Net violation

[Scrapper1]

First of all, I have to say a HUGE thank you to Jan, who has been emailing me this week, trying to help me think through some rule situations. So thank you, Jan. I do appreciate it.

Part of what we were talking about involves net violations. Jan informed me that it is the NCAA interpretation that if a player puts a hand out to her side and then an opponent hits the ball into the net, which then contacts the player's hand, it is a net fault on the defensive player.

This interpretation seems to me to directly and obviously contradict 15.2.1.1:

If the ball is driven into the net with such force that it causes the net or antenna to contact a player, no fault is committed.

That is as clear as you can get. Player A hits the ball. The ball hits the net. The net hits Player B. No fault.

Yet the NCAA interp is to call a net fault. Notice that nowhere in 15.2.1.1 does it say that the rule only applies to a player who is "incidentally" hit by the net. It doesn't say it's a violation if the player put his hand or body in the path of the ball intentionally. It says very clearly, no fault if force of the ball causes the net contact.

So what am I missing?

[MCBear]

Scrapper, I was not considering the player's hand to be out to the side prior to the opponent hitting the ball into the net. If the player has the hand out prior to the ball being hit into the net and the ball hits her through the net, it is not a fault. It is a fault if the player moves laterally to place her hand in the path of the ball going into the net and contacts the ball through the net. Her intentional movement makes her guilty of the fault. Does that help?

BTW, NCAA and USAV have the same interpretation.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by MCBear

Her intentional movement makes her guilty of the fault. Does that help?

It doesn't help unless it changes the wording of 15.2.1.1:

If the ball is driven into the net with such force that it causes the net or antenna to contact a player, no fault is committed.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but there is NO mention of how the body part got "in the way" of the ball. It simply doesn't matter -- BY RULE -- whether the player moved the hand there or it was already there. It's a very simple "If. . .then" statement, and there are no qualifiers.

IF the ball is hit into the net which then contacts an opponent, THEN there is no fault. Period. That's the rule.

I understand you're talking about an interpretation, but the interpretation is in direct conflict with the actual wording of the rule.

[MCBear]

However, you are skipping over 15.2.1...

The interpretation I have been discussing comes from 15.2.1:
"15.2.1 Player Contact with Net or Antennas
Contact with the net by a player is not a fault, unless it is made during an
action of playing the ball, or it interferes with the play."...
"15.2.1.1 If the ball is driven into the net with such force that it causes the
net or antenna to contact a player, no fault is committed."

When the player moves into the path of the ball contacting the body of the net and the ball causes the net to contact the player who moved to that position, she is guilty of interference and is called for the net fault.

[Scrapper1]

Ok, I at least see where the interpretation comes from. So if a front line player jumps to block an attack hit and the hitter puts the ball into the net (on the first or second hit), which then contacts the blocker, is this a fault on the blocker?

If yes, that would be consistent with the interpretation that we're discussing. But I don't think I've ever seen it called.

If no, why not? The blocker has INTENTIONALLY moved into a position where she was contacted by the net.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If no, why not? The blocker has INTENTIONALLY moved into a position where she was contacted by the net.

No. You're looking for trouble. The violation is not for deliberately moving, it's for deliberately interfering with the ball through the net. Such a deliberate act would not happen with a block.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

No. You're looking for trouble. The violation is not for deliberately moving, it's for deliberately interfering with the ball through the net.

That's just not the case, according to the very rule you cited. The rule says:

"15.2.1 Player Contact with Net or Antennas

Contact with the net by a player is not a fault, unless it is made during an
action of playing the ball, or it interferes with the play."...

The rule says nothing about intent. The rule says it's not a fault unless the contact interferes with the play (assuming the attack hit was the team's first or second hit). Well, contacting the blocker through the net will certainly interfere with the ball. According to the very rule you've cited, this should be a net fault on the blocker.

The rule and the interpretation simply don't match up. We all know what the rule is supposed to be. The problem is, that's not what the rule actually is.

If you're going to call a fault on a player who "intentionally" sticks her hand out to the side and is contacted by the net, then you have to call a fault on the blocker who clearly "intentionally" jumps into the path of the attack hit and is contacted by the net.

You can't rule the same action two different ways based on the same rule. Believe me, I'm not looking for trouble and I'm NOT going to be calling this net fault on the blocker. But the rule should be re-written to accurately reflect how the play should be called.

[MCBear]

Scrapper, like the centerline thread, Felix and I have done our best to explain this, but you're just not getting it. Follow Felix's suggestion and contact Marcia Alterman (Marcia Alterman - NCAA Rules Interp <[email protected]>) for further clarification.

[FMadera]

Scrapper,

Most rules will never fully reflect every "what if" you try to pose on here. You have been given the interpretations, as given from the very top interpreters in the nation, including the NCAA Rules Interpreter herself. You seem content to insist your interpretation is the correct one, despite postings to the contrary over and over.

Again, if you have further questions, email Marcia since you don't want to believe anyone else. Maybe she'll help you understand.

[Scrapper1]

I'm sorry if my persistence is causing frustration. All I've tried to do in this thread is post the actual rule and then ask a question. Each time someone has given an explanation or interpretation, I think that I have been able to show that the explanation or interpretation does not actually reflect the actual rule, as written.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not looking for trouble. I'm not trying to find justification for calling a fault on a player who is attempting a block. But it seems pretty obvious, in fact GLARINGLY obvious, that the interpretation contradicts the rule; and leads to undesired consequences if thought through logically.