Reaching over

[Scrapper1]

Another play from camp.

Team A's first contact is directed toward the net. It's very tight to the net, so the setter for Team A squats near the center line to dig it out of the bottom of the net.

Before the ball reaches the plane of the net, Team B blocker blocks the ball to the floor on A's side of the net.

I called the blocker for reaching over the net. The observer pointed out that it's only reaching over if the blocker takes away the opportunity for an offensive player to play the ball. And since the setter was nowhere near the ball, the definition "reaching over" hadn't been met. The setter wasn't trying to play the ball.

But in my mind she was going to play the ball, so I thought the blocker took that opportunity away. Thoughts?

[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."

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Another play from camp.

Team A's first contact is directed toward the net. It's very tight to the net, so the setter for Team squats near the center line to dig it out of the bottom of the net.

Before the ball reaches the plane of the net, Team B blocker blocks the ball to the floor on A's side of the net.

I called the blocker for reaching over the net. The observer pointed out that it's only reaching over if the blocker takes away the opportunity for an offensive player to play the ball. And since the setter was nowhere near the ball, the definition "reaching over" hadn't been met. The setter wasn't trying to play the ball.

But in my mind she was going to play the ball, so I thought the blocker took that opportunity away. Thoughts?

On the surface, I would agree, unless the ball would have gone over the net. If that's the case, that would meet the conditions of a completed attack, as that blocker wouldn't have been the reason A was unable to complete their attack.

[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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Another play from camp.

Team A's first contact is directed toward the net. It's very tight to the net, so the setter for Team squats near the center line to dig it out of the bottom of the net.

Before the ball reaches the plane of the net, Team B blocker blocks the ball to the floor on A's side of the net.

I called the blocker for reaching over the net. The observer pointed out that it's only reaching over if the blocker takes away the opportunity for an offensive player to play the ball. And since the setter was nowhere near the ball, the definition "reaching over" hadn't been met. The setter wasn't trying to play the ball.

But in my mind she was going to play the ball, so I thought the blocker took that opportunity away. Thoughts?

The key part of the rule is as follows (assuming HS rules)

9-6-4 (Blocking a ball on the opponents side of the net is permitted......

c. Ball is falling near the net and in the referee judgment not legal member of the attacking team could make a play on the ball.

could make a play on the ball.

as described in the OP, the setter was positioning herself so she could make a play on the ball. This was denied her by the opponent reaching over the net and blocking the ball in a manner that denied her the opportunity to play the ball out of the net.

I have reaching over on this all day and everyday based on what was described.

To add to this, this question was brought up at our officials clinic several years ago. The question was, if, in the referees judgment the only play that could be made was a diving attempt to save the ball, what would the call be. The response was the diving attempt would be made by a person in position to play the ball, therefore the only way our observer would not call this is if no legal player from the team was anywhere near where the ball would land if it wasn't contacted. The official who told us this is an official with multiple years of NCAA exeperience as an official and who has worked multiple state finals, plus has significant USAV experience.

[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.

[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.