double contact over the net

[SNIPERBBB]

So first local meeting of the year this was one of the main questions...

one crowd saying signal illegal hit to avoid confusion, the other signal the double hit.

the side advocating for the illegal hit was saying to avoid confusion with doubles being legal as long as they stayed on the same side of the net, not to signal a double unless it was successive contact.


the next question that i think was resolve was after a second contact that puts the ball tight to the next, what's the ruling if the next contact is a joust?

[FMadera]

1. It's an illegal (versus legal) double contact. There are multiple situations in which the same signal can mean different things (like illegal block and screening).

2. Unless they go with the newer USAV interp, which is not likely, it will result in a double contact unless the ruling is that the attacker touches it first. This will likely be answered at the preseason rules clinics.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FMadera

1. It's an illegal (versus legal) double contact. There are multiple situations in which the same signal can mean different things (like illegal block and screening).

2. Unless they go with the newer USAV interp, which is not likely, it will result in a double contact unless the ruling is that the attacker touches it first. This will likely be answered at the preseason rules clinics.

1. Agreed

2. That's what I'd like it to be, but the Pre-Season Guide from NFHS / RefMag includes this play and describes it as legal (Page 2, Play 1c), with this description: simultaneous contact between opponents is considered to be next contacted by a teammate. We -- or at least I -- (in IL) got the rules books last week, but the case book wasn't included, yet, and I don't see the current year interps on the NFHS website yet.

[SNIPERBBB]

This is the NFHS case play

9.4.8 SITUATION E: The setter on Team R runs down an errant first contact and contacts the ball first with the right and then the left hand on an overhand pass that is next contacted: (a) by Team R's LF; (b) simultaneously by Team R's LF and Team S's RF; (c) by Team S's RF. RULING: (a) and (b) legal; (c) multiple contact fault. COMMENT: On the second team hit, multiple contacts are permitted if the next contact is by a teammate. Simultaneous contact is considered contact by a teammate.

[FMadera]

Sorry, I was in NCAAW mode, as I usually am this time of year. I'll defer NFHS speculation to those who work that far more than I do.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1. Agreed

2. That's what I'd like it to be, but the Pre-Season Guide from NFHS / RefMag includes this play and describes it as legal (Page 2, Play 1c), with this description: simultaneous contact between opponents is considered to be next contacted by a teammate. We -- or at least I -- (in IL) got the rules books last week, but the case book wasn't included, yet, and I don't see the current year interps on the NFHS website yet.

Debate wasn't so much much about the meaning of the signal. Moreso about creating confusion with double contacts being legal on first and second hits . Some were worried about fans/coaches' confusion. I think using the illegal hit/prolonged contact signal would lead to confusion the other way.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Debate wasn't so much much about the meaning of the signal. Moreso about creating confusion with double contacts being legal on first and second hits . Some were worried about fans/coaches' confusion. I think using the illegal hit/prolonged contact signal would lead to confusion the other way.

Signalling "illegal hit" well after the contact is going to cause even more confusion. As it stands now, everyone should be aware that there can be a delayed double contact signal. Illegal hit should be whistled after the contact is made, not "if xxx happens."