to ground it , you'd want to cancel the try , cos it was kicked with his heel ???

I wouldn't.

For starters, "a visible distance out of the hand" covers punts. Please note the word "or" after that part to indicate the option of kicking the ball along the ground...it doesn't say "and".

In the second part, you said kicked with a heel...well this is impossible as hitting the ball with the heel isn't a kick by definition, in the same way that hitting a ball with your knee isn't a kick. I would ref it the same way.

Finally, the kick definition isn't there to define a penalty, it's there to define a kick. ANY kick. That's why it's under definitions and not just under Law 21. Note Law 7.1 which requires a definition for a kick.

7.1 Playing a match

Any player may throw it or kick it.

OB..
14-04-15, 16:04
If a player was skilled enough to turn facing his own goal line and back heel grubber the ball into the oppositions for a onside player to ground it , you'd want to cancel the try , cos it was kicked with his heel ???

There is nothing that says hitting the ball with the heel is illegal, any more than hitting it with your head is illegal. It is the surrounding circumstances that matter. You cannot use a heel where a kick is specified eg at a penalty or a kick-off. You cannot use the heel if you release the ball forward first because the long-standing conventional exemption for a kick does not apply.

didds
14-04-15, 16:04
"kicking" with the heel and not allowing a score is a definitive no go in the laws - with repsect to goals.

didds

OB..
14-04-15, 16:04
"kicking" with the heel and not allowing a score is a definitive no go in the laws - with repsect to goals.

diddsYes, but scoring a try after such a play would be OK.

didds
14-04-15, 16:04
For the avoidance of doubt, yes, I agree with OB. :-)

didds

Browner
14-04-15, 20:04
For starters, "a visible distance out of the hand" covers punts. Please note the word "or" after that part to indicate the option of kicking the ball along the ground...it doesn't say "and".

In the second part, you said kicked with a heel...well this is impossible as hitting the ball with the heel isn't a kick by definition, in the same way that hitting a ball with your knee isn't a kick. I would ref it the same way.

Finally, the kick definition isn't there to define a penalty, it's there to define a kick. ANY kick. That's why it's under definitions and not just under Law 21. Note Law 7.1 which requires a definition for a kick.

7.1 Playing a match

Any player may throw it or kick it.


You've not picked up on the subtlety of my point re the 'kick definition' wording, which if applied absolutely, would bar most kicks!
I'm casting doubt on the wording, which seems lifted from the Law 21 wordings.

I'll try and make my point easier, virtually all kicks aren't made from out of the hand, the ball has invariably left the hand ie..been thrown before kicked. So we know the kick definition isn't wholly accurate, I'm saying that it was never intended to prohibit open play heel kicking ( as per BoD) it was intended to deal with what was/was not a legitimate Pen or Free 'kick' where heeling it meant that it wasn't obvious to the opposition that it had been taken. That's all.

thepercy
14-04-15, 21:04
Can we get back to the first and more important question, TIGHTS! ON A REFEREE. The referee is not female, where an exception can be made for modesty, they are not of a cotton blend and have an outside seam.

OB..
14-04-15, 21:04
Browner
a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand,means touching the ball on your boot while holding it does not constitute a kick.

Ian_Cook
14-04-15, 22:04
In previous discussion on this point we have recognised that in practice it is not always possible to be sure what part of the player's body it hit last. For most practical purposes it is usually ruled a knock-on unless very clearly not eg chesting the ball down with hands out to the side.

So, next time we see a player fumble a catch, and we see it clearly go backwards out of his hands and bounce off his chest, and we clearly see that it didn't touch his hands or arms again before landing a few feet in front of him, that will be play-on

Got it!


edit to add: :sarc:

woody
14-04-15, 23:04
I'm just impressed to see two teams I used to ref make the Rugbyonslaught.

Go Rugby Oregon!

irishref
15-04-15, 09:04
Feeling on watching first time at normal speed: knock on.

Feeling after the benefit of a slow-mo replay - hits his calf after leaving the hands backwards, so not a knock-on.

Fully empathise with the knock-on call though. Looks like the tights may be medical? Weather doesn't look bad.

Browner
15-04-15, 16:04
Browner
a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand,means touching the ball on your boot while holding it does not constitute a kick.

Zzzzzz. I know it intends to define when a free kick is executed, or not.

But its not intended to 'absolutely' define all other kick types, coz otherwise you could only 'kick' the ball if it was being clasped by your fingers at the point of contact ie "out of it" .......... Or, only kicks along the ground would be deemed " kicks" all others wouldn't.

I'm sticking with ... Heel kicking the ball in open play is fine, but as a FK,PK ( or kick at goal -ie no piss taking!) actioning, it isn't acceptable.

TheBFG
15-04-15, 16:04
he looks a proper plumb in those leggings though! :norc:

OB..
15-04-15, 18:04
Zzzzzz. I know it intends to define when a free kick is executed, or not.

But its not intended to 'absolutely' define all other kick types, coz otherwise you could only 'kick' the ball if it was being clasped by your fingers at the point of contact ie "out of it" .......... Or, only kicks along the ground would be deemed " kicks" all others wouldn't.

I'm sticking with ... Heel kicking the ball in open play is fine, but as a FK,PK ( or kick at goal -ie no piss taking!) actioning, it isn't acceptable.I have said several times that there is nothing illegal in using your heel; it just doesn't count as a kick.