In the Plane of the Net

[Paul Vancouver]

I am a relatively new official.

I have been told by several officials and players that any ball in the plane of the net may be freely hit by either side without restriction (front row players only, of course).

Is this really true? We use USA Volleyball rules in our rec league, but I just don't see that the rules support this.

My belief is either that the rules must be changed or the enforcement must be changed, because right now they don't seem to agree.

If you agree with the premise in the second paragraph, then I have a list of rule changes to propose.

[PaREF]

Paul: Welcome to the ranks and the board!

In all rule sets (NFHS, USAV, NCAA, FIVB) the ball may be played by either side when in the plane of the net, so the players and officials who have advised you are absolutely correct.

As far as other rule change suggestions, I have been officiating for more than 15 years and I could suggest some rule changes also!

[Homer]

Originally posted by PaREF

In all rule sets (NFHS, USAV, NCAA, FIVB) the ball may be played by either side when in the plane of the net, so the players and officials who have advised you are absolutely correct.

With the slight correction that a SERVE may not be either attacked or blocked, regardless of whether it has broken the plane of the net.

Other than serves, balls which have partially broken the plane of the net are fair game.

[Paul Vancouver]

Thanks, guys. Here are my proposed changes. Comments are welcome!

USA Volleyball Proposed Rule Changes

[widude]

I have coached volleyball for the past 20 years, and remember that you cannot attack or block the serve until the ball has come below the top plane of the net. That is, the ball must drop below a plane parallel to the floor that is at the top height of the net before a play may be made. I was examining the rulebook lately (it seems that a lot has changed in 20 years) and cannot find any reference to this rule. Is it implied or am I just missing it? Also, if the ball hits the net on a serve, since part of the ball is below the top plane of the net, can it be blocked or attacked (as long as it hits the net first)?

[Edited by widude on Feb 25th, 2004 at 07:52 AM]

[Homer]

Originally posted by widude
I have coached volleyball for the past 20 years, and remember that you cannot attack or block the ball until the ball has come below the top plane of the net. That is, the ball must drop below a plane parallel to the floor that is at the top height of the net before a play may be made. I was examining the rulebook lately (it seems that a lot has changed in 20 years) and cannot find any reference to this rule. Is it implied or am I just missing it? Also, if the ball hits the net on a serve, since part of the ball is below the top plane of the net, can it be blocked or attacked (as long as it hits the net first)?

There is no such rule in the NFHS or USVA rule sets. The ball need NOT drop below the top of the net before it may be blocked or attacked. What you might be thinking of is the illegal backrow attack rule - a backrow player may not attack the ball while inside the 3 meter attack line until the ball is below the top of the net - regardless of whether it has penetrated the plane of the net. A backrow player may not block or attempt to block the ball at all. But with frontrow players, the ball is fair game for an attack or block as soon as any portion of the ball penetrates the plane of the net. Indeed, there are circumstances where a front row player may block the ball -before- it breaks the plane of the net.

Serves may not be blocked, regardless of whether the ball is above or below the top of the net. Nor may they be attacked while the ball is completely above the top of the net. Once any portion of the ball is below the top of the net, it may be attacked. This would be regardless of whether the ball had touched the net on the serve or not.

[widude]

Sorry, but after re-reading my post, I realize that I left out one important statement. I MEANT to say that a SERVE may not be blocked or attacked until it goes below the top of the net. I do know the rules, I am just a little scatter-brained at times. Anyway, what SPECIFIC rule states that a SERVE may not be attacked or blocked? Also, if the serve hits the net, then goes over (even if it bounces high off the cord) may it be blocked or attacked? After all, the ball did drop below the top cord of the net at one point.
FIVB clearly states the rule in 15.6.3 and 14.2.4, but USA Volleyball (USAV website: http://volleyball.about.com/) does not include any reference to attacking/blocking the serve.

[Edited by widude on Feb 25th, 2004 at 09:55 AM]

[Homer]

Originally posted by widude
Anyway, what SPECIFIC rule states that a SERVE may not be attacked or blocked? Also, if the serve hits the net, then goes over (even if it bounces high off the cord) may it be blocked or attacked? After all, the ball did drop below the top cord of the net at one point.
FIVB clearly states the rule in 15.6.3 and 14.2.4, but USA Volleyball (USAV website: http://volleyball.about.com/) does not include any reference to attacking/blocking the serve.

[Edited by widude on Feb 25th, 2004 at 09:55 AM]

The USVA rules against attacking or blocking the serve are 18.4.4 and 19.5.4 respectively.[1]

[1] per the 1991 rule book - can't find my current book but I doubt those rules have been changed or renumbered.

The NFHSA rules are 9-6-5 and 9-6-6 respectively.

I can't see that the rules make any distinction for a serve which hits the net - it cannot be blocked at all and cannot be attacked until some portion of the ball descends below the top of the net.


-Homer-

[widude]

I agree that you cannot block a serve, but it seems to me that you can attack it. A fault occurs when:
A player completes an attack-hit on the
opponent’s serve when the ball is entirely
above the top of the net.
But if the ball hits the net, it is NOT entirely above the net. Therefore, you should be able to attack a serve which hits the net. I don't think this should be allowed, so perhaps the wording can be changed? I have no suggestions on the wording, though.

[OmniSpiker]

New to this forum,

As I've also had difficulty trying to determine what contitutes an illegal attack on the serve. And trying to find a good clear definition as to which rule supersedes the other ones.

So far, by determining the definition of an attack, I've realize that the most important consideration is the fact that the ball crosses over the plan of the net into the opponents court. Since the rule states no blocking the serve, blocking the let serve will constitute a fault only when the ball crosses over the plan of the net. That's my interpretation and I stick to that, so there aren't any confusion. My interpretation of the successful block is to deny the ball from crossing the plane of the net.
As to attacking the serve, well one must consider the horizontal plane of the tape and the ball successfully crossing the plane of the net. The combination of both of these meets the rule of an attack hit on the serve, in full consideration to the front zone of the court. The only thing that leads me guessing is the back row players are attacking the serve from the back court area. As I've seen this happens but was allowed. But what happens when a front row player attacks the serve from the back court area? Are they at fault?

I would also wonder about the let serve. As sometimes when the ball touches the tape, it doesn't necessarily fall below the plane of the tape. If it's higher then wouldn't that contitute a fault?

[widude]

Dear OmniSpiker:
Let's start with your first question,"As sometimes when the ball touches the tape, it doesn't necessarily fall below the plane of the tape." If the ball touches the tape, some part of the ball HAS TO BE below the plane of the tape. The whole ball does not have to be below the plane of the tape, just some part of the ball.
As for attacks, no player may attack the ball on any part of the court on a serve. It doesn't matter if a back court player attacks the serve or a front row player attacks it. Remember, though, just because a player swings at the ball over his head, it is not necessarily an attack. Again, if the ball has dropped so that any portion of the ball is below a plane parallel to the floor and through the line at the top of the net, it does NOT constitute an attack. I've seen 6th grade girls take an approach and strike the ball on the serve, legally. The ref ruled that even jumping to their full potential, they could not reach a ball fully above the net. I had to agree with that. :-(
Whether blocking or serving, the important thing to distinguish in the rules is the "plane of the net", which is a vertical plane, and "plane horizontal to the floor through the top of the net", a horizontal plane. Different rule books have a different terminology for these concepts, and sometimes it gets confusing. Hope this helps.
I'm still looking for clarification on whether the ball has to stay below the horizontal plane in order to be an attack. If the ball hits the net and jumps up, can a person legally attack a serve since "at one time" the ball was below the plane of the net? You still can't block it, because you can never block a serve.

[Brian Watson]

It is critical to know the definition of an attack, a block, and when a serve ends to calling this appropriately.

A serve ends only when it is obvious that it will not cross the net, or when it passes over the net and any part of the ball drops below the height of the net.

Any hit that directs the ball toward the opponents court is considered an attack, with the exception of a block or serve.

A block is defined as the action to deflect an opponents attack. Think of this as a hit where you do not attempt to direct the ball, just merely getting in the way of an opponents hit.

So, blocking a serve is any action that is a deflection of an opponents serve. The location of the ball is immaterial in this case, as soon as you make a deflecting contact on the ball it is a violation. Where the ball is in relation to the plane of the net is immaterial.

Attacking the serve is any hit on a served ball that is completely above the height of the net; and the ball is directed completely over the net or blocked by the opponent. A ball into the tape is not automatically below the tape. I have seen very hard serves hit the serving side tape then pop straight into the air. This is still a served ball and an attack or block would be a violation. There are no "automatically" in any sport, you need to watch the ball to know where it is and make the proper call.

Realistically, if the ball is not attacked at or near the net, this is not going to happen. A player attacking the ball out of the back row would need to be very tall to make contact while the ball is still completely above the height of the net. Even a front row player standing a few feet off and attacking the ball once it drops below the net is legal.

If you guys want some insane, will never happen, but you want to debate scenario: A very tall player using what we would consider a classic "bump" or passing motion contacts the serve completely above the net and directs the ball over the net would be guilty of attacking the serve.

[Paul Vancouver]

Originally posted by Brian Watson
A block is defined as the action to deflect an opponents attack. Think of this as a hit where you do not attempt to direct the ball, just merely getting in the way of an opponents hit.

It has been recently been pointed out to me that my interpretation of a block is incorrect.

USAV defines blocking as "the action that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by (a) player(s) close to the net reaching higher than the net."

Since any contact I make with the ball would deflect it, I considered all contacts meeting the other conditions (ball coming from the opponent, player reaching higher than the net), to be blocks.

But now it appears that if I do anything other than let the ball bounce off my hands/arms while I am reaching over and past the plane of the net, thus "directing" the ball in any way, I am guilty of attacking.

Simply moving my hands forward as I attempt to block could be interpreted as "directing" the ball. Should I now consider this to be an illegal attack?

My preference would be to consider any form of contact with the ball: spike, dink, flip, or whatever, should be labeled as a block if the ball comes from an opponent and the player reaches above the net when playing it.

If this is not the case, then some serious restrictions need to be put on the word "deflection".

[Brian Watson]

My answer was strictly limited to what you can or cannot do on a SERVE.

If it is any other play, and that ball is in the plane, swing away. You can make any legal hit or block from either side, provided you are a front row player. I think we all know back row restrictions and those don't need to be dredged up.

Bottom line, if it is not a serve situation, and that ball is in the plane, it is free to be played by anyone.

You will get grief from setters trying to save an over pass, but that is tough luck. Their guys need to control the ball better. They are not entitled to the hit once it is in the plane.

[Paul Vancouver]

Originally posted by Paul Vancouver
It has been recently been pointed out to me that my interpretation of a block is incorrect.

USAV defines blocking as "the action that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by (a) player(s) close to the net reaching higher than the net."

Since any contact I make with the ball would deflect it, I considered all contacts meeting the other conditions (ball coming from the opponent, player reaching higher than the net), to be blocks.

But now it appears that if I do anything other than let the ball bounce off my hands/arms while I am reaching over and past the plane of the net, thus "directing" the ball in any way, I am guilty of attacking.

Simply moving my hands forward as I attempt to block could be interpreted as "directing" the ball. Should I now consider this to be an illegal attack?

My preference would be to consider any form of contact with the ball: spike, dink, flip, or whatever, should be labeled as a block if the ball comes from an opponent and the player reaches above the net when playing it.

If this is not the case, then some serious restrictions need to be put on the word "deflection".

I had a chance to discuss blocking with some experienced referees, and they re-iterated what another set of experienced referees had been telling me--that not only do you have to be close to the net, reaching above the net, and deflecting a ball coming from an opponent--as the rule states, but you are also not permitted to "direct" the ball, e.g. by spiking it, finger tipping it, hand-slapping it, or whatever. Once you "direct" the ball, you are "hitting" it, and it is no longer considered a block. If the ball hadn't reached the plane of the net yet, its a reach. If the ball continues on to your own side, its a first hit.

It is a reasonable rule, but I can't even see a glimmer of it in the rule book. The rule book makes absolutely no mention of the quality of contact made with a ball coming from an opponent that might make it a "hit" and not a "block". One official said "they will never put it in the rule book because it is handled different ways in different regions (of the country)". She had no idea how FIVB would handle it, which I presume is the source of recent USAV rule changes.

As for Homer's comment in the other thread, I have to agree completely. If it is OK to travel on a dunk, define what a dunk is and say it is OK to travel on one. Don't just wink at the rule book and "call it the way all referees call it".

So now I have to call two rules that simply aren't in the rule book--the "in the plane of the net is OK" rule and the "it's not a block if you attempt to attack it" rule.