Over the Net Violations

[bob jenkins]

I had a coach ask me about this last night, and I want to be sure I gave him the correct answer.

Is it a true statement that whenever the ball is in the plane of the net, that both teams can play the ball (ignoring on a serve, back row players, etc)? Even if team A's setter is trying to save an over-pass for the second hit, team B's blocker can block the ball?

I'm also a little confused by rule 9-6-3 "A player shall not contact a ball which (sic) is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block." IS this trying to distinguish "block" from "attack" or are the only criteria the ones listed in 9-6-4 (three hits, ball directed toward opponent's side, no one in position to make a play)?

Thanks,

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I had a coach ask me about this last night, and I want to be sure I gave him the correct answer.

Is it a true statement that whenever the ball is in the plane of the net, that both teams can play the ball (ignoring on a serve, back row players, etc)? Even if team A's setter is trying to save an over-pass for the second hit, team B's blocker can block the ball?

Yes.

I'm also a little confused by rule 9-6-3 "A player shall not contact a ball which (sic) is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block." IS this trying to distinguish "block" from "attack" or are the only criteria the ones listed in 9-6-4 (three hits, ball directed toward opponent's side, no one in position to make a play)?

Both. It distinguishes block vs. attack, while also taking into account the other criteria you listed.

For example, you can often have reaching over on balls attacked on the opponent's side of the net that would have been legal plays had they been blocked. Or balls legally blocked that would have been illegal had someone been in the area to play the ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Both. It distinguishes block vs. attack, while also taking into account the other criteria you listed.

For example, you can often have reaching over on balls attacked on the opponent's side of the net that would have been legal plays had they been blocked. Or balls legally blocked that would have been illegal had someone been in the area to play the ball.

Thanks. So, how do I distinguish between a "block" and an "attack?"

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thanks. So, how do I distinguish between a "block" and an "attack?"

Well, that's the tougher question...

Fact is, there is no super easy way black and white way to define one versus the other. There's lots of gray, and one person's block is another person's attack, and vice versa.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Well, that's the tougher question...

Fact is, there is no super easy way black and white way to define one versus the other. There's lots of gray, and one person's block is another person's attack, and vice versa.

If you were trying to describe the difference to a new official, how would you do so? (The good news is that I think I've made most of these calls correctly -- given my judgment that the ball was in the plane of the net -- a judgment some coaches have disagreed with. The bad news is I know some of these hits over the net have been "attacks" and I've let them go -- with not much objection, surprisingly.)

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you were trying to describe the difference to a new official, how would you do so? (The good news is that I think I've made most of these calls correctly -- given my judgment that the ball was in the plane of the net -- a judgment some coaches have disagreed with. The bad news is I know some of these hits over the net have been "attacks" and I've let them go -- with not much objection, surprisingly.)

Well, *most* of the time, I would say if there's a question if it's an attack vs. a block, lean toward block. Directional blocks might look like attacks because they're kinda intentionally directed, but we're told to call those blocks.

A long time ago on another forum, a poster used a good rule of thumb..."If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."

Clear as mud, I know.