|
New to this forum,
As I've also had difficulty trying to determine what contitutes an illegal attack on the serve. And trying to find a good clear definition as to which rule supersedes the other ones.
So far, by determining the definition of an attack, I've realize that the most important consideration is the fact that the ball crosses over the plan of the net into the opponents court. Since the rule states no blocking the serve, blocking the let serve will constitute a fault only when the ball crosses over the plan of the net. That's my interpretation and I stick to that, so there aren't any confusion. My interpretation of the successful block is to deny the ball from crossing the plane of the net.
As to attacking the serve, well one must consider the horizontal plane of the tape and the ball successfully crossing the plane of the net. The combination of both of these meets the rule of an attack hit on the serve, in full consideration to the front zone of the court. The only thing that leads me guessing is the back row players are attacking the serve from the back court area. As I've seen this happens but was allowed. But what happens when a front row player attacks the serve from the back court area? Are they at fault?
I would also wonder about the let serve. As sometimes when the ball touches the tape, it doesn't necessarily fall below the plane of the tape. If it's higher then wouldn't that contitute a fault?
|