hey....phantom is just down the street from me here in milton, wisconsin.

i had some friends who marched with phantom...also, "back in the day"....glenda hartje and rod maxwell (60's & 70's)...glenda and rod became instructors for a local d-2 corps i was the exec. director for in the 80's (Voyageurs of Rock Co. WI). Rod also was a drum corps judge with me...M&M execution. He also ran our winter guard.

my favorites from PR....An American in Paris-1976 and Nessun Dorma-1991. Oh yes....when Anaheim Kingsmen played Stan Kenton's Artistry in Rhythm-1974....these are keepers!

Man....I could go on......but this is a VB forum!

Thanks again for your help MCBear!

Re: I am assuming that this is Part I?
 

MCBear....

I've had several conversations now over this one and seems like most feel the answer is "False". The feeling is that Q. 59's statement describes a "legal" block....not an "illegal" block. (Making the statement "False").

Would you clarify your 'True' response?

("Picky....Picky....Picky")

wrong reference to the question...
 

"Back-row Player Action: 59. When a back-row player, whose hands are above the height of the net, makes contact with the ball, it is considered an illegal block."

This is True - a back-row player may not participate in nor attempt a block. Therefore, when the back-row player, whose hands are above the height of the net, makes contact with the ball it is an illegal back-row block per 9-5-5 (sorry about the incorrect reference to 9-5-4 - that is what NF had as the rule reference on the proofing copy of Part I).

imaref,

See Rule 9-5-4. The only way in which this would be legal is if the back row player had hands below net height. 9-5-5 specifically states a back row player may not block or attempt to block. With hands above the net, this would be a (poorly worded description of a) block, so it's illegal, since it's a back row player.

Thanx....you two!

Both your clarifications make it "totally" clear!