Back Row Block Question

[ReadyToRef]

Would someone please explain an illegal back row block to me.

Thanks for your help.

[FMadera]

It is illegal for a back row player to attempt a block while close to the net and with hands above net height (NFHS). It is legal in USAV and NCAA for a back row player (non-libero) to attempt to block, illegal to complete a block.

[MCBear]

Felix, methinks you mispoke, my friend!

An illegal back row block occurs when a back row player attempts to block, fakes a block, within an arm's length from at or near the net with hand or hands raised above the head near the top of the net. In HS, the hands DO NOT have to be above the height of the net for it to be considered an illegal back row block.

[FMadera]

Jan,

In Illinois, the interpretation for block attempt is now hands above the net, in line with the new back row block rule. From the IHSA directly:

NFHS Major Rulebook Corrections to Rule 9-5 Player Actions

NFHS clarified the back row attack rule but neglected to amend the others affected by the clarification. So…get your rulebook out.

First, 9-5-4 is the new rule change for back row. It clarifies that if a ball is hit back into a back-row player who is on or in front of the 10' line and her/his hands are below the net, it is considered the first hit and not a block. Therefore, the block definition, 9-5-1c, has to be altered to reflect the new rule. The block definition should be corrected to read:

A play approximately arm's length from, at or near the net in which a player(s) whose hand(s) ARE PARTIALLY ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE NET, CONTACTS THE BALL, OR ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE BALL, in an action that would prevent the ball from crossing the net, or return the ball immediately or deflect the motion of the ball, is a block.

Next make the change to rule 9-5-5 to read:

A back-row player shall not: a. Participate in a block or an attempt to block with hands partially or completely above the net….

As our person in charge of VB is on the NFHS rules committee, I got the impression that this rules change was in effect nationwide now. That may not be the case...

[MCBear]

Felix, now I understand where you are coming from on this. We never got any such clarification here in CA. Matter of fact, there was a discussion about this very thing at the state rules meeting that I attended and it was pointed out that interpreting 9-5-4 in that manner is taking it out of context.

The context of the back-row player with hands below the height of the net is supposed to be if they contact a ball "that is completely above the height of the net, on the team's first or second contact, directing the flight of the ball toward a teammate and the opponent legally contacts the ball that breaks the vertical plane of the net. If the ball is hit into a back-row player whose hands are below the height of the net, it is ruled as the team's first hit/contact." The interpretation we received is that it does not apply except in that situation.

The way that your interpreter is presenting it makes sense, but we never got anything about it being interpreted that way from NFHS.

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by MCBear
Felix, now I understand where you are coming from on this. We never got any such clarification here in CA. Matter of fact, there was a discussion about this very thing at the state rules meeting that I attended and it was pointed out that interpreting 9-5-4 in that manner is taking it out of context.

The context of the back-row player with hands below the height of the net is supposed to be if they contact a ball "that is completely above the height of the net, on the team's first or second contact, directing the flight of the ball toward a teammate and the opponent legally contacts the ball that breaks the vertical plane of the net. If the ball is hit into a back-row player whose hands are below the height of the net, it is ruled as the team's first hit/contact." The interpretation we received is that it does not apply except in that situation.

The way that your interpreter is presenting it makes sense, but we never got anything about it being interpreted that way from NFHS.

Hmmmm.......we were told the same thing Jan - that it applied only in that specific situation (BR player setting to teammate & ball is legally blocked back into them). I think perhaps I may toss this one at our rules interpreter & see what they say.........

[MCBear]

Felix, if the way that Sue is presenting the interpretation of the change in 9-5-4 as also affecting 9-5-1c and 9-5-5 is the way that the NFHS Rules Committee intended it, we need for Indy to come out with a rules interpretation stating that so we all are on the same page.

[FMadera]

Jan,

I'll give Sue a call today and let you know what she says.

[FMadera]

Apparently the interpretation Illinois is using this year is the interpretation NFHS will adopt for next year. It has not officially been adopted yet for this year, so I guess you can say we are experimenting with it.

The change for 9-5-4 was supposed to only take away the "intent vs. result" aspect of that play, not to make that scenario the only case in which "above the net" was the criteria for a block.

Unfortunately, they didn't modify the definition of a block attempt itself, which would have made things easier to understand. So Illinois and Indiana have changed the definition of the block attempt, specifically to a) address the discrepancy, and b) to fall closer in line with USAV/NCAA block attempt definitions.

Hope this helps clarify things...

[MCBear]

Now it makes sense!

And the question begs to be asked: Why couldn't they change it all at one time to avoid the glitches that we have discovered and to put us all on the same page of the same book????

[refnrev]

Originally posted by MCBear
Now it makes sense!

And the question begs to be asked: Why couldn't they change it all at one time to avoid the glitches that we have discovered and to put us all on the same page of the same book????

__________________________________________________ _________
MCBear,
You mean make changes at the same time and that would make sense to everyone? That's a radical idea! As for the people in this area, we refer to the "hands below the net" as a self defense action so she doesn't get her face knocked off by a hard hit ball.

[OmniSpiker]

Arghhh! I got this in the ref test question for the 2005/06 year. I'd ruled back row violation as the result, but now I have to think hard about intent and result. I'll have to check my email for my missed questions and then research the changes in effect.