Quote:
Originally posted by FMadera
I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about players attempting to block, we're talking about players attempting to keep a ball on their side, and the ball breaks the plane and is hit into their hands. In the past, this has been judged not to be a back row block, but rather first contact. However, if said back row player had hands facing the net, instead of in toward his/her own court, I would have ruled that a block attempt regardless.
This year's rule change still does not make hands facing the net in the above scenario legal, just makes the situation I described much more likely to be a back row block rather than first contact.
|
That's exactly the way I understood it. Well I guess I should have been a litte more clear about it. No matter which way the hands face, a block/block attempt is just that, even when they attempt to make a save on an overpass, whether that be a front or back row, up next to the net.
Personally I know I would have been blocking with the back of my hands. It's a block and our team is entitled to our three contacts, say if I was a front row player.
Not much different then an back row attacking the ball and sometimes blocking, based on them reading the trajectory as an overpass. Whereas the opponents would put up a block, and often times the block penetrates the plane of the net. I've got arguements that it was an overreach base on the eligible third contact. Such that it would be;
team A: back row attacks on second hit(say with a setter)legally below the height of the net(aka dump),
team B: blocks the attack,
team A: setter blocks the block attack with the back of the hands still in up close to the net, but still below the height of the net.
Now I can clearly see that in no way shape or form was the setter ever going to attempt a set towards any teammates at any time.
Ruling: back row block
Now does this qualifies as a back row block?
(Personally I know I would've been guilty of blocking and would not contest a back row block violation.)
Quote:
A slightly different scenario:
So the point I'm getting to, is that if a libero penetrates into the front zone, and uses a blocking action to play up the ball as a first contact. To clarify that the libero is not anywhere near the net nor in close vicinity of the hit, becuase of the tip coverage postition, and keeps the ball on the team's side. Let's say that the hands of the libero is above the height of the net, and there was no other block/block attempts by any front row players. Is the libero guilty of block/block attempt?
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FMadera
If I'm picturing your scenario, the libero isn't near the net, but plays the ball while above the net? If the libero isn't near the net, it's not a block attempt, even if he/she plays the ball with hands above the net. Two things to watch out for, though:
1. If the libero plays the ball while it's entirely above the net and it then is either legally blocked or fully passes beyond the plane of the net, it's an illegal attack on the libero.
2. If the libero uses finger action to play the ball from within the attack zone, and the ball is subsequently attacked from anywhere while the ball is entirely above the height of the net, then it's an illegal attack, with the player at fault being the libero (for the illegal set). Most the the "libero set" faults I've had have been with liberos covering tips or in hitter coverage, libero finger sets the ball from the attack zone, and the setter dumps it on two. Illegal attack.
|
no dispute from me, heh, heh, heh.
I wish I can just quell those grumbling coaches. You know, front row penetration, hands above the height of the net.--->"BACK ROW BLOCK! BACK ROW ATTACK!"