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.