Attacking accross the net

DaveASA/FED · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 26, 2003, 04:21pm

I made an unpopular call the other night. A quick review: Team A makes 2nd hit and ball goes toward net, IMO team A had a player that had an attempt to hit the ball the 3rd time. Team B's front row player comes across the net and attacks the ball, from my view on the ladder the ball was completely on team A's side of the net. I called an illegal attack. The place went nuts! I checked the book and it is in there. Why isn't this called more often? I started watching and it appears like it happens more often than it is called. Any thoughts?

paparada · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 26, 2003, 05:14pm

IMO it's not called because of two reasons. One, not enough officials are knowledgeable about the rule and it's application. Two, it doesn't happen very often. I state the second one because, the perfect visual of the plane of the net is two ball side by side with the point they touch directly over the net. Understand all the ball has to do is touch the plane to be in it therefore, my visual is absolutely correct. So even though the plane is only the width of the nets thickness (I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here), the actual or visual que is the two balls side by side. Please realize I am not questioning your call or ability as I was not there and even if I were, I would not have you view but, I hope this visual will help.

lightenup · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Sep 27, 2003, 11:02pm

Another thing to remember is that if the ball has not crossed the plane of the net, the defensive player can only block the ball in a legal situation. At no time can they attack the ball if it completely on the other side of the net.

DaveASA/FED · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 29, 2003, 10:54am

Thanks for your reply's. I called this twice again at a tourney Saturday. Team A still had a hit left and a player in position to hit the ball and team B's girl attacked, not even blocked it(which would have still been illegal seeing how the team had an other hit and the ball was completly on A's side of the net). Coach almost got carded after the second call.

lightenup · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 29, 2003, 12:50pm

I had a couple of instances that were the other way over the weekend. First time, ball was passed up tight on the to where it touched the net, at that time was blocked by the player on the other side. Coach jumped up and said his player had the right to set the ball first which was incorrect, because once the ball touches the net, I consider that to be breaking the plane.

Second instance. once again, ball is passed up tight to the net. Setter hustles and tries to make a set but pushes it into the top of the net where it is then blocked staight down. Coach again complains that the set cannot be blocked.

Is my view correct on both instances?

Andy · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Sep 29, 2003, 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by lightenup
I had a couple of instances that were the other way over the weekend. First time, ball was passed up tight on the to where it touched the net, at that time was blocked by the player on the other side. Coach jumped up and said his player had the right to set the ball first which was incorrect, because once the ball touches the net, I consider that to be breaking the plane.

I disagree here. If the ball is not above the net, how can it have crossed the net or broken the plane of the net?

Quote:

Originally posted by lightenup
Second instance. once again, ball is passed up tight to the net. Setter hustles and tries to make a set but pushes it into the top of the net where it is then blocked staight down. Coach again complains that the set cannot be blocked.

In this case, you have to make a judgement as to the setter's intent. If you judge that the setter is directing the ball across the net, then the attack is complete and the action by the defensive player is legal. If, on the other hand, you judge that the setter is attempting to set the ball to a teammate and the ball has not broken the plane of the net, you have a violation by the defensive player.

lightenup · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 30, 2003, 09:12am

I guess I didn't clarify it correctly in the first instance. When I said the ball touched the net, it was actually the tape at the top. That was why I was calling it breaking the plane. In neither instance, was the ball completely below the height of the net.

As for the second instance, as long as the ball is at least partially above the height of the net when it touches, I don't think intent of the setter should come into play. If the ball hits the top, it has just as much chance to go over as not. The blocker should be allowed to play it that way.

Andy · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Sep 30, 2003, 10:38am

Ok...based on your last post, I agree with your rulings. The way that I was visualizing each play was that the ball had not broken the plane of the net and was still completely on the offensive side.

Once the ball has broken the plane, the defense has the right to attempt to play on it with no penalty.

The setters intent is relevent if the ball is still completely on the offensive side of the net when the defense touches it and the offensive team has a hit left.