Whats the call

[chapmaja]

A1, the Team A setter, contacts the ball while it is still not completely above the height of the net, but is in such a position that part of the ball is in the plane of the net. B2, the opposition's middle, goes up and contacts the ball?

What's the call?

This was brought up to me by a coach who had it called against his team earlier this season. (NFHS rules). The official in question called an illegal back row attack.

I don't see this as a correct call, because to be an illegal back row attack, the ball must be completely above the height of the net, which it was not.

The question then becomes is this an illegal back row block? Again, given the definition of a block, this can't be an illegal back row block.

so what's the call? I think it is a no call.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The question then becomes is this an illegal back row block? Again, given the definition of a block, this can't be an illegal back row block.

Why not?

[MD Longhorn]

There are three things you did not say that are in play here.

First - you say the ball is in the plane of the net, and I assume you mean the horizontal plane of the top of the net. The important unanswered question here is whether the ball has crossed the VERTICAL plane of the net.

If it has not - the actions by the blocker are illegal. You cannot block a setter setting the ball if the ball is entirely on the setter's side of the net.

If it HAS, this play by the blocker / hitter is actually coached at the highest levels, and is legal.

Second - if the ball has touched the vertical plane of the net, thus making the defender's block/hit legal - you did not say whether part of the setter's body (usually hands) was above the horizontal plane of the net. If not - if it's just the ball crossing that horizontal plane, the actions of the setter are legal and this should have been a no call.

If the setter's hands were across the horizontal plane of the net while contacting the ball when (or after) the defender contacted the ball... then the setter has, indeed, blocked the ball.

Third - you do not say, although you imply, that the setter is a back row player. I'm assuming she is - and if she is, the block by the setter is, in fact, illegal and your referee called it correctly. If she is not, of course, this is nothing.

So it's possible this referee's call was correct. If the ball had crossed the vertical plane of the net, and the setter was indeed a back row player, and the setter's hands crossed the horizontal plane of the net when she contacted the ball... the referee was correct. If any of these are not true - your referee erred.

[MD Longhorn]

See (2) in this: Top 4 Basic Rules in Volleyball Every Competitive Volleyball Player Should Know for part of your answer.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

See (2) in this: Top 4 Basic Rules in Volleyball Every Competitive Volleyball Player Should Know for part of your answer.

That's some excellent information. Thanks.

[oldsetter]

I miss read the OP. I think this would be a no call. No rule has been broken.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by oldsetter

If the ref determined that the ball was directed to the opponents, it would be a BRA. If there was simultaneous contact with the ball in the plane, it is a BRB regardless of the setters intent or if the blocker directs the ball back into the setter while the setter is still above the height of the net, it is also a BRB.

Can you please provide a rule reference for either a BRA or BRB violation in this situation?

It is my understanding that a player cannot be called for any BRB violation if they have no part of their body above the height of the net (and are not involved in a collective block).

It is also my understanding that a player cannot be called for any BRA violation if the ball is not completely above the height of the net (notwithstanding a libero with setting action on/in front of the attack line).

Further, I am unaware of any rule that specifically prohibits "simultaneous contact with the ball in the plane" if the BR player has no body part above the top of the net.

[timasdf]

My emphasis added to the original question, to avoid misunderstanding about the OP's original intent. I don't believe that I am changing the OP's post at all. Only adding clarification for his/her original question.

Originally Posted by chapmaja

A1, the BACK ROW Team A setter, contacts the ball while it is still not completely above the height of the TOP of the net, but is in such a position that part of the ball is in the VERTICAL plane of the net. B2, the opposition's middle, goes up and contacts the ball?

I believe that OP is correct. No call in this situation.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by timasdf

My emphasis added to the original question, to avoid misunderstanding about the OP's original intent. I don't believe that I am changing the OP's post at all. Only adding clarification for his/her original question.



I believe that OP is correct. No call in this situation.

We don't know this. The OP doesn't say where the blocker's body is in relation to the net; only that the ball is not entirely above the net. If any body part is above the height of the net and this contact is simultaneous, this is an illegal block.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by FMadera

We don't know this. The OP doesn't say where the blocker's body is in relation to the net; only that the ball is not entirely above the net. If any body part is above the height of the net and this contact is simultaneous, this is an illegal block.

Agreed. The OP doesn't say whether A1's hands are above the height of the net.

1. Based on the OP's description, there is no way that this is a BRA on A1.

2a. If any part of A1's body is above the top of the net, it's a BRB on A1.

2b. If every part of A1's body is below the top of the net, there is no violation...play on. (this is what I believe OP's scenario to be...though it was not completely articulated)

We now agree, right?

[bob jenkins]

I think a very similar question is in the NASO version of this month's (October's) RefMag.

[oldsetter]

this sounds like the famous scenario where we have a back row player legally jousting with an opponent at the net.