From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Subject: Re: Question about blocking
Reply-To: robp@landru.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation 
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:55:39 GMT

Eric has raised some fine points about play at the net.  I wanted to
clarify a couple of these points which Eric has 'out-thunk' himself :-)

(btw, geez, Eric, "vector components" on a set?  i can see it now, 1st
refs calculating the sines and cosines on the set ball :-))

OK.

In article LF0@cs.uiuc.edu, wang@cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) writes:
>0.  While the ball is straddling the plane of the net above the net,
>    either team may do anything to it: block, spike, or set.  Open
>    season.  (Rule 9.7.)
>

Yup.


>Hereafter, I'll assume that the ball is very close to, but has not
>crossed, the plane of the net.
>
>1.  If the pass or dig is tight but the setter can get to the ball, the
>    ball is POISON to opposing blockers.  If any blocker is foolish
>    enough to stick his or her hands completely over the net such that
>    they're in the path of a normal outside or middle set, the setter
>    can simply set the ball into the blocker's hands, winning instantly
>    on an illegal block.  (8.14.f, this situation fails all four
>    subitems in which the block is legal, hence it is illegal.)
>

Yup again.


>1.b However, the above applies only if the setter set the ball sideways
>    or vertically upwards, with no vector component towards the opposing
>    court.  If the setter gets overeager and shoots the set towards the
>    opposing court to hit the blocker(s)' hands, then the block will
>    probably be ruled legal, by 8.14.f(1): "[Blocking across the net is
>    legal if] ... in the first referee's judgment, [the setter]
>    intentionally directed the ball towards the opponents' playing area
>    ..."
>

Now you're beyond the pale.  This situation is an illegal block.  This
rule is only applied if the ball is "intentionally directed..", i.e.
ATTACKED.  Any set ball (i.e. "directed towards a teammate", which is
more verbiage used in Rule 8ff.) is just that, a set ball, not an
attacked ball.  If the blocker reaches over to block any ball which
has been directed towards a teammate (i.e. set, and assuming there is
indeed a teammate in the area able to play the {set} ball), that block
is illegal.  The key here is the interpretation of the phrase "intentionally
directed..." as you stated.


>    Corollary: suppose the setter sets a back-slide on a frantic
>    transition play, but doesn't pull the path of the ball fully
>    parallel to the net, hence it drifts towards the net, resulting in a
>    tight set for the hitter.  Before it crosses the net (and if
>    untouched, it _would_ cross), and just before the hitter hits it,
>    the blocker reaches over and blocks it down.  Would the setter be
>    considered to have _intentionally_ directed the ball over the net?
>    Gosh, that's really a judgment call for the up-ref: "No, the setter
>    clearly didn't mean to set the ball over the net (judging from her
>    and her hitter's frustration), it was simply a bad set, therefore
>    your block is not legal by 8.14.f(1).  Since there's no other
>    provision that could make your block legal, it is illegal, and
>    you're over the net."  Blocker would probably throw a conniption
>    fit.  Is this the correct interpretation of 8.14.f(1)?  Or is that
>    key adverb "intentionally" actually used by high-level refs?
>

It sure is, as I have stated before.  This blocker who blocks the slide
play before it got into the plane has Done A Bad Thing.  It doesn't matter
that the set ball would have gone into the plane if otherwise untouched;
it (the ball) has been directed towards a teammate, i.e. not attacked,
and by implication not intentionally directed toward the opponent's side.


>2.  OTOH, suppose the blocker, aware of item 1 above, plays it safe and
>    waits with her hands just on her side of the net, so that any ball
>    that hits her hands is necessarily straddling the net.  Setter puts
>    up a high outside set that drifts onto the net (straddling the
>    plane), and blocker blocks it just before hitter touches the ball,
>    but it's dug up.  By 9.7, this is a good block, and play should
>    continue.
>

Yup.


>2.b Now comes the weirdness.  Same scenario as 2, except that the setter
>    is back-row, jump-set from in front of the attack line (right on the
>    net, in fact), and is of reasonable height, such that she touched
>    the ball entirely above the plane of the net.  Bizarre as it may
>    seem, the proper call is back-row attacker violation on the setter
>    at the instant the blocker blocks the set!  By 9.7, this is a valid
>    block.  By 8.14, "A blocked ball is considered to have crossed the
>    net", thus the setter is considered to have set the ball over the
>    net.  This violates 8.12 "Back row attacker", and 8.12.a explains
>    that the ball dies as soon as it's (legally) touched by an opposing
>    player, which in this case is the blocker.  (This time, setter
>    throws the fit.)

As well he/she should, because that's a bad call.  Read further in 8.12.
If this ball is legally blocked, play continues.  This is a garden-variety
play.  If the blockers are very smart, they won't block this ball, but
attack it.  Then, it's a BR attack.

>
>mkrogers@unix.amherst.edu (Michael Rogers) writes:
>>An interesting rule which may operate under the above conditions
>>is Rule 8, Comm. 7f:
>>	"If a player near the net sets the ball from above
>>	the height of the net in such a manner that the ball
>>	is blocked back into that player, such contact by that
>>	player is considered to be a block."
>>If the setter is a back row player, their unintentional block
>>would be a fault.  Life (= rules of volleyball) just isn't fair.
>

So blame the passers :-)

>On the other hand, if the setter is front-row, the setter's team gets
>three more contacts.  Contrast this with a hitter who gets his hit
>blocked back into his own ugly face; that counts as his team's first
>contact.  (Corollary: if a front-row setter has her set blocked back
>into her arms, multiple contacts don't count, and she can still pop the
>ball up as her team's first contact.  Hitter don't get this break.)
>(BTW, here at UIUC, we've seen setters called for exactly this back-row
>blocker violation several times in the last couple of years.)

This violation is fairly common among college-level VB setters.  At higher
levels (i.e. international) you hardly ever see it, because the setters
know better.  At lower levels, the setters aren't athletic enough to
make the play, in general.

As a side note, be careful about your use of the phrase 'multiple
contacts'.  The setter in 8.7f is indeed considered to be a blocker,
and thus the multiple-contact rules governing blockers apply.  However,
both players in your scenario (the setter who gets the ball blocked
back into the arms, and the hitter likewise) _do_ benefit from the
multiple contact rules governing the first play of the ball.

Hope this helps,

Rob
USA National Referee

---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball