Reaching over

[bob jenkins]

I agree with you, at least for NFHS rules.

9-6-4c "Ball is falling near the net and, in the referee's judgment, no legal member of the attacking team could make a play on the ball."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

9-6-4c "Ball is falling near the net and, in the referee's judgment, no legal member of the attacking team could make a play on the ball."

Part of the observer's point was that, in my case, no member of the attacking team COULD make a play on the ball. The ball was at the top of the net, and the only member of the attacking team near the net was squatting below the bottom of the net. So at the time of the block, no one was attempting to play the ball.

I totally see her point, but I never thought of it that way. I'd always thought that if the player was going to play the ball (eventually), it would be a fault. But she was saying that an attacking-team player has to be trying to play the ball at the moment the block occurs.

[FMadera]

This would be a good scenario to send to Julie Voeck for an official PAVO interpretation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

This would be a good scenario to send to Julie Voeck for an official PAVO interpretation.

I finally did sent it to Julie through the "Ask Julie" link on RQ+. Let's see if it gets a response.

[timasdf]

Here's a YouTube link with time included...
https://youtu.be/TWnAfUdDOnw?si=ZL5BnBpmqLZL-GZM&t=315

I think a Felix makes a good argument that this could be considered an attack, more than a block. Of course, it's impossible to determine the location of the ball when contacted.

Let us know if there is ever any word from Julie Voeck.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Part of the observer's point was that, in my case, no member of the attacking team COULD make a play on the ball. The ball was at the top of the net, and the only member of the attacking team near the net was squatting below the bottom of the net. So at the time of the block, no one was attempting to play the ball.

I totally see her point, but I never thought of it that way. I'd always thought that if the player was going to play the ball (eventually), it would be a fault. But she was saying that an attacking-team player has to be trying to play the ball at the moment the block occurs.

I must have missed the part about the attacking team having to be attempting to make a play on the ball for it to be an issue. I don't see this in the rule. The rule specifically uses the word COULD (and not the word is, or words is trying to)

[Scrapper1]

Here's the play! Please tell me what you think. The play starts at the 5:00 minute mark.

Sorry, I can't figure out how to have it play in the message. Here's the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWnAfUdDOnw

[FMadera]

If it's the play that ends around 5:20ish, though this hasn't been brought up before, I could see there being confusion on if there was an attack or a block.