From: wang@cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Subject: Re: Question about blocking
Reply-To: wang@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:09:06 GMT

: g-martin1@uiuc.edu (Gregory A. Martin) writes:
> An example: a serve is passed back over the net. If a jump setter is
> around to set the ball you may not reach across and block the ball
> even though it is headed over the net.

Some more fine points of balls at the net:

First, the ball is either straddling the plane of the net, or it isn't.
The first case is easy:

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.)

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.)

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
    ..."

    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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

Eric Wang
wang@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball