Close play at Net? Backrow Setter vs Blocker

[Coach David]

I have been involved with Girls Volleyball for over 40 years and I think the Offense is put at a disadvantge on balls in the Netural (plane) during play. An over pass from a teammate toward the net enters the plane and the backrow setter goes up to try and set the ball to a teammate if the blocker touches the ball my setter is called for backrow blocking?? First my setter is not facing the opponents court but facing her hitter and if the blocker does not touch the ball there is no foul called, which is the correct no-call. The fact that the blocker simply contacts the ball,that is still in the plane, backrow blocking is called on the setter?? Several things may me think the ball should remain in play till it either crosses the net completly, which backrow attack on my setter should be called! If the ball returns to my court play should continue!! Another point, like I said I have been invloved with High School volleyball for years as both an official and coach, in the USA rule book and somewhere in the High School rule book a "block" is defined as "a play at or near the net on a ball coming from the opponents count in an attempt to return the ball to the opponents court", may not be exact wording but you should get the meaning! I would like to hear from others that think this is not a fair rule because it puts the defense at an advantage.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Coach David

Another point, like I said I have been invloved with High School volleyball for years as both an official and coach, in the USA rule book and somewhere in the High School rule book a "block" is defined as "a play at or near the net on a ball coming from the opponents count in an attempt to return the ball to the opponents court"

No, it's not. You're missing a key component...

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by Coach David

I would like to hear from others that think this is not a fair rule because it puts the defense at an advantage.

Given your last line, you probably didn't want me to write this, but...

No advantage at all.

If a back row player for the "defense" is doing the blocking, it would similarly be a BRB for them. If the setter were a front row player, it would not be any back row attack/block violation, either.

You are comparing apples (front row blocker) to oranges (back row setter).

[Lcubed48]

Correct me if I'm not understanding this play properly. Wouldn't this play be a violation on the defense if the R1 rules that the setter was attempting to set a teammate, and the offense has a third hit remaining? And if so, then the call would be an illegal block on the defense.

9-6-4 specifies when an attack is complete, and the rule is not satisfied in this play, IMO. Also, 9.6.3 Sit B is as close as a casebook play as I found. It has the setter playing the overpassed ball which is in the plane of the net, but there is no blocker involved.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Lcubed48

Correct me if I'm not understanding this play properly. Wouldn't this play be a violation on the defense if the R1 rules that the setter was attempting to set a teammate, and the offense has a third hit remaining? And if so, then the call would be an illegal block on the defense.

9-6-4 specifies when an attack is complete, and the rule is not satisfied in this play, IMO. Also, 9.6.3 Sit B is as close as a casebook play as I found. It has the setter playing the overpassed ball which is in the plane of the net, but there is no blocker involved.

Once the ball has broken the plane of the net, it's fair game for the blockers.

Also, note the difference between reaching over and illegal block. Totally different things and you don't want to confuse the two.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Once the ball has broken the plane of the net, it's fair game for the blockers.

Also, note the difference between reaching over and illegal block. Totally different things and you don't want to confuse the two.

Thanks. I appreciate the input, and I do now understand the difference.