Net violation

[oldsetter]

I know that you can not use the net or other equipment to aid contact with the ball - this is an assisted hit. And, contact with the net can not interfere with the opponents play. I was told this weekend that a player may not use the net to prevent them from entering the opponents court even if it does not interfere. I can not find anything in the rule or casebook on this. Does anyone have any resource describing this or is it not true?

[Antonio.King]

What organization (NCAA/USAV/NFHS)

Judging by the time of posting, I'm going to assume USAV until we know otherwise.

You won't find the answer to this specific question since it's too specific. You'll have to interpret and apply the rule in your best judgement (the glories of the job, right?)The best way to determine whether or not this is a fault is by taking into account what IS deemed a fault when referencing net violations:

Was the top of the net contacted while in the action of playing the ball?

Since I doubt this is what happened from the sound of what you've mentioned, we can rule this out.

Was the team in question given an advantage while playing the ball, in action of playing the ball, while contacting the net?

The key to this is while playing the ball. If the ball wasn't being played during the time of the incident, then no net fault has occurred.

Was there interference with the opponent while the net contact was being made?

This one is tricky, and may be the more applicable of the above infractions. Interference is not only tricky to explain to coaches, but is tricky to judge and decide when, when not to whistle. Did the net contact hinder the opponents from making a play on the ball (distraction or physically unable to play the ball)? Was there illegal contact between the opposing teams while the net was being contacted?

If you've answered no to the above questions, then no fault has occurred. Unfortunately, (and maybe fortunately in some cases), the rule book doesn't cover every single possible fault with each and every rule. It only joins the casebook collection should it happen frequently or with potentially more frequents. With that, you have to use the rule book as a guide to form decisions on situations that aren't so clear cut and direct.

Curious as to who your source was that made the claim? Parent, player, coach, fellow official?

Hope this helps though!

[oldsetter]

Of course I was discussing USAV rules. It was discussed by a couple of National Officials at the Big South Qualifier in the break room.

I like the way you discussed the logic of your rule interpretation.

Further discussion on 'distraction'. Some would argue that making the net move is a distraction to the other team...but considering that the net moves - sometimes a lot - when the ball hits the tape and goes over, I don't think that making the net move even by a large amount could be considered 'distracting' the other team. Like a ball rolling behind the end line of the receiving team causing the serving team to serve into the net.

[FMadera]

Let's be careful...distraction is a criteria for NCAAW, not for USAV.

[Antonio.King]

Agreed. I couldn't think of a better word to use for what I was trying to describe. I watched a match with a well respected National make this call when player made contact with the net, enough for the blocker to jump back.

Asked about it afterwards, and their response was that it was a fault since it interfered with the blockers ability to play the ball, get in position to play the ball. I s'pose I could've just classed it under interference, but I had this specific example in mind.

[oldsetter]

I'm not sure that was a good call in USAV. As far as interference, I have always assumed it was interfering with a person in the act of playing the ball.

I have heard it argued that even If the ball is in the back court, if I step on your foot legally on the center line, I have interfered with you getting ready to go to your approach position. I think that is more than the rule intended. It has always been written interfere with a player playing the ball.

In NCAA, I know they give you the safety clause - which is an interesting thought on what to do in USAV about a player legally in the opponents court (arm, upper body, etc.)

Which brings me to the protest I won last year. A player spiked the ball that was at least a foot above the net, there was a double block that was on average 8 or so inches above the tape. The ball completely cleared the block (no touch) and headed for the 10 ft line. The spiker's follow through gets a finger in the first net square bellow the tape. ( I saw this all very clearly - no doubt) The net shook considerably then the ball hit the floor near the 10 foot line before the Libero could play it. (Did I say this was match point). Of course the losing team first insisted it was a net violation, I explained the tape was not contacted. Then the decided that since it made the net move, it distracted them (I don't know if they were implying the blockers or the libero). I ended the match which they protested. Based on the way the rule is written the protest was denied. I have no doubt I enforced the rule correctly, but I also have a sense that the head official feels I should have called a net violation. I think some of this is how some people 'want' the rules to be vs. how they are written. My argument, the net moves a lot in volleyball whether it is a player or the ball that causes it to move should not be a distraction to the opponents. If it is, so is a ball rolling in the back court, or fans walking on the walkways between courts in convention centers. I can see if players contact with the net aids in the passage of the ball over the net, or hinders the opponents from contacting the ball or sending it over. But me 'scaring' you because I touched the net is probably overreaching. If that is so, then if I was running toward the net really fast and you were afraid I could not stop in time, even if I didn't touch the net...that would be interference too.

[Antonio.King]

Situations as such (specifically the ball on the court) has caused me to alter my pre-match conference with the game captains to include the following:

"One last piece of advice: play until you hear the whistle, and I cannot stress that enough."

[oldsetter]

I clarified this with Michelle Prater. This is only a net violation if the contact aids the team in getting the ball over the net or hinders the other team from playing the ball....so contact with the net and scarring a blocker would not be interference unless the net contact directly (physically) prevents the blocker from playing the ball. Scaring someone does not count.

[FMadera]

That's my understanding. Interference, not the mere possibility of it, has to occur, under USAV rules. Similar to the center line...there's no "safety hazard" component; there has to be actual interference for a body part other than the foot completely beyond the center line.