Can an attacker be a blocker during one action of playing the ball?

[OmniSpiker]

We're having a discussion about such a scenario with '07 USAV rules (same in FIVB) in another forum. ~below copied and paste~

If I remember right, you can block the block. Say if Team A back row hits. Team B front row blocks. Team A front row successfully executes legal block on Team B's block rebound. Ball goes up, and same Team A front row player proceeds to make first of three team contacts. I would think the act is called a joust.

Let's see if both are tandem stacked attackers. Team A, attacker 1, jumps and fakes, while Team A attacker 2 hits ball. Team B blocker blocks ball into Team A attacker 1 who is still got hands above the tape of net while performing the fake. The ball contact on Team A attacker 1, will now count as a block.

Hmmm I guess an attacker can be a blocker at the same time. It all depends on rule 14.1.1 appropriately applied after rule 13.1.3.

13.1.3 An attack hit is completed at the moment the ball completely crosses the vertical plane of the net or is touched by an opponent.

14.1.1 Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponents by reaching higher than the top of the net. Only front row players are permitted to complete a block.

As long as attacker is close and still reaching higher than the top of the net, while the block contact is made. Basically means a good high jumper. If however they be below the top of the net, then first team contact is used.

If given near identical scenario. The catch here is who would be at fault of an illegal block.

Team A passer overpass ball, on a trajectory that will penetrate the plane of net. Team A setter, who is back row, goes to jump set close to net, in attempt to intercept overpass before it penetrates plane of net, then falls short without touching ball and overpass penetrates plane of net. Team B blocker/attacker contacts ball and sends it into Team A setter's hands which is still above the top of the net. That would be a block fault in that no back row players may are allowed to block.

Since it is only the fact that the player was close and still reaching higher than the top of the net, in that the action qualifies as a block by rule 14.1.1. The setter was not attacking or blocking, but merely trying to legally set when the ball was sent back by the opponent and making contact with the setter resulting in an illegal block. In this if an attacker was attacking close to net and ball goes into a block, the blocked ball that comes back and hits attacker while attacker is still reaching above top of net would also qualify as a block action.

Can an attacker be a blocker during one action of playing the ball in such a scenario?

Well for instance if attacker cannot be blocker, then contact from an opponents block while hand is higher and penetrating net, would be a fault in rule 11.1 already. So for above scenario(s) contacts from Team A is still over Team A's playing space.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by OmniSpiker

In this if an attacker was attacking close to net and ball goes into a block, the blocked ball that comes back and hits attacker while attacker is still reaching above top of net would also qualify as a block action.

Can an attacker be a blocker during one action of playing the ball in such a scenario?

By rule, yes. An inadvertant deflection with all the block criteria still qualifies as a block, no matter what it might look like.

Of course, I've seen it not called this way, even in NCAA Final Four play. But by rule, it should be ruled a block.

[OmniSpiker]

In this if an attacker was attacking close to net and ball goes into a block, the blocked ball that comes back and hits attacker while attacker is still reaching above top of net would also qualify as a block action.

Can an attacker be a blocker during one action of playing the ball in such a scenario?

Thanks,

I'd forgot to really clarify that the attacker, completes attack. Ball goes into opponent's legal block. The blocked ball rebounds back and hits attacker in the same jump while attacker is still reaching above top of net after completed attack. Just so there's no questioning of separate blocking action after completed attack.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by OmniSpiker

Thanks,

I'd forgot to really clarify that the attacker, completes attack. Ball goes into opponent's legal block. The blocked ball rebounds back and hits attacker in the same jump while attacker is still reaching above top of net after completed attack. Just so there's no questioning of separate blocking action after completed attack.

Yes. As strange a concept as it might seem, you can definitely have, for lack of a better description, a block of a block. A joust is the most common instance of this, but the scenario you described above certainly would qualify if the attacker was close enough to the net to become a blocker after the attack was completed/blocked.

[oldsetter]

I'd say yes and no. I agree you can block a block - no problem from the definition of block. But, to nit-pic the 'same action' statement, I have to say no - after the attack is completed, the action is completed - if the ball then rebounds off the block, the next action from the spiker may be a block or an attack depending on that players action. This is where we apply the 'duck' criteria. This would still apply in the joust scenario.

my $0.02

[Scrapper1]

A little help, please:

What's a joust?

What's a duck?

[pavbref]

[QUOTE=Scrapper1;785941]A little help, please:

What's a joust?

A joust is when a player from both sides of the net make simultaneous contact with the ball above the plane of the net.

[bob jenkins]

You guys do know this thread is 4.5 years old, right?