If it appears the team is confused and doesn’t know whether the Libero should be on or off at this time, we can step in to assist, and then we assess a delay sanction.

And, I think Oldsetter is correct that your whistle on contact of serve (with positional fault) counts as a separate rally and she should be allowed to step right back on right then. I would have them correct it and tell them that they can then immediately make the switch. Otherwise your libero trackers would most likely be at a loss as to what is going on. That might be true either way at that point!

Phrasing it R2 blocks and then reaches under the net makes it sound like you might be talking about an intentional motion of some sort. Just wanted to clarify what is being talked about here.

For instance, the example I mentioned earlier: Let’s say a hitter from the back row goes up and flubs it so badly that the ball arches for a few feet and lands somewhere under the net. If the blockers touch the top tape would that really still be called now? If so, how does that “interfere with the opponent’s play,” and how close does the ball need to come to the blocker to qualify as an the action of playing the ball?

And, as far as fake middle hitters/blockers, there are a number of scenarios where the ball never gets within five feet of them.

In the FIVB youtube teaching video that everyone has been sent at one point or another, it specifically shows a case where the middle hitter touches the top tape (the outside hitter gets the set) as NO FAULT for 2009-12 and fault for 2005-08. In the next scenario on the same video, it shows a middle BLOCKER doing the same with the same result. (start at 1:05 or so to see both plays). If Steve is saying otherwise, perhaps this is an issue that needs an official interpretation issued.

The issue I have is with this part of Steve’s last post: “If the player were to hit (provide impetus to) the ball, it would be something other than a block”

Currently, nowhere in the rules does it state that the block can’t provide impetus to the ball. I’m not suggesting that it should actually, because it would probably not go over very well if we started to call huge stuff blocks that pushed the ball down with more force than a simple redirect.

The rules currently read that the attacker is the one who is hitting the ball from their side of the net to the other side, and the blocker is the one who is defending the ball coming from the other side of the net. Hitting or blocking style is not mentioned at all.

I’m not really trying to argue one way or the other, just putting it out there. In regular volleyball, it isn’t encountered much except with the very tallest of players. But like I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be nice to actually define it for use in games such as reversed 4s, where guys can block guys, but not “attack.” There the distinction between the two comes up much more often.

The original post started this thread on the subject of blocking, so I will (hopefully!) clear that up first.

Rule 14 is the applicable rule, and the first part of this rule I’d like to clear up is 14.1, or the definition of a block. It is an intercepting action, rather than a hitting action. In a completed block, does the ball hit the player? Certainly! But, the player does not hit the ball. I realize I am picking nits, but this really is the crux of how we should differentiate between a block and, say, an attack. If the player were to hit (provide impetus to) the ball, it would be something other than a block. Is this a slightly gray area? As we say in my home state of Minnesota, “Ya sure youbetcha!” A full-out swing at the ball, directing it towards the opponents’ court is obviously an attack. Hands straight up, not moving, near and higher than the top of the net when the ball touches them is obviously a block. Something between those two? Hey, if it were easy anybody could do it!

This is where experience comes into play. Watch other referees to see how they judge these.

So, now we come to Rule 14.3, which is the rule that allows us to block within the opponent’s space. It states:

In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net, provided that this action does not interfere with the opponents’ play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit.

USAV 14.3 further clarifies what is permitted, but I won’t quote it here. So, we have those words, “…touch the ball beyond the net…”. That touch of the ball means the point at which the blocker’s hands and the ball meet. If some part of the ball is over your playing space, you have the right to touch that part of the ball, even if this action does interfere with the opponents’ play. In order to touch that part of the ball still over your opponent’s space, you must not interfere with their play. After their third team contact? Reach over and block what you can get to. After their first or second team contact? With a little help from USAV 14.3, we can say that if there is no opponent in position to make a play on the ball, reaching beyond the net to block the ball is allowed. Notice I said, in both instances, block. It is still not legal to make any other type of contact (this would usually be an attack, but does not have to be) while reaching beyond the net, no matter where the opponent is. This would be a fault under Rule 13.3.1.

This leads us to the attack question that comes up later in the thread. Rule 9 states, “Each team must play within its own playing area and space…” What this means is that the point of contact between the player and the ball must, except in the blocking situations I mentioned previously, take place within the player’s own playing space. Again, it is the point of contact, not the ball position that matters, from a rule perspective. From a perspective of, “How in the world do I judge such a quick contact that takes place right in front of me while several other thoughts (the possibilities of a held ball, multiple contact, illegal attack or illegal block) are dancing through my head?”, I certainly say use the ball position to help determine legality. However, I would never want to say, “Because of the position of the ball (name your fault) must/cannot be called.” In the case of the ball that just breaks the vertical plane of the net, and is attacked, from either direction, as long as the contact between the ball and hand takes place within the player’s own playing space, it is legal. Again, if the ball is even slightly across the vertical plane of the net, an attack from either side is most likely legal. Where the follow-through takes the hand is immaterial. In justifying your call/no-call, be sure to use the language of the rules. For instance, “The attacker’s contact took place over their playing space.” Or, “Your player’s touch took place over the opponent’s playing space.” I am sometimes asked, “What if the initial contact takes place over the player’s own court, but the hand is still in contact as it crosses the net to be over the opponent’s court?” Well, if you can actually see that take place, you really should be calling a caught/thrown ball!

In the 2009-11 DCR, Rule 11.3.1 states, “Contact with the net by a player is not a fault, unless it interferes with the play.” Rule 11.4.4 goes on to define some definitions of “interferes with the opponent’s play”, stating, “A player interferes with the opponent’s play by (among others):

- touching the top band of the net or the top 80 cm (2’ 7.49”) of the antenna during his/her action of playing the ball,…”

The action of playing the ball is any action of players who are close to the ball and are trying to play it. So, even a fake middle attack, if the player is close enough to the ball and is actually attempting to play the ball, is liable for a net fault if they touch the top band of the net (as is a blocker trying to block this “attempt”), even if the setter does not set them. Just like the previous rule. The difference in the 2009-11 DCR is that if that same middle touches part of the net other than the top band during the attempt, there is not a fault unless there is true interference or advantage gained.

So in a nutshell, if a player touching the top band of the net between the antennas was a fault in the previous DCR, it is nearly always still a fault.