Replying To Sindar: ""should" or "would"? Should is an opinion. I can tell you that the goal would not be allowed because the player is deemed to be in possession of the ball even when hoping it and you cannot score a goal with the hand when in possession. Rule 3.1 if you want to look it up"
Your grasp of the English language is as dodgy as your grasp of the playing rules. See my (correct) answer to to the question elsewhere. And, what's all that about 'hoping' the ball?
"If a player hops the ball and, without catching it, tips it over the head of an opponent, and catches it again before it hits the ground, has the player fouled the ball?"
Weird misinformation on this thread. Yes it's a foul on the ball:
Rule 4.7: "To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goalposts." PLAY: "To touch the ball."
As is "If a player hops the ball, but instead of catching it punches it to the net should the goal be allowed?"
Also a technical foul as RULE 1.4(f) states: When a player is in possession of the ball, it may be released for a kick, a toe-tap, or a pass with a fist or an open-hand. One may not release the ball towards the ground with the intention to play it into the net with the fist after a bounce. I feel that the argument to the contrary to this would be on the basis that one is NOT in possession of the ball in this instance. This argument is invalid as the ball cannot be released in such a manner according to RULE 1.4 above.
Replying To SurelyToGod: ""If a player hops the ball and, without catching it, tips it over the head of an opponent, and catches it again before it hits the ground, has the player fouled the ball?"
Weird misinformation on this thread. Yes it's a foul on the ball:
Rule 4.7: "To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goalposts." PLAY: "To touch the ball."
As is "If a player hops the ball, but instead of catching it punches it to the net should the goal be allowed?"
Also a technical foul as RULE 1.4(f) states: When a player is in possession of the ball, it may be released for a kick, a toe-tap, or a pass with a fist or an open-hand. One may not release the ball towards the ground with the intention to play it into the net with the fist after a bounce. I feel that the argument to the contrary to this would be on the basis that one is NOT in possession of the ball in this instance. This argument is invalid as the ball cannot be released in such a manner according to RULE 1.4 above."
Firstly, in relation to tipping the ball over the head of an opponent, etc I have grudgingly concluded that SurelyToGod is correct and that this play is not legal.
As Rule 4.7 does not differentiate between a player in possession and a player not in possession it applies in both cases.
However, opinions vary on this and I am reliably informed that 'an expert in Croke Park' says that it applies only to a player in possession.
Secondly, in relation to hopping the ball, etc I think SurelyToGod is incorrect.
Is it legal for a player in possession of the ball to hop the ball on the ground and not catch it again? I am sure it is. Why wouldn't it be? The player has lost possession, has broken no rule and, so, may play the ball (or not play it) any way he likes - including kicking or fisting it to the net.
The suggestion that a hopped ball must be caught is ridiculous. What if the ball bounces awkwardly and the player's best effort to catch it fails?
(To quote subsection (f) of Rule 1.4 in isolation - as SurelyToGod does - is misleading; the other subsections outline four other ways to play the ball. 'Intention' has no relevance: the word is not mentioned in the rules. Refs are not mind-readers!)