A1 Reaching UNDER Net

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by FMadera

No fault if it doesn't interfere with B's ability to play the ball...

But what about Net Play, NFHS Rule 9.6.3 - "A player shall not contact a ball which is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block"?

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

But what about Net Play, NFHS Rule 9.6.3 - "A player shall not contact a ball which is completely on the opponent's side of the net unless the contact is a legal block"?

This action is right after a legal block. It's a fine line. If there's a player trying to cover and it interferes with that attempt, then interference is a valid decision.

If there's no one around and you call something because it was blocked into a foot, well, that's a really tough sell.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FMadera

This action is right after a legal block. It's a fine line. If there's a player trying to cover and it interferes with that attempt, then interference is a valid decision.

If there's no one around and you call something because it was blocked into a foot, well, that's a really tough sell.

So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

No, it's a dead ball. Then you determine if interference occurred.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FMadera

No, it's a dead ball. Then you determine if interference occurred.

So -- if it's interference (B was attempting to, and had a reasonable chance to, play the ball), regardless of intent, B's point.

If it's not interference, regardless of intent, A's point.

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So -- if it's interference (B was attempting to, and had a reasonable chance to, play the ball), regardless of intent, B's point.

If it's not interference, regardless of intent, A's point.

Not if playing NFHS rules and you apply Rule 9.6.3 as it is written.

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So if it bounces back up in the air, B can play it?

(This is all part of the discussion we had -- the definition of interference in rule 9-xxx (sorry, no books), along with the lack of "over the net" in the "contacts the ball on the other side of the net" rule, etc.

I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

Happens quite a bit in the men's game.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

I don't see interference as the root issue. It is illegal to touch a ball that has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net unless the contact is a legal block. The action as described in the original post is definitely not a legal block. The language in the rule book seems pretty clear to me. I don't know why a player would have their foot in the air completely on the opponent's side and make contact with the ball but this contact is a violation and should be called, regardless of intent or interference. I don't see it as that tough of a "sell" at all.

You've quoted the rule for which we are determining reaching over the net. Are you advocating using that signal for something under the net?

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by FMadera

You've quoted the rule for which we are determining reaching over the net. Are you advocating using that signal for something under the net?

Section 9.6 deals with Net Play generally and not Over the Net specifically. Rule 9.6.3 covers contacting a ball that is completely on the opponent's side and doesn't contain a reference as to the height of the ball. I believe the correct sequence would be whistle, award point to Team B, Signal 6 (Net Fault) against Team A. Team A coach may not like the call but Team B coach is certainly not going to like it if you do not call it.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

Section 9.6 deals with Net Play generally and not Over the Net specifically. Rule 9.6.3 covers contacting a ball that is completely on the opponent's side and doesn't contain a reference as to the height of the ball. I believe the correct sequence would be whistle, award point to Team B, Signal 6 (Net Fault) against Team A. Team A coach may not like the call but Team B coach is certainly not going to like it if you do not call it.

You would not signal net fault for something on the opponent's side of the net. You would signal reaching over, which is another reason you can't cite this rule in the original situation.

But hey, in your match, you do whatever you want.