The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Volleyball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 31, 2005, 05:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally posted by MCBear
Good-oh! Right on, Felix.

Finally, we don't have to worry about whether the player is attempting to make a save on the overpass. If the ball is in the plane of the net and the opponent hits or blocks the ball back into a back-row player whose hands are above the net, we have a back-row block. Hooray!!!! Our lives were just made easier!!!
Wait a minute here!? Could we clarify what really consitutes a block, period? I understood that back row players are not allowed to make a block or block attempt regardless. Back row player attempting to save an overpass with a block/block attempt shouldn't even be contested in the first place. Blocking actions by front row players are judge to be somewhere close to the net or vicinity of the hit whether the player jumps or not, are they not? Therefore any back row players, penetrating the front zone making a block/block attempt of the sort would be a violation, regardless whether or not the hands are above the net or not.

A slightly different scenario:
So the point I'm getting to, is that if a libero penetrates into the front zone, and uses a blocking action to play up the ball as a first contact. To clarify that the libero is not anywhere near the net nor in close vicinity of the hit, becuase of the tip coverage postition, and keeps the ball on the team's side. Let's say that the hands of the libero is above the height of the net, and there was no other block/block attempts by any front row players. Is the libero guilty of block/block attempt?
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 31, 2005, 10:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 640
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Quote:
Wait a minute here!? Could we clarify what really consitutes a block, period? I understood that back row players are not allowed to make a block or block attempt regardless. Back row player attempting to save an overpass with a block/block attempt shouldn't even be contested in the first place. Blocking actions by front row players are judge to be somewhere close to the net or vicinity of the hit whether the player jumps or not, are they not? Therefore any back row players, penetrating the front zone making a block/block attempt of the sort would be a violation, regardless whether or not the hands are above the net or not.
I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about players attempting to block, we're talking about players attempting to keep a ball on their side, and the ball breaks the plane and is hit into their hands. In the past, this has been judged not to be a back row block, but rather first contact. However, if said back row player had hands facing the net, instead of in toward his/her own court, I would have ruled that a block attempt regardless.

This year's rule change still does not make hands facing the net in the above scenario legal, just makes the situation I described much more likely to be a back row block rather than first contact.

Quote:
A slightly different scenario:
So the point I'm getting to, is that if a libero penetrates into the front zone, and uses a blocking action to play up the ball as a first contact. To clarify that the libero is not anywhere near the net nor in close vicinity of the hit, becuase of the tip coverage postition, and keeps the ball on the team's side. Let's say that the hands of the libero is above the height of the net, and there was no other block/block attempts by any front row players. Is the libero guilty of block/block attempt?
If I'm picturing your scenario, the libero isn't near the net, but plays the ball while above the net? If the libero isn't near the net, it's not a block attempt, even if he/she plays the ball with hands above the net. Two things to watch out for, though:

1. If the libero plays the ball while it's entirely above the net and it then is either legally blocked or fully passes beyond the plane of the net, it's an illegal attack on the libero.

2. If the libero uses finger action to play the ball from within the attack zone, and the ball is subsequently attacked from anywhere while the ball is entirely above the height of the net, then it's an illegal attack, with the player at fault being the libero (for the illegal set). Most the the "libero set" faults I've had have been with liberos covering tips or in hitter coverage, libero finger sets the ball from the attack zone, and the setter dumps it on two. Illegal attack.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 31, 2005, 12:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally posted by FMadera


I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about players attempting to block, we're talking about players attempting to keep a ball on their side, and the ball breaks the plane and is hit into their hands. In the past, this has been judged not to be a back row block, but rather first contact. However, if said back row player had hands facing the net, instead of in toward his/her own court, I would have ruled that a block attempt regardless.

This year's rule change still does not make hands facing the net in the above scenario legal, just makes the situation I described much more likely to be a back row block rather than first contact.
That's exactly the way I understood it. Well I guess I should have been a litte more clear about it. No matter which way the hands face, a block/block attempt is just that, even when they attempt to make a save on an overpass, whether that be a front or back row, up next to the net. Personally I know I would have been blocking with the back of my hands. It's a block and our team is entitled to our three contacts, say if I was a front row player.
Not much different then an back row attacking the ball and sometimes blocking, based on them reading the trajectory as an overpass. Whereas the opponents would put up a block, and often times the block penetrates the plane of the net. I've got arguements that it was an overreach base on the eligible third contact. Such that it would be;
team A: back row attacks on second hit(say with a setter)legally below the height of the net(aka dump),
team B: blocks the attack,
team A: setter blocks the block attack with the back of the hands still in up close to the net, but still below the height of the net.
Now I can clearly see that in no way shape or form was the setter ever going to attempt a set towards any teammates at any time.

Ruling: back row block
Now does this qualifies as a back row block?
(Personally I know I would've been guilty of blocking and would not contest a back row block violation.)

Quote:
A slightly different scenario:
So the point I'm getting to, is that if a libero penetrates into the front zone, and uses a blocking action to play up the ball as a first contact. To clarify that the libero is not anywhere near the net nor in close vicinity of the hit, becuase of the tip coverage postition, and keeps the ball on the team's side. Let's say that the hands of the libero is above the height of the net, and there was no other block/block attempts by any front row players. Is the libero guilty of block/block attempt?
Quote:
Originally posted by FMadera

If I'm picturing your scenario, the libero isn't near the net, but plays the ball while above the net? If the libero isn't near the net, it's not a block attempt, even if he/she plays the ball with hands above the net. Two things to watch out for, though:

1. If the libero plays the ball while it's entirely above the net and it then is either legally blocked or fully passes beyond the plane of the net, it's an illegal attack on the libero.

2. If the libero uses finger action to play the ball from within the attack zone, and the ball is subsequently attacked from anywhere while the ball is entirely above the height of the net, then it's an illegal attack, with the player at fault being the libero (for the illegal set). Most the the "libero set" faults I've had have been with liberos covering tips or in hitter coverage, libero finger sets the ball from the attack zone, and the setter dumps it on two. Illegal attack.
no dispute from me, heh, heh, heh.
I wish I can just quell those grumbling coaches. You know, front row penetration, hands above the height of the net.--->"BACK ROW BLOCK! BACK ROW ATTACK!"
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 31, 2005, 04:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 640
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Well, welcome to a quirk in the rules...you can have a block with an action that doesn't constitute a block attempt by rule. Gotta love it.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 31, 2005, 06:39pm
Resident VB Rules Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Jose, CA - the Capital of Silicon Valley
Posts: 481
Send a message via AIM to MCBear Send a message via MSN to MCBear Send a message via Yahoo to MCBear Send a message via Skype™ to MCBear
Absolutely!

Felix, you were dead on - Ya Gotta Love It!

(Especially those plays that drive you crazy because it doesn't happen except once in a blue moon!!!!)
__________________
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)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1