|
|||
This came up in our association meeting last night and I wondered what the views were on here.
The topic was blockers at the net with their hands up to the net. Ball for whatver reason is passed into the net on the other side forcing the ball into the hands of the player at the net. Now comes the real question, some players have been taught to stand at the net with their hands directed down so when the ball hits into the net, it hits their hands and is directed immediately to the floor. Is this a violation if the player makes no attempt to move their hands? |
|
|||
Judgment call. Did the player make "intentional contact"? And did it interfere with an attempt to play the ball.
See rule 9-6-7.d.2. Most of the time, it won't be an issue with an attack which goes into the net - the attack is the third hit and there can be no interference with an attempt to play the ball as the attacking team has no more hits left. Then, the only question is whether the "force of the ball push(ed) the net or net cables into the player". If so, no violation. If not, net violation on defensive player. Rule 9-6-7.a. If the attacking team still has a hit left, then it's a judgment call as to whether the contact was intentional and whether it interfered with an attempt to play the ball. -Homer- |
|
|||
Quote:
Had a real fun one at a tournament last Saturday..... 1.Team A returns the ball with a long arcing bump towards the net on the 3rd hit, but it doesn't have quite enough energy to make it over. 2.Player from team B jumps up to block & reaches over the net trying to get to the ball, but can't quite get to it. 3.The ball goes into the net at about mid height, knocking net it into blocker B, then rebounding into A's court. 4.When coming down from the attempted block, blocker B doesn't get her hands back quickly enough and makes downward contact on the top of the net before the rebounding ball hits the floor. My ruling: Net violation on B - point to team A. Coach B of course went slightly nuts, claiming the ball into the net caused the contact. I told her she was correct about the net contact to the body caused by the ball, but the second contact was caused solely by her player reaching across the net to try to block and not getting back in time, and because the ball was still live when she contacted the net(hadn't hit the ground yet and no foul had occurred) it was a net violation. |
|
|||
I had the identical situation last night in a Jr. High game - as the Referee.
Team A hits their third hit into the top of the net. I am not sure if the ball would have cleared the net or not, but Team B blocker jumps to block and the force of Team A's hit pushes net and ball into blockers hands. Team B blocker, instead of holding her ground straight up, decides to attack the ball and hits the net with her hands as she drives the ball back to Team A side of court. I call a net violation - even though the ball may never have crossed over the net - because the ball was in play until either it hits the floor or a foul occurs. I believe that was the correct call. Any interpretations?
__________________
Tony Smerk OHSAA Certified Class 1 Official Sheffield Lake, Ohio |
|
|||
Tony, good call! Until the ball touches the court, touches a player for a fourth contact, or lands out of bounds, it is alive. In your scenario, the player committed a net foul before any of these occurred.
__________________
Jan G. Filip - San Jose, CA EBVOA Rules Interpreter Emeritus NCS Volleyball Officials Coordinating Committee Recorder CIF State Volleyball State Championships Referee (2005), Scorekeeper (2006-2007) & Libero Tracker (2010) PAVO State Referee (2014) / PAVO Certified Scorekeeper (2014) / PAVO Certified Line Judge (2012) USAV Junior National Referee (resigned 2013) / USAV National Scorekeeper (2014) |
Bookmarks |
|
|