Ok, I am an official but due to DD playing JV I am spectating alot this year. Had a call (3 of the same calls) in Varsity match, that I couldn't justify to the other fans last night. Here is play, our 3rd hit is heading to net, it hits the tape at the same time it blocked by other team, and heads sharply out of bounds. Up official rules that is never cleared the net. Now what am I missing here?? On the 3rd hit you can block the ball over the net, or at least hit it at the plane of the net meaning the ball does not completely clear the net, correct?? So if the other team blocked it and it went out of bounds, who is that not a point for us? If they would have left it alone (no one will know if it would have cleared the net or not) and it did not clear the net then no brainer it was our fault, their point. But since they hit it don't they take responsiblity for the ball going out of bounds? When coach qhestioned call the only response he got was "the ball never cleared the net coach". What say you all? As an official I am very good at not bad mouthing other officials from the stands, he/she must have had a better angle than me, they saw something I didn't etc. But this one made me feel like they flat out missed this call. Am I missing somethign???

This is why coaches need to know the rules.

Had your coach had a good grasp of the rules he/she would know:

A) This is the wrong application of a rule.

B) They could have asked for a timeout and made the officials check the rulebook.

This is clearly a misapplication of a rule, and would have been reversed when the officials could not support it with the book.

From what you saw, this is my interpretation. I don't have the rulebook in front of me but on the third hit by team R, team S may attack the ball at any time including blocking the ball on team R side of the net. Based on your description, you are correct, team R (your team) should have received the point since the last team to touch the ball before the ball went out of bounds was team S.

Thanks folks, I thought I might have lost my mind! Brian, you are correct I think a well addressed confrontation of the official would have resulted in a reversal of the call. Coach knew it was wrong but was unable to get into a rules discussion about it, just kept it at a complaining level. It is funny to me how many coaches, and it's in all 3 sports I officiate (volleyball, softball and wrestling), don't know how to discuss a misinterpertation of a rule. They get into arguing the wrong topics, and talk the official right into being able to use the 3 magic words that stop all conversations, IN MY JUDGEMENT...... But o well you win some and you lose some. Again thanks for agreeing that I am not crazy, some times I truly wonder!!

agreed: Brian Watson

agreed: BigToe

As a floor captain(/coach), I usually request an interpretation of the rule from the R1 and ask for clarification of it when there are situations that are ????

I would also take into consideration the strength of the net and the trajectory of the attack. If there is an opportunity for the ball to clear the plane of net, then the situation as described goes to the attacking team. If it's obvious that there's no doubt in your mind that the ball would never clear the net, then the play is dead and the contact with the blocker is insignificant. Then there is always the situation that a player knowingly plays the ball off of a block with the full knowledge that the ball would not clear the block, using the tape as half of the target. The situations are rare and few actually can do that.

Maybe the official meant that the blocker's hands never actually made contact with the ball? I've seen it happen lots of times where the ball hits the tape and misses the blocker's hands, usually resulting in a 4th hit or out-of-bounds call. Often it looks like a touch from the sidelines or benches, but the officials have the best view.

I agree with mgaeta that it may have appeared to touch the blocker when in fact, the ball only touched the tape. In that case, the official should have told the coach the ball was not touched by the blocker, instead of saying it never cleared the net. I have seen this happen many times, but that is one of those had-to-be-there plays.

I do not understand the interpretation given by Omnispiker. It is irrelevant if the official feels the ball will not or does not clear the net. If a blocker contacts a ball which then falls out of bounds, the attacking team receives the point. The play is not dead until a player commits a foul or the ball is dead (touches the floor, hits the antenna, etc.).

Our association is teaching that it is OK to BLOCK a ball on the opponents' side of the net under these circumstances but it is never legal to ATTACK a ball on the opponents' side.

That's how we're instructed to call it anyway.

-Homer-

Ditto here.

But in this situation, how do you distinguish between a BLOCK and an ATTACK?