So, both @lsfreaks and @Gingerbread acknowledge the sticky thread, yet still want to scrap over the old "legitimate" chestnut. Here's what I think most sensible umpires think: if I see it as dangerous, in the context of the game, the players, the shot, etc., then I'll call it dangerous. Sometimes it is evidently dangerous, because someone got hit and hurt. Other times it is only potentially dangerous - a near miss - but I'll penalise it anyway to discourage that sort of play, in this game, with these players, etc. And I have the support of the rule in that we saw the player take "evasive action" (or that they'd have taken evasive action if they'd seen it coming), and me calling it dangerous makes the evasive action 'legitimate'. If the ball flies close past a player but, in the context of the game, the players, the shot, etc., I judge it as not dangerous, then I'll call play on. If the player makes some evasive action, then I'm afraid that is not legitimate: it wasn't really dangerous. The player might feel I'm mistaken about that, but that's the way I saw it. In short: the 'legitimate' in the rule follows the umpire's judgement, not drives it. In case anyone protests: this is a perfectly normal interaction between the rule, the judgement, and the decision: the ball rolls to the outside edge of the line (sideline, back line, goal line) before a player pulls it back; if the umpire judges it stayed in play then play continues; if the umpire judges it over the line then no, it's over the line, and we have the appropriate restart. Happens all the time. Evasive action is no different.