NFHS Forum has Disappeared-- Interpdbl ck

[jkumpire]

Hello VB folks,

Hopefully some of the great NFHS posters will head over here, so we can have the same great conversations....

Had a nice discussion with my R2 after our match tonight about over the net violations by R. Play situation:

R bump, sets, spikes a hard ball into S's court. R bumps the ball but it is heading to the net. S4, heads for the spot where the ball will land. S4 gets under the ball, but chooses to play it off the net after it hits the net, in the hope she can put it out for a teammate to hit over. At lerast that is what it looked like to me as R1.

R4 sees the ball coming, and reaches over the net before the ball gets to the plane of the net, or the net itself, and roofs it down.

To me, it is a no doubt OTN violation, even if S4 doesn't try to tip the ball before it gets to the net, she has the right to play it, and since it hasn't penetrated the plane of the net, S4 has no right to play on it (see 9-5-5).

My partner says that R4 has every right to the ball because S4 is not trying to attack it or play it in the air. She is hoping for a rebound off the net, and cannot play the ball.

While the rule book is not crystal clear about it, IMO it does not matter how S4 plays the ball, the fact that she is at the net with any kind of play on the ball is enough to force R to wait until the ball has penetrated the net before she can play it.

Comments?
.

[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.