A1 Reaching UNDER Net

bob jenkins

Interesting discussion at last night's association meeting.

Play: B1 blocks ball, and the ball falls on B's side of the net. Before the ball hits the floor, the ball contacts A1's foot, which is in the air and entirely on B's side of the center line. Ruling?

Does it matter if a B player was attempting to play the ball? Does it matter if A's actions were intentional?

Zoochy

I don't have the answer to your play but I would like to add to that discussion

Play: B1 blocks ball, and the ball falls on A's side of the net. Before the ball hits the floor, the ball contacts B1's foot, which is in the air and entirely on A's side of the center line. Ruling?

Does it matter if an A player was attempting to play the ball? Does it matter if B's actions were intentional? Or Unintentional?

zozman

Play #1: B1 blocks ball, and the ball falls on B's side of the net. Before the ball hits the floor, the ball contacts A1's foot, which is in the air and entirely on B's side of the center line. Ruling?

Play #2: B1 blocks ball, and the ball falls on A's side of the net. Before the ball hits the floor, the ball contacts B1's foot, which is in the air and entirely on A's side of the center line. Ruling?

Ruling: In play #1 A1 has committed a net foul by having his/her foot completely on the opponent’s side of the net when contacting the ball in which the opponent had an opportunity to play. In Play #2 B1 has committed a net foul for a similar action (NFHS 9-6-3.) .

Does it matter if any interfered with player was attempting to play the ball?

A: No.

Does it matter if the interfering player’s actions were intentional?

A: No. However, if deemed unsporting, a card would be issued. (NFHS 12-2-1)

zoz

FMadera

bob jenkins wrote
Interesting discussion at last night's association meeting.

Play: B1 blocks ball, and the ball falls on B's side of the net. Before the ball hits the floor, the ball contacts A1's foot, which is in the air and entirely on B's side of the center line. Ruling?

Does it matter if a B player was attempting to play the ball? Does it matter if A's actions were intentional?

No fault if it doesn't interfere with B's ability to play the ball. Center line fault if it does. Entirely on the other side doesn't matter if it's in the air. Interference does.

Hope that helps.

bob jenkins

FMadera wrote
No fault if it doesn't interfere with B's ability to play the ball. Center line fault if it does. Entirely on the other side doesn't matter if it's in the air. Interference does.

Hope that helps.

Does A'1 intent matter?

genetoy71

FMadera wrote
No fault if it doesn't interfere with B's ability to play the ball...

But what about Net Play, NFHS Rule 9.6.3 - "A player shall not contact a ball which is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block"?

FMadera

bob jenkins wrote
Does A'1 intent matter?

No.

FMadera

genetoy71 wrote
But what about Net Play, NFHS Rule 9.6.3 - "A player shall not contact a ball which is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block"?

This action is right after a legal block. It's a fine line. If there's a player trying to cover and it interferes with that attempt, then interference is a valid decision.

If there's no one around and you call something because it was blocked into a foot, well, that's a really tough sell.

bob jenkins

FMadera wrote
This action is right after a legal block. It's a fine line. If there's a player trying to cover and it interferes with that attempt, then interference is a valid decision.

If there's no one around and you call something because it was blocked into a foot, well, that's a really tough sell.

So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

FMadera

bob jenkins wrote
So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

No, it's a dead ball. Then you determine if interference occurred.

genetoy71

bob jenkins wrote
So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

FMadera

genetoy71 wrote
I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

Happens quite a bit in the men's game.

bob jenkins

FMadera wrote
No, it's a dead ball. Then you determine if interference occurred.

So -- if it's interference (B was attempting to, and had a reasonable chance to, play the ball), regardless of intent, B's point.

If it's not interference, regardless of intent, A's point.

genetoy71

bob jenkins wrote
So -- if it's interference (B was attempting to, and had a reasonable chance to, play the ball), regardless of intent, B's point.

If it's not interference, regardless of intent, A's point.

Not if playing NFHS rules and you apply Rule 9.6.3 as it is written.

FMadera

genetoy71 wrote
I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

You've quoted the rule for which we are determining reaching over the net. Are you advocating using that signal for something under the net?

genetoy71

FMadera wrote
You've quoted the rule for which we are determining reaching over the net. Are you advocating using that signal for something under the net?

Section 9.6 deals with Net Play generally and not Over the Net specifically. Rule 9.6.3 covers contacting a ball that is completely on the opponent's side and doesn't contain a reference as to the height of the ball. I believe the correct sequence would be whistle, award point to Team B, Signal 6 (Net Fault) against Team A. Team A coach may not like the call but Team B coach is certainly not going to like it if you do not call it.

FMadera

genetoy71 wrote
Section 9.6 deals with Net Play generally and not Over the Net specifically. Rule 9.6.3 covers contacting a ball that is completely on the opponent's side and doesn't contain a reference as to the height of the ball. I believe the correct sequence would be whistle, award point to Team B, Signal 6 (Net Fault) against Team A. Team A coach may not like the call but Team B coach is certainly not going to like it if you do not call it.

You would not signal net fault for something on the opponent's side of the net. You would signal reaching over, which is another reason you can't cite this rule in the original situation.

But hey, in your match, you do whatever you want.

chapmaja

FMadera wrote
You would not signal net fault for something on the opponent's side of the net. You would signal reaching over, which is another reason you can't cite this rule in the original situation.

But hey, in your match, you do whatever you want.

The correct signal in this case would be "reaching over".

That signal, as stated in the officials manual (2016-2017) is to be used when

* A player illegally contacts a ball which is completely on the opponents side of the net
* Contacts an opponent over the top of the net.

So yes, even though the contact occurred below the net, the ball was still illegally contacted on the opponents side of the net. The correct signal is "over the net". I would then expect have an explanation as to what was witnessed for the captain who is very likely to question the call.