In the Plane of the Net

[OmniSpiker]

Seems that the rules would make a "soft block" now a one of the three contacts. Due to the fact that the player is not deflecting the ball and is directing the ball up and into their side for the opportunity to make a play.

[widude]

Originally posted by OmniSpiker
Seems that the rules would make a "soft block" now a one of the three contacts. Due to the fact that the player is not deflecting the ball and is directing the ball up and into their side for the opportunity to make a play.

A soft block is still a deflection since he/she doesn't have absolute control over the direction of the ball. The only difference between a block and a soft block is the direction of the fingers (pointed toward the opposite court or pointed back).

[Brian Watson]

There is an outstanding article on ball handling in the new NFHS Quarterly that just came in the mail. It relay's everything I tried to say, I hope in a manner more people understand. It is a must read article covering power tips blocking and 1st ball handling.

[Paul Vancouver]

I'm not willing to say that NFHS rules are the same as USAV rules (which I follow), or FIVB rules (which at least come close to USAV rules, although I wouldn't yet say they are the same). See http://www.volleyball.org/rules/index.html


The FIVB Rules Casebook mentions "blocking action" many times without describing what a "blocking action" is. However, I found it odd that none of the cases in the book discussed blocking a ball as a opposed to attacking it.

From the FIVB Rules Casebook, 2001-2004...
----------------
4.5 In a match between Canada and Brazil in the Pan American Games, a Brazilian player received the serve. She passed the ball over the net where the Canadian front row centre player, in a blocking action, "redirected" the ball to the floor of Brazil. Is this legal?

It is legal to block the ball and direct it back to the opponent's court. The first referee must decide upon the legality of the blocker's contact with the ball. The only consideration is whether the ball was legally hit or whether it was "caught and/or thrown". The illegal contact of "catch" is possible to occur in blocking. Rule 10.2.2
----------------
While this is not a good example (the ball is passed over the net, after all), why is a catch or throw the only consideration? If the difference between a legal block and an illegal attack on a ball that hasn't reached the plane of the net only in the manner of the contact, why isn't there an example in the casebook that discusses this? Or hasn't the FIVB come to a consensus on how it should be handled?


The NCAA Women's rulebook also has an opportunity to give some indication that the manner of contact is critical to distinguishing a "block" from an "attack-hit", but does not.

I don't ref HS volleyball. I don't have the NFHS rules or the NFHS Quarterly. Is there anything in these rules that uses the manner of contact to distinguish a "block" from an "attack-hit"?


rec.sports.volleyball (http://www.volleyball.org/rsv_faq.html) is silent regarding any discussion of how the manner of contact might turn a legal block into an illegal attack...

8. What's the difference between a block and attack hit over the opponents court? "Blocking is the action that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by (a) player(s) close to the net reaching higher than the net. To be considered a blocker, the player(s) must reach above the net sometime during the effort.



Since is the "In the Plane of the Net" thread, I also found something on the FIVB site that contradicts the common interpretation applied here in Michigan to USAV rules. From the FIVB Rules Casebook, 2001-2004...
----------------
4.37 The American blocker, Karch Kiraly, contacted the ball on the Soviet's side of the net. The ball rebounded into the air where it was hit with a blocking action down to the floor on the Soviet's side of the net by the American front row player Doug Partie. The ball had never penetrated into the air space of the American team. The first referee signaled a fault on the block of Partie. Was this a correct decision by the first referee?

The first referee was correct. The action of Partie was not legal. The action of Partie was not "one action" with that of Kiraly and could not be considered to be a collective block. It was, therefore, an attack hit by Partie carried out immediately after the block of Kiraly within the Soviet air space. Rule 12.1.2, 15.1.1, 15.2, 15.3

If the ball blocked by Kiraly had penetrated the plane of the net, the initial contact (attack hit) by Partie would have had to be made on the American side of the net. Rule 14.2,1, 14.3.1, 15.1.1, 15.2
----------------
The interesting part is that the answer clearly states Partie's contact would have to be made on the American side of the net. Here in Michigan, we are told that it is OK to hit any part of the ball (on your own side or the opponent's) that is in the plane of the net. (Even though there is no basis in the rules for this determination.)