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.