Attacking a ball in the Plane of the Net [USAV Rules]

[Seattle32]

A disgruntled setter on the opposite team the other night was upset that I spiked his teammate's overpass into his hands and assumed it was obvious that I'd committed a fault. His teams various explanations included what I thought was irrelevant information: "the ball was partly below the net", "you can't interfere with the set", "the setter has a right to play the ball"-- all common understandings that don't appear in the rule book (USAV).

My teammates and I were all under the impression that the rule is simple: "when the ball is in the plane of the net, either team is free to play the ball" which also don't appear in the rulebook. In short, once the ball touches the plane from the other side, you can spike the hell out of it.

It seems we're all wrong, but the 2009-2011 rules seem completely counter to what I've ever seen officiated:

[USAV 9.0] Each team must play within its own playing area

[USAV 11.1.2] After an attack hit, a player is permitted to pass his/her
hand beyond the net, provided that the contact has been made within his/her own playing space.

[USAV 13.2.1] A front-row player may complete an attack hit at any height,
provided that the contact with the ball has been made
within the player’s own playing space...

As I read this, the attacker's hand must be completely on their side of the plane when contacting the ball. This would make illegal any kind of straight-down crushing of a ball that's only penetrated the plane an inch or two.

So questions:

1. Have you called or seen called an illegal penetration call on a hitter attacking a ball in the plane?

2. Is it feasible to determine whether a contact has penetrated the plane before the follow-through?

[FMadera]

Your own playing area includes the plane of the net, much like your own court includes the center line.

The plane also is the playing area of the other team, as the center line is the playing area of the other team.

Both teams share the middle of the court, in essence. No fault in the example you presented.

[Seattle32]

FMadera, I think I don't understand your answer. A plane doesn't increase the volume of the playing space, so I think you mean that I'm free to spike a ball which is partially within my playing space.

To be clear on the example I'm talking about, let's suppose:

1. The ball is mostly over the opponent's court, penetrating the plane into my court only an inch.
2. I hit the top of the ball, spiking straight down.

NOT legal, right? I've passed my hand beyond the net and my contact with the ball is only partially within my playing space. This sounds like exactly a fault according to:

[USAV 11.1.2] After an attack hit, a player is permitted to pass his/her hand beyond the net, provided that the contact has been made within his/her own playing space.

If my playing space already included the whole ball within the plane, then the wording of 11.1.2 is meaningless. Also contrast this with the centerline rule, where 11.2.2.1 specifically authorizes this "extension of the playing area", if you will.

[FMadera]

It's not where the ball is so much as where the ball is contacted, under USAV rules.

If the contact point is beyond the plane of the net, it would be in violation of the rule. However, for me to call it, I would have to be absolutely certain that a fault was committed, and I can't say for sure that a play as borderline as you described is obvious enough that most of your quality officials would make this call.

11.1.2 specifies when is it legal to go beyond the net because "at" the net is legal and part of the team's playing area. If contacting above the net were illegal (i.e., teams were required to play the ball before it got to the net), the rule would say something like "above or beyond the net."

Above the net (plane of the net) contact is legal. Contact *beyond* the net is what we look for.

[MCBear]

Good distinction, Felix!

[Seattle32]

I think I follow what you're suggesting: as long as some portion of the contact occurs over the player's court, then you deem that "the contact has been made within his/her own playing space".

The rub is that contact with the ball occurs over an area, not at a point, and the rules don't define "contact". Your reading is consistent with how the game is actually played, how it's actually officiated, how the ball "in" rule is written, how the "foot on the centerline" is written, and (IMHO) how the game ought to be.

The rules committee could have made this unambiguous with just two or three words:

"...provided that the contact has not been made completely beyond his/her own playing space."

Instead, we're forced to invent new concepts out of whole cloth to justify how the game is actually played: "at" the net versus "above" the net, etc.

To make sure I understand you:
1. Attacking a ball that's completely above the opponents' court: always a fault.
2. Attacking a ball that's at least partially above my court: only a fault if my ball contact was completely above the opponents' court.

Right?

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Seattle32

To make sure I understand you:
1. Attacking a ball that's completely above the opponents' court: always a fault.
2. Attacking a ball that's at least partially above my court: only a fault if my ball contact was completely above the opponents' court.

Right?

To be more accurate, I'd change "attacking" to "making contact," with the exception of a legal block.

The distinction would cover reaching over to set a ball that is contacted beyond the plane of the net.