Back row setter - hitter violation question
Eric Wang
>: [Back-row players] can jump to fake-block, too, as long as
>: they don't touch the ball, and are more than about a meter from
>: any other blocker that does touch the ball.)
hu...@ticker.wharton.upenn.edu (Han Hung) writes:
>Some clarification here is needed. They can fake block, but if the player
>is part of a block (i.e. more that one player blocking the ball) and if
>the ball touched any of the blockers, then the block is a fault.
>USVBA rule 8 commentary 8.d.
That's why I specified "more than about a meter from". That's
roughly the distance at, or greater than, which a blocker isn't
considered to be part of a composite block. (Maybe it's two
meters.)
Eric Wang
wa...@sml0.ge.uiuc.edu
Jung J Park
row (as in 6-2)?
Jung
Eric Wang
>I thought back row players weren't allowed to jump while in the front
>row (as in 6-2)?
Sure, they can. The only restrictions are that (a) they may not
attack by jumping in front of the line and touching the ball while
it's completely above the net, and (b) they may not block. They can
jump to set, jump to save balls, jump to get out of the way, jump to
celebrate, etc. They can even jump on fake attacks, as long as they
don't touch the ball. (They can jump to fake-block, too, as long as
they don't touch the ball and are more than about a meter from any
other blocker that does touch the ball.) They *can* jump and spike,
as long as the ball is partially below the net when they hit it.
(Try a roundhouse underhand wipe shot off the opponent's penetrating
block :-)
Eric Wang
wa...@sml0.ge.uiuc.edu
Eric Wang
>The interesting case is when the back-row setter attempts to save a set
>which has penetrated the plane and an opponent is attempting to block.
>According to a referee clinic I attended last February, the setter has
>as much right (if not a little more) to the ball as the blocker ...
A ball in the plane always constitutes open season. The setter can
set it; if he's front-row, he can hit; opposing blockers can block
it; they can spike it; they can even set it themselves. Everybody
on both sides has a right to play such a ball.
Think of it this way: the passer or digger, in shanking the pass
into the plane of the net, has thereby waived her setter's exclusive
right to the ball.
>If simultaneous contact is made and the ball remains at least in part
>on the attacker's side, play continues.
Huh? My rule book says that this setter is a back-row blocker.
This is a legal block, and when a ball is legally hit or blocked
into a back-row setter's arms entirely above the net, the setter is
considered a blocker. Has this rule been revoked to make play more
continuous?
>If the blocker is a hair late, s/he risks being called for blocking the
>set ...
If the blocker is late enough so that the ball has been pulled back
entirely to the other side of the net, then yes. If the ball is
still in the plane, though, it's a good block.
>If a trifle early (e.g. before the plane has been broken), then it may
>be an illegal block.
No "if" here. If the ball hasn't broken the plane yet, the block is
illegal (assuming that the setter was there to set it). If the ball
breaks the plane, the block will be legal, and the setter is taking
an awfully big risk in going for the set.
In practice, blockers burn themselves with interference violations
far more often than setters do with back-row blocker violations. So
the blockers are much warier of going after tight passes/digs, and
setters can get away with the occasional ball in the plane. (Here
at Illinois, most of we fans know what the interference call means,
but very few of us recognize the back-row blocker call. We boo
loudly when we're called for the former, but mostly scratch our
heads and say "Huh?" when we're called for the latter.) But in the
cases when the pass is in the plane of the net and the blocker has
gone up, we've seen them roof the opposing setters so hard that the
setters have fallen down on their butts, then gone to their benches
to have their fingers re-taped. These plays have been called
more-or-less consistently as either interference or back-row blocker
violations. They always stopped play immediately, though, even when
the ball was kept alive.
Maybe the Big Ten needs to send its referees to this clinic ...
Eric Wang
wa...@sml0.ge.uiuc.edu
Han Hung
: I thought back row players weren't allowed to jump while in the front
: row (as in 6-2)?
: Jung
There are too many rules in the USVBA rule book to quote directly but to
summarize them all, none of them say that a back row player can't jump to
set the ball while in front of the attack line. They all say that the
back row player can't attack the ball while in front of the attack line.
Han
--
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Han Hung | The Wharton School of |
| Internet: hu...@wharton.upenn.edu | The University of Pennsylvania |
| Office #: (215)-573-5113 | Philadelphia, PA |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Han Hung
: Jung J Park <jp...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
: >I thought back row players weren't allowed to jump while in the front
: >row (as in 6-2)?
: Sure, they can. The only restrictions are that (a) they may not
: attack by jumping in front of the line and touching the ball while
: it's completely above the net, and (b) they may not block. They can
: jump to set, jump to save balls, jump to get out of the way, jump to
: celebrate, etc. They can even jump on fake attacks, as long as they
: don't touch the ball. (They can jump to fake-block, too, as long as
: they don't touch the ball and are more than about a meter from any
: other blocker that does touch the ball.) They *can* jump and spike,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some clarification here is needed. They can fake block, but if the player
is part of a block (i.e. more that one player blocking the ball) and if
the ball touched any of the blockers, then the block is a fault.
USVBA rule 8 commentary 8.d.
: as long as the ball is partially below the net when they hit it.
: (Try a roundhouse underhand wipe shot off the opponent's penetrating
: block :-)
: Eric Wang
: wa...@sml0.ge.uiuc.edu
--
Christian Doll
b...@css.itd.umich.edu (Bruce Burrell) writes:
(shortened)
> More precisely: as long as a back row player last made contact with the
>floor completely behind the attack (3M) line, there is no restriction on
>where the player may direct the ball. If the player has made contact with
>the floor in advance of the 3M line and contacts the ball when it is
>entirely above the net, it is a violation as soon as the ball breaks the
>plane of the net *COMPLETELY* unless, of course, a teammate makes a legal
>contact first or the opponents commit a fault.
> Note that it's ok for the ball to break the plane, just not all the
>way. Hence if an opponent blocked an overset which had not yet completely
>penetrated the net's plane, play would continue.
I'm not absolutely sure about it, but I think rules clearly show that
it is a violation as soon as an opponent blocks the ball without
committing a fault himself.
Christian Doll
Jung J Park
Pittsburgh's a BIT too far- eh we'll see!
Jung
Rob Peglar
>it is a violation as soon as an opponent blocks the ball without
>committing a fault himself.
True if the player is attacking the ball or directing the ball towards the
opponents' court. Not true if the player is setting towards a teammate.
USA Rule 8, various parts. FIVB slightly different.
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.
Christian Naundorf
> In article <2ivf4k$i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
> b...@css.itd.umich.edu (Bruce Burrell) writes:
> (shortened)
> >floor completely behind the attack (3M) line, there is no restriction on
> >where the player may direct the ball. If the player has made contact with
> >the floor in advance of the 3M line and contacts the ball when it is
> >entirely above the net, it is a violation as soon as the ball breaks the
> >plane of the net *COMPLETELY* unless, of course, a teammate makes a legal
> >contact first or the opponents commit a fault.
> > Note that it's ok for the ball to break the plane, just not all the
> >way. Hence if an opponent blocked an overset which had not yet completely
> >penetrated the net's plane, play would continue.
>
> I'm not absolutely sure about it, but I think rules clearly show that
> it is a violation as soon as an opponent blocks the ball without
> committing a fault himself.
>
This has been changed in the International Rules somewhat recently
(like three years, about). The first comment reflects the older
version, the second the newer. If I am not very much mistaken
(or the rules have been changed behind my back :-) ),
the block does NOT prevent the fault to happen anymore.
So, the backrow player hits above the plane of the net and
with contact to the AZ, it is a fault if no other teammate
touches the ball afterwards, whether it passes the net OR
is blocked (.. or goes out, anyway ...
Van Vo
>
>I'm not absolutely sure about it, but I think rules clearly show that
>it is a violation as soon as an opponent blocks the ball without
>committing a fault himself.
>
> Christian Doll
This used to be true, but the latest revision says that as long as the
set is TOWARDS a member of the attacking team, as long as the ball has
not completely crossed the plane of the net, it is a legal play.
1994 season rule change.
Van