16.2.3 clarification requested
Bill Tucker
Actually I need a clarification on 16.2 in general.
1) 16.2.3 - I assume they are referring to a setter who "brings back" an
overpass. ?Yes? So...which is it....which can't my opponent touch...the
ball that has "cracked the plane" of the net.....or....part of the ball has
crossed....or ALL of the ball has crossed?? Help.
2) 16.2 - in general -
2a) I was told by a ref at a YMCA match that the match would be ??"a
combination of USA and NAGWS rules" (go figure) and later in the
match...after an odd call...he told me....."Oh you're confusing USA and
NAGWS", when I was helping a new MB learn to penetrate on a block. The ref
said that penetration blocking after an opponent had made a (third) kill and
yet the ball was still on "their side" was illegal in NAGWS. This didn't
sound right. I looked at the rule differentiation matrix on USAVB
website...and didn't see anything. Any thoughts?
6b) IN USAV......when does the opponents ball become "my ball" regardless of
first, second, third hit.....after it cross "the plane"?
6c) If my opponent shanks the first pass...and all 6 run after the
ball....and someone gets to it...and passes the (second) ball to the
net....and the ball goes UP and comes down within an inch of the net....in
the middle (lets say)...never crossing the plane....with NO ONE on the
opponents team within 10 feet....and my over-anxious MB goes up...penetrates
and whacks the ball down.....what's the call??? (remember they only
completed 2 of 3 touches)
Thanks folks.
:)
-bill
--
Thank you,
Bill Tucker
Coordinator of Technology - Admissions
Vassar College
Tel: 845-437-7845
Fax: 845-437-7063
800#: 800-827-7270
Todd Haverkos
> Hello all:
>
> Actually I need a clarification on 16.2 in general.
>
> 1) 16.2.3 - I assume they are referring to a setter who "brings back" an
> overpass. ?Yes?
Indeed.
> So...which is it....which can't my opponent touch...the ball that
> has "cracked the plane" of the net.....or....part of the ball has
> crossed....or ALL of the ball has crossed?? Help.
16.5.1 is what you have to worry about. Once any part of the ball is
in the vertical plane of the net, the opponent can contact the ball
within his playing space.
A lot of players (setters in particular) are under the mistaken
impression that an opponent isn't allowed to interfere with the
setting of a ball in the plane, usually yelling "But he blocked the
set!"
Once the ball enters the plane of the net, it's fair game for both
parties, within the restrictions of 16.5.1.
> 2) 16.2 - in general -
> 2a) I was told by a ref at a YMCA match that the match would be ??"a
> combination of USA and NAGWS rules" (go figure) and later in the
> match...after an odd call...he told me....."Oh you're confusing USA and
> NAGWS", when I was helping a new MB learn to penetrate on a block. The ref
> said that penetration blocking after an opponent had made a (third) kill and
> yet the ball was still on "their side" was illegal in NAGWS. This didn't
> sound right. I looked at the rule differentiation matrix on USAVB
> website...and didn't see anything. Any thoughts?
I'm away from my NAGWS rulebook right now, so I'll withhold comment.
Something sounds fishy, though.
> 6b) IN USAV......when does the opponents ball become "my ball"
> regardless of first, second, third hit.....after it cross "the
> plane"?
No, sooner. You're free to wack at it when any part of the ball
enters the plane.
> 6c) If my opponent shanks the first pass...and all 6 run after the
> ball....and someone gets to it...and passes the (second) ball to the
> net....and the ball goes UP and comes down within an inch of the
> net....in the middle (lets say)...never crossing the plane....with
> NO ONE on the opponents team within 10 feet....and my over-anxious
> MB goes up...penetrates and whacks the ball down.....what's the
> call??? (remember they only completed 2 of 3 touches)
If the middle never penetrates the plane in his action, then the ball
must have penetrated into the plane, and hence, it's fair game to
contact.
Furthermore, even if your middle blocker reached over and blocked the
ball down while it was entirely in the opponent's playing space, it
would be no fault, by rule 19.3.1.3 since no member of the attacking
team was near enough to make a play on the ball.
Best Regards,
--
Todd Haverkos t...@vbref.org
http://www.vbref.org/
John Villalovos
Bill Tucker <bnjt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Actually I need a clarification on 16.2 in general.
>
>1) 16.2.3 - I assume they are referring to a setter who "brings back" an
>overpass. ?Yes? So...which is it....which can't my opponent touch...the
>ball that has "cracked the plane" of the net.....or....part of the ball has
>crossed....or ALL of the ball has crossed?? Help.
Typically this action would be done by a setter. This allows the setter to
save an overpass in the plane of the net before it goes completely across the
net.
I believe that this is ILLEGAL in FIVB (International) but I am not positive.
>2) 16.2 - in general -
>2a) I was told by a ref at a YMCA match that the match would be ??"a
>combination of USA and NAGWS rules" (go figure) and later in the
>match...after an odd call...he told me....."Oh you're confusing USA and
>NAGWS", when I was helping a new MB learn to penetrate on a block. The ref
>said that penetration blocking after an opponent had made a (third) kill and
>yet the ball was still on "their side" was illegal in NAGWS. This didn't
>sound right. I looked at the rule differentiation matrix on USAVB
>website...and didn't see anything. Any thoughts?
This doesn't sound correct to me. As far as I know all the rulesets allow you
to block over the net once the opponent has contacted the ball three times.
>6b) IN USAV......when does the opponents ball become "my ball" regardless of
>first, second, third hit.....after it cross "the plane"?
Once it breaks the plane of the net you may attack it.
>6c) If my opponent shanks the first pass...and all 6 run after the
>ball....and someone gets to it...and passes the (second) ball to the
>net....and the ball goes UP and comes down within an inch of the net....in
>the middle (lets say)...never crossing the plane....with NO ONE on the
>opponents team within 10 feet....and my over-anxious MB goes up...penetrates
>and whacks the ball down.....what's the call??? (remember they only
>completed 2 of 3 touches)
If I am reading this correctly. The ball has NOT entered the plane of the net
and is still completely on the opponent's side.
If the player "whacks" the ball in such a manner that it would be considered an
attack rather than a block than it would be an illegal attack beyond the net.
If the "whack" is done in such a manner that it would be considered a block
than that would be legal since the ball is falling close to the net and there
is no one in position to make a play on the ball.
Once the ball has broken the plane of the net then both actions are legal.
Later,
John
Michael Borga
>
Ok, this should be interesting to see how wrong i can get it.
>1) 16.2.3 - I assume they are referring to a setter who "brings back" an
>overpass. ?Yes? So...which is it....which can't my opponent touch...the
>ball that has "cracked the plane" of the net.....or....part of the ball has
>crossed....or ALL of the ball has crossed?? Help.
If the setter is back row (you don't state it in the question) then any part of
the ball in the vertical plane of the net makes it ok for the opponent to touch
it and if the setter is touching it at the same time B.R.A. fault.
However if the setter is front row and any part of the ball is still in the
vertical plane of the net he can touch it and the opponent can touch it NO
FAULT and you get another 3 touches BTW.
>
>2) 16.2 - in general -
>2a) I was told by a ref at a YMCA match that the match would be ??"a
>combination of USA and NAGWS rules" (go figure) and later in the
>match...after an odd call...he told me....."Oh you're confusing USA and
>NAGWS", when I was helping a new MB learn to penetrate on a block. The ref
>said that penetration blocking after an opponent had made a (third) kill and
>yet the ball was still on "their side" was illegal in NAGWS. This didn't
>sound right. I looked at the rule differentiation matrix on USAVB
>website...and didn't see anything. Any thoughts?
>
Could it be? If NAGWS are the rules the NCAA women are using i don't think that
the ref is correct.
>6b) IN USAV......when does the opponents ball become "my ball" regardless of
>first, second, third hit.....after it cross "the plane"?
>
You may play the ball as soon as any part of the ball is in the vertical plane
of the net no matter how many contacts your opponent has made after they have
contacted the ball at least once except for the opponent's service.
In addition, You may play the ball before it has reached the vertical plane of
the net on a block or after the third contact by the opponents. (Have they
changed that rule to read after any attack hit, yet? That would help add to the
confusion!)
>6c) If my opponent shanks the first pass...and all 6 run after the
>ball....and someone gets to it...and passes the (second) ball to the
>net....and the ball goes UP and comes down within an inch of the net....in
>the middle (lets say)...never crossing the plane....with NO ONE on the
>opponents team within 10 feet....and my over-anxious MB goes up...penetrates
>and whacks the ball down.....what's the call??? (remember they only
>completed 2 of 3 touches)
>
Bad Middle Blocker!!!!! Patience is a virtue, especially in this case. Point to
the other team. (i assume you were playing rally points, wait, NAGWS, maybe
not! Last year's rules or next year's? LOL ) See above for reasoning.
Remember, the above are only guesses by an uncertified, unregistered, and
untrained Beach Volleyball Devotee.
I am sure someone will correct any errors!
And We'll See You on the Beach,
Michael Borga -- Jersey Shore Volleyball Association (JSVBA)
jsvba.com -- 732-506-9449
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jsvba">Link to JSVBA Website</A>
mike_daly
Todd Haverkos <t...@vbref.org> wrote in message
news:lyzoeq2...@k2.onsight.com...>SNIP<
> Furthermore, even if your middle blocker reached over and blocked the
> ball down while it was entirely in the opponent's playing space, it
> would be no fault, by rule 19.3.1.3 since no member of the attacking
> team was near enough to make a play on the ball.
>
I always kinda wondered about this one. I guess that it would apply if the
other
team had no one turned toward the ball, or no one moving toward the ball.
If
someone is moving towards the ball do they get the benefit of the call?
Examples:
1) Ball passed as the second hit and goes near the net with everyone turned
away from the net because they followed the person playing the ball. If the
blocker gets it
then that would not be called.
2) Ball passed as the second hit and goes near the net with someone near
it. If the blocker gets it
then that would be called as reaching over. My question on this one is how
close is near? I can run
across the court and get a ball dinked on the other side of the court, but
being twenty or more feet away
could this be considered near?
Jim McMath
all the situations listed. A player (front row or back row) may extend
his/her arm(s) across the plane of the net in order to return a ball that is
still in the plane of the net to his or her side (1st or 2nd hit, by
definition a 3rd hit has to cross the net).
The only differences between the rules is that when the player is a back
row player, under USA Rules, if the ball is subsequently contacted by a
legal opposing front row player while the ball is in the plane of net it, an
illegal back-row attack is declared against the back-row player.
Under NAGWS rules, if the referee judges that after the contact by the
back row player in the front zone completely above the height of the net (as
a player would have to be while playing the ball that is in the plane of the
net) and the flight of the ball is towards a team mate, then if the ball is
legally contacted by an opposing front row player in the plane of the net,
play continues. If the referee judges that flight of the ball was not
towards a team mate, and the back row player had contacted the ball
completely above the height of the net in the front zone, then an illegal
back row attack would be declared when the ball either, completely crosses
the net, or is legally blocked by and opposing front row player.
As for playing a ball that is going over the net or falling near the net,
the rules are again the same. In both set of rules, a player may reach
across the net to block when:
a. After a third team hit
b. After an attack hit. By definition, a third team hit is always an
attack hit. Also by definition, an attack his any deliberate attempt by a
player to send the ball into the opponents court.
c. In the 1st referees judgement a ball would cross the net, provided
no player from the team is in position to play the ball, or;
d. In the 1st referees judgement a ball is falling near the net and
there is no player in position to play the ball.
Is 10 ft away to far, depends on how the players are responding. If they
are diving for the ball, maybe, maybe not. If they are standing watching
it, then no one is playing the ball and it would be legal for the blocker to
block the ball down. Both cases are subjective.
Todd answers are consitent with the rules and interpretations as the exist
today for both rule sets. However, a league should play with one or the
other, not a hybrid of both.
Jim McMath
USA National Referee
PAVO State Referee
"Todd Haverkos" <t...@vbref.org> wrote in message
news:lyzoeq2...@k2.onsight.com...
Kevin Lentin
> Under NAGWS rules, if the referee judges that after the contact by the
> back row player in the front zone completely above the height of the net (as
> a player would have to be while playing the ball that is in the plane of the
> net) and the flight of the ball is towards a team mate, then if the ball is
> legally contacted by an opposing front row player in the plane of the net,
> play continues. If the referee judges that flight of the ball was not
> towards a team mate, and the back row player had contacted the ball
> completely above the height of the net in the front zone, then an illegal
> back row attack would be declared when the ball either, completely crosses
> the net, or is legally blocked by and opposing front row player.
I think my head is going to explode.
> b. After an attack hit. By definition, a third team hit is always an
> attack hit. Also by definition, an attack his any deliberate attempt by a
> player to send the ball into the opponents court.
Why deliberate? And who decides? Who can possibly decide?
--
< NB Unless otherwise stated, all my comments on rules refer to FIVB rules >
[======================================================================]
[ Kevin Lentin Email: k...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au ]
[ Australian National Referee ]
[ finger k...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au for PGP public key block. ]
[ KeyId: 06808EED FingerPrint: 6024308DE1F84314 811B511DBA6FD596 ]
[======================================================================]
Christian Perrier
>> Under NAGWS rules, if the referee judges that after the contact by the
>> back row player in the front zone completely above the height of the net (as
>> a player would have to be while playing the ball that is in the plane of the
>> net) and the flight of the ball is towards a team mate, then if the ball is
>> legally contacted by an opposing front row player in the plane of the net,
>> play continues. If the referee judges that flight of the ball was not
>> towards a team mate, and the back row player had contacted the ball
>> completely above the height of the net in the front zone, then an illegal
>> back row attack would be declared when the ball either, completely crosses
>> the net, or is legally blocked by and opposing front row player.
>
>I think my head is going to explode.
This is what I find funny in these exotic rulings.... They are so
complicated that written explanations give headaches and are completely
ununderstandable (I have to admit that I didn't understand *anything* from
the above...:-)))
So, imagine how such interpretation may be done by a poor referee who has
around half a second to decide "block or not"? :-)
>> attack hit. Also by definition, an attack his any deliberate attempt by a
>> player to send the ball into the opponents court.
>
>Why deliberate? And who decides? Who can possibly decide?
A deliberate attempt is an attempt which is previously announced to the
referee. A player who wants to make a delibarate attempt has to first ask
the first referee (through his team captain, of course). Otherwise, this is
*no* a deliberate attempt...
It is commonly admitted that a spike hitting you in the face and bouncing
back to the opponents court is *not* a deliberate attempt. On the other
hand, interpretation has been made that the same spike hitting a player at
his bottom and bouncing back to the opponents is a deliberate attempts, as
showing your bottom is often considered to be a deliberate action.
Ahem, sorry, folks, couldn't resist...
--
Christian Perrier
French VB Referee
Maurepas, France (Paris area)
Jim McMath
I looked at the FIVB Rulebook and found that Rule 14.1 "Attack Hit" is "All
actions which direct the ball towards the opponents, with the exception
of service and block, are considered as attack hits." In my humble opinion
Christian, is that not synonymous with "deliberate" as opposed to actions
which don't direct the ball towards the opponents (like an errant pass).
As for Kevin's concern about exotic rules, it is not really that exotic.
Yes it takes a lot of words to explain, but is relatively a simple concept.
:)))).
BTW, the US rule for illegal back row attacks is identical to the FIVB
rules. It is the Women's collegiate rule committe that like this obtuse
rule.
Jim McMath
USA National Referee
PAVO State Referee
"Christian Perrier" <bub...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9bb92q....@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org...
Kevin Lentin
> I looked at the FIVB Rulebook and found that Rule 14.1 "Attack Hit" is "All
> actions which direct the ball towards the opponents, with the exception
> of service and block, are considered as attack hits." In my humble opinion
> Christian, is that not synonymous with "deliberate" as opposed to actions
> which don't direct the ball towards the opponents (like an errant pass).
That's not the meaning of the sentence. An errant pass that is going
towards the opponent is an attack hit. It is an action and it directed
the ball toward the opponent.
Christian Perrier
>I looked at the FIVB Rulebook and found that Rule 14.1 "Attack Hit" is "All
>actions which direct the ball towards the opponents, with the exception
>of service and block, are considered as attack hits." In my humble opinion
>Christian, is that not synonymous with "deliberate" as opposed to actions
>which don't direct the ball towards the opponents (like an errant pass).
Ahem. I'm afraid not being sure to properly understand your statement, Jim.
You shoul duse more broken english for us, poor fellows, who learned en
glish as they could and only "speak" it by mail (my last occasion of
speaking live english was last week-end with some referees colleagues from
all around Europe, during the European Champions League Final 4....but we
all speak very good broken english...:-)
So, yes, I think that 14.1 does not include the concept of "deliberate",
which is imho a too much widely opened door for interpretation. With FIVB's
14.1 any action sending the ball towards the opponents court is an attack
hit...Even a very good "candle hit" as we say in french ("une bougie"=="a
candle" is a spike which hits an opponents directly in his head...just like
gently blowing a candle...:-))
>
>As for Kevin's concern about exotic rules, it is not really that exotic.
I'm afraid I am the culprit for "exotic", Jim....Just a little bit ironic
towards the only country in the world which uses its own rule set for its
national championship. Don't take it offensive, it is not of course! Just a
little "clin d'oeil"!