In a recent volleyball match, there was a debate about whether a contact was a block or an attack, since that decision could result in a double contact being called. Here was the situation:
Team A made an overpass. After the ball cleared the plane of the net, a player from Team B jumped and contacted the ball above the net and in close proximity to the net. The contact was like an attack in that it was a full arm swing, not a two-handed “block”. The ball bounced off the tape (no contact by Team A), and the same player from team B passed the ball. The referee called a double contact.
Team B argued that the double contact should not have been called because it was a block followed by a legal touch, so we consulted the rule book. The rule book states that a block is “the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact. …”. Team B argued that the player attacking the overpass met those criteria, and that wasn’t really disputed. However, the official said that there was a judgment call allowed by the referee, and if the referee thought that the player was attacking the ball, it would not count as a block. However, the day official also said that judgment call was not covered anywhere in the rule book.
First, what was the correct call? Second, if the judgment call was the correct decision, where do coaches/referees learn about that?
Loading ...
by illinoisvbguy
20 Apr 2012 at 07:45
This block/attack concept is definitely a gray area. The DCR defines an attack hit as follows: “All actions which direct the ball toward the opponents, with the exception of service and block, are
considered as attack hits.” That gives some guidance, but by excepting blocks, it still doesn’t give you something black and white to say when a potential contact changes from being a block to an attack.
I don’t think we can base it on whether a player reacted or not. We’ve all seen looping balls falling towards the net where the opposition clearly had time to react and block the ball.
A tendency would be to lean towards a block being more of a defensive play and an attack being an offensive play. However, a directional block (where the player flicks his/her wrists to intentionally direct the ball away from the opponents) starts to blur that line.
Neither do we want to use one-handed vs. two-handed plays as attack vs. block rationale as is sometimes given. A block could easily be one-handed, and an attack could use both.
At some point, it no longer becomes a true “interception” of a ball from an opponent and just an attack on a ball that rather than coming from the player’s own team just happened to come from the opposition. It’s gray and a judgment call, and there is no way around it. I think officials generally give the benefit of the doubt to it being a block. However, when the action is clearly an attacking motion — like this case — you have to consider it to be the team’s first hit and not a block.
This play, as described, was called correctly.
by Alex
16 Apr 2012 at 13:06
14.1.1 includes “reaching higher than the top of the net” in the definition of a block. If the arm is swinging forward before contact, is that the same thing as “reaching”?
by Larry Ruane
15 Apr 2012 at 23:57
The key word is “intercept.” There seems to be two working definitions. Some take it to mean simply contacting the ball that was most recently touched by the opponent. Others (myself included) consider the ball to be intercepted only if the “ball hit the player” rather than the “player hit the ball.” In the first case (ball hit the player), the blocker positions her hands before the final hit by the opponent, and does not have any opportunity to react to that final hit. If, in contrast, the player does react to the path of the ball after the opponent’s attack hit, then the player is playing the ball, hence, not a block. Whether the player reacted (attack) or not (block) is a judgement call.
In the situation as stated, I would say it’s clearly not a block; double contact is the correct call.
by Nasser Balinda
15 Apr 2012 at 20:01
In my opinion that was the right call by the REF.Hitting the ball is an act of attack and not block.If the ball had been killed to the opponents court it would not be called a block.It would be an attack hit.So that was the first hit of the team.Swinging at a ball is not an act of blocking but one of attack.Blocks do not swing otherwise they may interfere in the hitters attack before or during the attack hit.Good call by the referee.That was not a block!…