Quote:
Originally posted by Paul Vancouver
It has been recently been pointed out to me that my interpretation of a block is incorrect.
USAV defines blocking as "the action that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by (a) player(s) close to the net reaching higher than the net."
Since any contact I make with the ball would deflect it, I considered all contacts meeting the other conditions (ball coming from the opponent, player reaching higher than the net), to be blocks.
But now it appears that if I do anything other than let the ball bounce off my hands/arms while I am reaching over and past the plane of the net, thus "directing" the ball in any way, I am guilty of attacking.
Simply moving my hands forward as I attempt to block could be interpreted as "directing" the ball. Should I now consider this to be an illegal attack?
My preference would be to consider any form of contact with the ball: spike, dink, flip, or whatever, should be labeled as a block if the ball comes from an opponent and the player reaches above the net when playing it.
If this is not the case, then some serious restrictions need to be put on the word "deflection".
|
I had a chance to discuss blocking with some experienced referees, and they re-iterated what another set of experienced referees had been telling me--that not only do you have to be close to the net, reaching above the net, and deflecting a ball coming from an opponent--as the rule states, but you are also not permitted to "direct" the ball, e.g. by spiking it, finger tipping it, hand-slapping it, or whatever. Once you "direct" the ball, you are "hitting" it, and it is no longer considered a block. If the ball hadn't reached the plane of the net yet, its a reach. If the ball continues on to your own side, its a first hit.
It is a reasonable rule, but I can't even see a glimmer of it in the rule book. The rule book makes absolutely no mention of the quality of contact made with a ball coming from an opponent that might make it a "hit" and not a "block". One official said "they will never put it in the rule book because it is handled different ways in different regions (of the country)". She had no idea how FIVB would handle it, which I presume is the source of recent USAV rule changes.
As for Homer's comment in the other thread, I have to agree completely. If it is OK to travel on a dunk, define what a dunk is and say it is OK to travel on one. Don't just wink at the rule book and "call it the way all referees call it".
So now I have to call two rules that simply aren't in the rule book--the "in the plane of the net is OK" rule and the "it's not a block if you attempt to attack it" rule.