Blocking/attacking a serve

[steve_s]

I'm a new member here, so bear with me.

Rules 9.6.5 & 9.6.6 state that a served ball may not be blocked or attacked, but I'm confused by the caveat "However, the contact is legal, and the ball is not out of play until it completely crosses the vertical plane of the net or is legally contacted by an opponent".

So what if a player attempts to illegally block a serve, but fails to put the ball back over the net? Her teammates then play the ball legally, and eventually return the ball to the opponent's side. Is there a foul here? Should I call a net foul once the ball eventually crosses, even after a third hit? Or is there no foul because the blocker failed to put it directly back over? Seems like there should be a violation since the ball was both blocked and attacked contrary to the rules, but I'm not sure about if and/or when to blow the whistle.

What say the experts?

Thanks,
Steve

[MCBear]

Make sure that you are not mixing apples and oranges - or in this case, blocking a serve and attacking a serve...they are treated differently by rule.

Posted by steve_s:
Rules 9.6.5 & 9.6.6 state that a served ball may not be blocked or attacked, but I'm confused by the caveat "However, the contact is legal, and the ball is not out of play until it completely crosses the vertical plane of the net or is legally contacted by an opponent".

This is where you have to be careful. The caveat that you have quoted only applies to an illegal attack of the serve- it has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to block the serve.

Posted by steve_s:
So what if a player attempts to illegally block a serve, but fails to put the ball back over the net? Her teammates then play the ball legally, and eventually return the ball to the opponent's side. Is there a foul here?

Yes, there is an illegal blocking fault, however failing to put the ball back over the net has nothing to do with it. The illegal block of the serve is completed once the served ball is touched while the blocker has a hand(s) above the top of the net per 9-5-1b4 on page 34 of the 2006-07 NFHS Rules Book. When the blocker touches the ball, the whistle is blown stopping play and Signal 9 - Illegal Block is shown.

Posted by steve_s:
Should I call a net foul once the ball eventually crosses, even after a third hit? You would never call a net foul in this situation - the fault in your scenario is an illegal block of the serve so that is what you would call and signal.

Or is there no foul because the blocker failed to put it directly back over? There is definitely a fault but, again, it does not matter whether the blocker puts the ball over the net or not.

Seems like there should be a violation since the ball was both blocked and attacked contrary to the rules, but I'm not sure about if and/or when to blow the whistle. This is where you are mixing apples and oranges! In the situation that you posted, there was never any attack of the served ball, it was strictly an illegal blocking situation. You need to become familiar with the definitions on pages 33 and 34 of the current NFHS Volleyball Rules Book so that you know what defines an attack and what constitutes a block.

If the player on the receiving team were to attempt to attack the serve, there would have to be a number of factors present:
1 - The ball would need to be above the top of the net;
2 - The defensive player would need to be attempting to direct the ball towards the opponent's (serving team's) court; and
3 - The attack would have to be completed - either the ball would have to pass untouched completely beyond the vertical plane of the net or the ball would need to be legally contacted by an opponent.
If all three of these are present, we blow the whistle to stop play and Signal 8 - Illegal Attack of Serve/Back-Row Attack is shown per 9-6-5 on page 35.

However, if the ball is hit into the top of the net or the body of the net, a fault has not occurred because the illegal attack was not completed. If this happens, it is a play-on situation.

I hope that this has helped to clarify the illegal attack/illegal block of serve for you.

[TimTaylor]

Nice job if laying it out Jan!

I had my very first illegal block of a serve call in a tournament today......along with 14 illegal alignments, 2 BRB & 3 BRA calls. What a fun day it was!

[steve_s]

Thank you Jan for your thorough explanation!

I do not have the 2007 rulebook, only the 2006 version, so I had not read the expanded definition for blocking. Is the full version of this definition available anywhere online?

[MCBear]

If you are a member of the NF Officials Association or the NF Coaches Association, the current Rules Book and Case Book has been (and will be again when the website upgrade is completed) available online. Otherwise, you need to contact NFHS and order a copy of each or contact your local officials' association to see if they have they available for you to purchase.

[steve_s]

I found a copy of the rule book and case book online that did not require any association memberships, fortunately.

http://rules.nfhs.org/ScriptContent/...line/index.cfm

[outathm]

What bothers me the mopst about this rule is we now allow the 'let' serve. If we as rules people are going to allow a serve to barely reach over the net, we should allow the defense to attack that ball as it hangs on top of the tape waiting to fall to one side or the other. I remember, and here I date myself, when the serve was allowed to be blocked and I don't remember the earth stopping on it's axis when it happened onece a week.

[MCBear]

However, we are not on the committee that writes the rules and probably we will not be asked to be on it. So, we have to do what we can, which is enforce the rules as they are currently written and then submit changes to the powers that be so that maybe things will work out the way that we would like.

[outathm]

Jan:

I will enforce the rules as they are written, but I still feel that it is an inequity that places he serving team at a distinct advantage.

I am not one to try to change rules, but that us one that needs to be looked at. I am actually one of those officials that feel as if most of the rule changes effected are just changes for the sake of change, keeping someone, somewhere on a committee or in a job so they can continue to feel important.