NFHS Forum has Disappeared-- Interpdbl ck

[MCBear]

jk, you are correct and your partner is all wet. Team S has not had an opportunity to complete their attack since R4 blocked the ball while it was over Team S's court. OTN on R4...end of discussion, period.

[jkumpire]

Bear,

It seems so obvious I almost didn't post the discussion, but my partner is a pretty good official, so it is possible I didn't understand whats going on.

BTW, what is going on with the NFHS Forum? Is it dead forever?

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by MCBear

jk, you are correct and your partner is all wet. Team S has not had an opportunity to complete their attack since R4 blocked the ball while it was over Team S's court. OTN on R4...end of discussion, period.

I would add, however, that if the ball was CLEARLY going to clear the net and S was not playing the ball (hoping for a rebound off the net that CLEARLY was not going to happen), then IMO she had an opportunity to complete the attack and the block would be legal. Simply blocking the ball over S's court would not necessarily make it illegal, so much as the determination of the completion of attack opportunity.

[MCBear]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

BTW, what is going on with the NFHS Forum? Is it dead forever?

I talked with Mike Meehan, the Forum Moderator at NFHS in Indianapolis and the Forum is back up and running as of Noon ET today. (Actually I called to b**ch at them for taking it down without notice.)

[FMadera]

NFHS Forum: Volleyball

[jkumpire]

All these kind of situations are judgment calls to one extent or the other, since your response seem to me to be saying that if it is clear that the ball is going over and S4 is not trying to finish the attack, then the attack was finished and R was legally allowed to go across the plane of the net to attack the ball.

In my case, I made a judgment that it was not clear the ball was going over the net, in fact, I thought it would hit the net or be short. So in my view (HTBT), it was clear S4 was clearly OTN illegally.

Enjoy the post, and it is good to see you posting again.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

All these kind of situations are judgment calls to one extent or the other, since your response seem to me to be saying that if it is clear that the ball is going over and S4 is not trying to finish the attack, then the attack was finished and R was legally allowed to go across the plane of the net to attack the ball.

In my case, I made a judgment that it was not clear the ball was going over the net, in fact, I thought it would hit the net or be short. So in my view (HTBT), it was clear S4 was clearly OTN illegally.

Enjoy the post, and it is good to see you posting again.

Correct. I was just differentiating that you could have a penetrating block and it be legal. Your interpretation makes total sense in your scenario.