Case Book 9.4.3(b)

[yellowcardtx]

Can someone copy or summarize that situation for me?

we had a situation in our game on Friday and our local chapter president has referenced me to that rule.

Setter pushes (attacks) 2nd contact toward net from 8 feet off of net. Our MB blocks ball, it comes to our side where MB plays second contact. R1 ends play and calls double contact. He explains to our captain that ball was below the plane of the net in his judgment.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by yellowcardtx

Can someone copy or summarize that situation for me?

we had a situation in our game on Friday and our local chapter president has referenced me to that rule.

Setter pushes (attacks) 2nd contact toward net from 8 feet off of net. Our MB blocks ball, it comes to our side where MB plays second contact. R1 ends play and calls double contact. He explains to our captain that ball was below the plane of the net in his judgment.

Ball height doesn't matter with respect to a block. Was your blocker above the net?

[yellowcardtx]

our local chapter president is saying ball height does matter.

he referenced Case Book 9.4.3. situation given is blocker jumps early and deflects ball when hands are below the top of the net.

when you freeze the film at contact it's not even close... ball and hands are clearly above the plane of the net. But, yes it's judgement.

after thinking about the play all weekend and talking to the chapter president yesterday, i was confused about the rule.

wanting more interpretation.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by yellowcardtx

our local chapter president is saying ball height does matter.

he referenced Case Book 9.4.3. situation given is blocker jumps early and deflects ball when hands are below the top of the net.

when you freeze the film at contact it's not even close... ball and hands are clearly above the plane of the net. But, yes it's judgement.

after thinking about the play all weekend and talking to the chapter president yesterday, i was confused about the rule.

wanting more interpretation.

He's confusing the ruling. In the interpretation, it's first contact because the *hands* were below the net, not the ball. It doesn't matter if the contact is above the net or not; for example, if hands are above the net and the attack hits a shoulder which is below the net, the contact is ruled a block because the blocker was above the net. The contact itself need not be.

Hope this helps.

[timasdf]

I made this exact call in a district tournament match last year. When in the back row, the (relatively short) setter had a strange habit of going to the net in a blocking motion, but not jumping (which kept her hands at least 6-8" below the top of the net).

One time, the opposing hitter hit the ball down into her hands (which were far below the top of the net). The ball bounced up, she then bumped it. Whistle. Two hits.

Coach incredulous. After a brief explanation, she smiled, agreed, and play went on as scheduled.

Of course, the fact that she was back row had no impact in this call. Just a side note that she jumped when she was in the front row during that match.

On another note... Woe is the location where the "chapter president" doesn't understand that the position of the ball is paramount for BRA and that position of the hands is paramount for BRB.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by timasdf

On another note... Woe is the location where the "chapter president" doesn't understand that the position of the ball is paramount for BRA and that position of the hands is paramount for BRB.

Not just the hands, but any body part. Head above the net and hands below still would constitute a blocker if all other requirements were present.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Not just the hands, but any body part. Head above the net and hands below still would constitute a blocker if all other requirements were present.

This is certainly correct. However, I have never seen, nor do I believe any of us have ever seen (nor ever will see), a BRB violation caused by a player with only a body part other than hands/arms above the top of the net.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by timasdf

This is certainly correct. However, I have never seen, nor do I believe any of us have ever seen (nor ever will see), a BRB violation caused by a player with only a body part other than hands/arms above the top of the net.

I have. The head. In the men's game. Happens quite a bit.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by timasdf

This is certainly correct. However, I have never seen, nor do I believe any of us have ever seen (nor ever will see), a BRB violation caused by a player with only a body part other than hands/arms above the top of the net.

Originally Posted by FMadera

I have. The head. In the men's game. Happens quite a bit.

You have had a back row player jump (in close proximity to the net), arms at his side (or at least down below the net), while making contact with the ball?

You've seen this quite a bit? Are you sure about this?

Please describe the situation in which this happens. What is the player's rationale for jumping so high with his hands down?

[oldsetter]

I have been hit in the head a few dozen times with the ball while my head was above the net. I can't recall specifically if my hands were below the net at this time (I was hit in the head...lol) I think I have put up a block and then pulled it down because I anticipated the hitter tooling off my block. This would be an opportunity to take one in the head while your hands are down.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by timasdf

You have had a back row player jump (in close proximity to the net), arms at his side (or at least down below the net), while making contact with the ball?

You've seen this quite a bit? Are you sure about this?

Yes. I'm pretty sure I can remember what's happened in matches I've worked. I don't need to make things up.

Please describe the situation in which this happens. What is the player's rationale for jumping so high with his hands down?

I never said he jumped high with his hands down. He jumps high thinking he's going to get to the ball, then brings his hands down when he realizes he isn't getting to the ball, but his head is still above the net.

As I said, it happens in men's ball. The ball isn't necessarily hit into the head, but since the head is above the net, the contact becomes a block because the player is, by rule, a blocker.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Yes. I'm pretty sure I can remember what's happened in matches I've worked. I don't need to make things up.


I never said he jumped high with his hands down. He jumps high thinking he's going to get to the ball, then brings his hands down when he realizes he isn't getting to the ball, but his head is still above the net.

As I said, it happens in men's ball. The ball isn't necessarily hit into the head, but since the head is above the net, the contact becomes a block because the player is, by rule, a blocker.

I don't doubt you've seen what you've seen, and I know you've seen a lot.

But while the scenario you describe seems rather uncommon but possible ... I'm in agreement with the other poster that it seems incredibly odd (nearly impossible, and very hard to envision) to have his happen to a back row player, which is what we were talking about.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't doubt you've seen what you've seen, and I know you've seen a lot.

But while the scenario you describe seems rather uncommon but possible ... I'm in agreement with the other poster that it seems incredibly odd (nearly impossible, and very hard to envision) to have his happen to a back row player, which is what we were talking about.

It's nearly impossible for someone to jump high, have their hands be above the net, then bring their hands down below the net while their head might still be above the net?

Far from "nearly impossible." But then again, the men's game allows you to see things you would hardly ever see in the women's game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by FMadera

It's nearly impossible for someone to jump high, have their hands be above the net, then bring their hands down below the net while their head might still be above the net?

Far from "nearly impossible." But then again, the men's game allows you to see things you would hardly ever see in the women's game.

Well that was a little condescending ... did I say I was talking about the women's game?

Seriously... it's entirely possible someone could jump that high... but why would a back row player do it... and often enough for you to call it common?

[pavbref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Seriously... it's entirely possible someone could jump that high... but why would a back row player do it... and often enough for you to call it common?

Back row setters do it all the time to save an overpass