Collective block or not?
 

I have discussed this scenario with many officials (Nationals of both PAVO and USAV) and seem to have a conflict of proper ruling.

Back row setter Team A (BRSA) is standing next to a Front Row Player Team A (FRPA) at the net with her hands near her head but not above the net. The ball comes from her side A (an overpass) and goes into the plain of the net with no one from Team A making a play on the ball. BRSA does not jump so her hands stay below the net on this play. The legal front row player from Team B attacks the ball once it gets into the net (so no reaching over). The FRPA goes up to block the attack and either she blocks the ball from Player B or the ball hits the BRSA who is standing next to her close to the net with her hands up near her head.

Do we have a back row block on team A if ball hits either the FRPA blocking the ball or the BRSA just standing next to her at the net as this should be called a collective block?

Or do we have a legal block (and 3 more possible hits by Team A) if it hits only FRPA and only 2 hits left for Team A if ball hits BRSA just standing there as this would be team's first contact?

I am getting differences of opinion and ruling from many officials on this.

Just curious what everyone thinks and has been taught on this.

To be any kind of a block, the ball must be deflected as it is coming from the opponent and the ball must be completely above the height of the net when it is contacted. Just because the setter is standing next to someone or because her hands are "up near her head" doesn't make her part of a block.

If FRPA does contact the ball and it constitutes a block then Team A has three contacts remaining. If BRSA contacts the ball then it would be either an illegal block or a legal contact. If a legal contact then Team A would have two contacts remaining.

I disagree with that. To be a block, a body part must be above the height of the net -- the position of the ball doesn't matter.

I do agree that the setter must be blocking to be part of the collective block. Just because she was next to a person who was blocking does not make her part of the block, and the conclusion on 2 or 3 hits remaining is correct.

In order to be part of a collective block, you have to be a blocker by rule. If you don't have a body part (note: doesn't have to be hands, per se), above the net, you are not, by rule, a blocker, and thus, cannot be considered to be part of a collective block.

[...the position of the ball doesn't matter.[/QUOTE]

According to NFHS 9.5.1(c) it does. "Block - the action of a player(s) close to the net that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net at the moment of contact..."

This rule does not state that the ball is higher than the net. It does qualify the note that the blocker must be reaching above the net. This is the NFHS definition. In the other rule sets: a blocker is defined as being near the net with some part of their body above the net plane.

This does not state that the ball has to be higher than the net, it states the blocker has to reach higher than the net.

If the blocker has a body part above the net, and ball hits their head which is below the net, it's a block, even though the ball was below the net.

I sent an email a few weeks ago to NFHS and to PAVO rules secretaries about this play as some officials in our area definitely remembered that during a PAVO pre-season clinic for officials within the last 5 years that this was taught to be a collective block and a fault.
NFHS said right away that this was not a collective block (no body part above the net thus not a blocker).
PAVO first said that this was a collective block as BRSA was in close proximity at the net to FRPA and made this a collective block and thus a fault. But a week later when discussed together with NFHS and the previous rules secretary, PAVO changed their mind and said it was not a block.
So I can see why there is confusion in some areas.
As per the definition of a block or blocking action, since no body part was above the net by BRSA, then BRSA is not considered a blocker in this play and thus no fault.
I hope they come out with a rule interpretation on this for next year.

Could be they just didn't read it all the way through. There really shouldn't be any confusion...if you're not a blocker by rule, you can't be part of a collective block, individual block, legal block, or illegal block. Period.