Embedded Files
3.5 A player jumped into the air trying to retrieve the ball near the spectator seats on his own side of the net. After contacting the ball, he landed in the seats. Is this a legal action?
3.5 A player jumped into the air trying to retrieve the ball near the spectator seats on his own side of the net. After contacting the ball, he landed in the seats. Is this a legal action?
Legal play. Outside his/her own side of the free zone, a player is allowed to play a ball and even take support to hit the ball. This would include his/her own team bench since this is outside the free zone. The same action is forbidden on the opponent’s side of the net. Rules 9, 9.1.3, 10.1.2
3.6 During a rally, a player chased the ball into the spectator stands. Just as she was about to hit the ball, a spectator reached up to catch the ball. The coach requested a replay because of the spectator’s interference. The referee refused. Was this a correct decision of the 1st referee?
3.6 During a rally, a player chased the ball into the spectator stands. Just as she was about to hit the ball, a spectator reached up to catch the ball. The coach requested a replay because of the spectator’s interference. The referee refused. Was this a correct decision of the 1st referee?
Yes. The player is allowed to retrieve the ball from anywhere outside her own side of the playing area, including the team bench/ spectator seats, etc. On the other hand, while the player has priority for the ball within the playing area, she has no such priority outside of the playing area. Rules9, 9.1.3
3.11.1 After a bad reception of team B, the ball was flying outside the crossing space towards the opponent's free zone. A player from this team started to run, in order to replay the ball. He stepped under the net, without touching the opponent's court and the net, but due to an opponent player still within his own court also moving towards the ball, he was not able to replay the ball. Has the player of team B been interfered by the team A player?
3.11.1 After a bad reception of team B, the ball was flying outside the crossing space towards the opponent's free zone. A player from this team started to run, in order to replay the ball. He stepped under the net, without touching the opponent's court and the net, but due to an opponent player still within his own court also moving towards the ball, he was not able to replay the ball. Has the player of team B been interfered by the team A player?
Each player has the right to stand and move freely in his own court and playing space. There are some limitations to play in opponent’s court or playing space or in the free zone. Therefore, to decide about the eventual interference it is a crucial point, if the player of team A was within his own court or in the free zone. If he moved within his own court, his play was legal. On the other hand if he was in the free zone and his movement can be considered as an interference, he committed a fault. Rule 10.1.2.2
3.11.2 The ball rebounded from the blocker of team A, hit the net and the side band on team B’s side, then landed on the court. The 1st referee decided the action as a successful block and the next serving team is team A. Was it a correct decision?
3.11.2 The ball rebounded from the blocker of team A, hit the net and the side band on team B’s side, then landed on the court. The 1st referee decided the action as a successful block and the next serving team is team A. Was it a correct decision?
No. If the ball hits only the side band, the action is legal. But if the ball hits the antenna as well, it is already a fault. In practice if the hit into the side band/antenna changes the natural rebound (direction) of the ball, it is a clear indication that it has hit something solid, like the antenna, although in reality it has not “contacted” the antenna because the side band prevented the physical contact. Because the ball from the block touched the side band AND the antenna, no matter on blocker’s side or attacker’s side, it became OUT before it landed, i.e. the next service belongs to team B. Rule 6.1.1.2., 8.4.3
3.14 During a spectacular dig a player penetrates into the opponent’s court so, that his body hits the floor, but both legs are completely in the air over the opponent court with no part above the center line. There was no interference with the opponent players. Was it a faulty action?
3.14 During a spectacular dig a player penetrates into the opponent’s court so, that his body hits the floor, but both legs are completely in the air over the opponent court with no part above the center line. There was no interference with the opponent players. Was it a faulty action?
No. By the Rule 11.2.2 it is permitted to touch the opponent’s court with a foot touching or being over the centre line or to touch with any part of the body above the foot (feet) provided there is no interference with the opponent’s play. Since the feet did not touch the opponent’s court and there was no interference with the opponent’s play, the situation cannot be considered as a fault. Rule 11.2.2
3.15 After a simultaneous contact above the plane of the net, the ball landed outside the court of team A. Who gets next service?
3.15 After a simultaneous contact above the plane of the net, the ball landed outside the court of team A. Who gets next service?
If the contact is truly simultaneous by opponents exactly above the net, where both players have the right to play the ball and it lands outside a court, it is the fault of the team on the opposite side. Team A gets service. Rules 9.1.2.2, 9.1.2.3
3.19 While attempting to block, but without touching the ball, which was close to him, the blocker touched the net. Is this a fault?
3.19 While attempting to block, but without touching the ball, which was close to him, the blocker touched the net. Is this a fault?
Yes – since this is “in the action” of playing or attempting to play the ball, even though no contact was made. Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
3.21 An attacker landed securely on the floor then took two steps and brushed against the net outside of the antenna while the ball was still in play. Is this a fault?
3.21 An attacker landed securely on the floor then took two steps and brushed against the net outside of the antenna while the ball was still in play. Is this a fault?
No the player did not commit a fault because:
First:
• the contact was outside the antenna
Then
• he/she has already finished the action of playing the ball and was ready for a new action
• he/she did not use the net as support or stabilizing aid
Rules 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.4.4
3.24 A player hit the net with a foot while playing the ball. Was this action legal?
3.24 A player hit the net with a foot while playing the ball. Was this action legal?
No. This action is not legal. The player touching the net was in the action of playing the ball, when she hit the net. The rule does Casebook 2020 Page 17/60 not make any difference if the net is hit by arm, hand or foot. Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
3.25 A player hit the net with her hair while playing the ball. Was her action legal?
3.25 A player hit the net with her hair while playing the ball. Was her action legal?
Yes. This must only be considered a fault if it is clear, that the net touch affected the opponent’s ability to play the ball or it interrupted the rally (e.g. a ponytail gets tangled in the net). If there was no interference either on the opponent’s play, or on the rally, the referees must not stop the game. Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
3.26 An attacker after spiking the ball hit the blockers hand which had reached over the net plane and drove it to touch the top band of the net. Was there any fault during this action?
3.26 An attacker after spiking the ball hit the blockers hand which had reached over the net plane and drove it to touch the top band of the net. Was there any fault during this action?
The blocker’s net touch cannot be considered as a faulty one, because his action was modified by the attacker. However if the 1st referee realises that the attacker drove the opponent’s hand into the net with a deliberate movement, the attacker made a fault by interfering with the opponent’s play, which is not according to the spirit of FAIR PLAY. Therefore the attacker’s action should be penalised, considered as rude conduct, with the application of the appropriate misconduct sanction. Rules 11.3.1, 20.2.1
3.26.1 A player participating in a collective block already finished the blocking action and landed. However, the “blocking-mate” player during the landing fell down on the previous player and drove her into the net between the antennae. Can this net touch be considered as a faulty one?
3.26.1 A player participating in a collective block already finished the blocking action and landed. However, the “blocking-mate” player during the landing fell down on the previous player and drove her into the net between the antennae. Can this net touch be considered as a faulty one?
Yes. The players of a collective are counted as a „unit”. If one of them is still in the action of playing of the ball, it means the entire unit is in the action. Therefore the other player’s net touch should be considered as a fault. Rules 11.3.1
3.26.2 Is it allowed for a player to penetrate into the opponent’s space under the net when although there is no physical contact with the opponent player, the opponent is shocked by it?
3.26.2 Is it allowed for a player to penetrate into the opponent’s space under the net when although there is no physical contact with the opponent player, the opponent is shocked by it?
It is allowed provided, that the opponent player is not interfered with, preventing him playing the ball. Interference may occur even if there is no physical contact between the players. The 1st referee has the right to stop the game due to the fault of the penetrating player and if necessary, to warn/sanction him. Rule 11.2.1
3.26.3 After a weak service reception of team B the ball went into net close to the sideband. A player of the team A in position 2 did a clear sideway movement towards the ball, hit it with high elevated forearms through the net. The opponent player was not able to play the ball due to the different rebounding from the net. The 1st referee whistled net fault by the player of team A. Was it a correct decision?
3.26.3 After a weak service reception of team B the ball went into net close to the sideband. A player of the team A in position 2 did a clear sideway movement towards the ball, hit it with high elevated forearms through the net. The opponent player was not able to play the ball due to the different rebounding from the net. The 1st referee whistled net fault by the player of team A. Was it a correct decision?
Yes, it was a correct decision.
It wouldn’t be a fault, if the ball hits the player through the net in a situation, where the player standing close to the net is in a passive/neutral position without any movement towards the ball OR protect his/her face/body against a strongly spiked ball.
But if the player moves towards the ball, „chasing” it and deliberately hits it and changing the direction and/or the speed of the rebounding ball, it is not allowed. Rule 11.4.4
3.29 The server threw the ball up high into the air with his back to the court. He/she then caught the ball and immediately served before the end of the 8 seconds allowed for service. Was this a legal action for the server?
3.29 The server threw the ball up high into the air with his back to the court. He/she then caught the ball and immediately served before the end of the 8 seconds allowed for service. Was this a legal action for the server?
The action of the server was legal. During the service the ball must be hit with one hand or any part of the arm after being tossed or released from the hand(s). Any action considered by the 1st referee to be a “toss for service” must end with the ball being hit for the service. Rule 12.4.2
3.32 Is this allowed to execute the jump service hitting the ball with 2 hands?
3.32 Is this allowed to execute the jump service hitting the ball with 2 hands?
No, the rule determines, that during the service, no matter jump or on floor, the ball should be hit with one hand/arm, therefore to hit the ball with 2 hands is forbidden and faulty. Rule 12.4.1, 12.6.1.2
3.34 On a second hit, a player passed the ball near the net towards the opponent’s court. In the 1streferee’s opinion, no player of ‘A’ could possibly reach the ball. The blocker of ‘B’ reached across the plane of the net and blocked the ball. What is the correct decision of the 1st referee?
3.34 On a second hit, a player passed the ball near the net towards the opponent’s court. In the 1streferee’s opinion, no player of ‘A’ could possibly reach the ball. The blocker of ‘B’ reached across the plane of the net and blocked the ball. What is the correct decision of the 1st referee?
Even though it was only the second team hit, if the ball is moving in the direction of the opponent’s court, it is an attack hit. Because, in the referee’s opinion, no player of ‘A’ could possibly have reached and was willing to play the ball, the block of ‘B’ was legal. Rules 13.1.1, 14.3, Guidelines 14.1
3.49 A player of the team A attacked the ball, which was blocked by the blocker of team B. After the block hit, the ball crossed the lower space (i.e. under the net) and landed on the court of the team B. Which team won the rally?
3.49 A player of the team A attacked the ball, which was blocked by the blocker of team B. After the block hit, the ball crossed the lower space (i.e. under the net) and landed on the court of the team B. Which team won the rally?
It should be considered as a perfect block, the rally has been won by the team B.
3.50 An attacker spiked the ball OUT, but the blocker’s pony tail hit the ball. The hit was proved by the video challenge footage. The 1st referee decided „touched ball” and the next service to the attacking team. Was this decision correct?
3.50 An attacker spiked the ball OUT, but the blocker’s pony tail hit the ball. The hit was proved by the video challenge footage. The 1st referee decided „touched ball” and the next service to the attacking team. Was this decision correct?
No. The net touch by hair is not considered as a fault, unless this net touch has influence on the game. Keeping consistency to this approach, the touch by blocker’s hair is not counted as a touch. The rally would have to be won by the defending team.
3.51 The ball rebounded high from the opponent block of the team A, then returned to the opponent space. There a player close to the net, reaching over the top of the net, hit the ball, which rebounded from the top band and the same player hit it again. Is this a legal play?
3.51 The ball rebounded high from the opponent block of the team A, then returned to the opponent space. There a player close to the net, reaching over the top of the net, hit the ball, which rebounded from the top band and the same player hit it again. Is this a legal play?
Yes, the 1st referee made a good decision for allowing the rally continue. If a player, close to the net and reaching over the top of the net, hits the ball coming from the opponent, the action might be either block or attack hit. During the judgment, the position of the player’s hand(s) or other part of body should be counted, but the height of the ball is irrelevant. The player’s hit is considered as a “block”, if the player stretches reaching over the net to intercept the ball with one or two hands without a classical spiking/backswing movement (refer case 3.54). Based on the above interpretation the situation illustrated by the video should be considered as a blocking, legal action.
3.52 A ball was blocked straight down. Before the ball landed on the opponent’s floor, the ball touched the leg of the middle blocker, who was already standing on the floor without the intention of kicking the ball. If there was no leg hit, the ball would have landed clearly on the floor on team B’s side. Can the middle blocker’s leg touch be considered as an interference to the opponent’s play?
3.52 A ball was blocked straight down. Before the ball landed on the opponent’s floor, the ball touched the leg of the middle blocker, who was already standing on the floor without the intention of kicking the ball. If there was no leg hit, the ball would have landed clearly on the floor on team B’s side. Can the middle blocker’s leg touch be considered as an interference to the opponent’s play?
No. Because the middle blocker’s leg touch was unintentional and he already stood on the floor, he made no mistake. However if the contact was well above the floor, and there was an opponent player with a potential play on the ball, then this is interference.
3.53 A back row setter facing towards his own end line jumped close to the net when the attacked ball from the opponent hit his head. Can this action be considered as an illegal block?
3.53 A back row setter facing towards his own end line jumped close to the net when the attacked ball from the opponent hit his head. Can this action be considered as an illegal block?
To consider that an action is a block 3 conditions should be fulfilled simultaneously: - the player is close to the net - the ball is coming from the opponent - the player has some part of his body projecting above the top of the net. It is not relevant which direction the player is facing. If the referee judges that the 3 conditions have been fulfilled, the action was a block.
3.54 A player of team B sent the ball slightly to the opponent. A player of team A close to the net, reaching over the top of the net, hit the ball, which rebounded from the top band and the same player hits it again. Had the 1st referee a good decision allowing the rally to continue?
3.54 A player of team B sent the ball slightly to the opponent. A player of team A close to the net, reaching over the top of the net, hit the ball, which rebounded from the top band and the same player hits it again. Had the 1st referee a good decision allowing the rally to continue?
No. The situation is similar, but still different to the case 3.51. If a player, close to the net and reaching over the top of the net, hits the ball coming from the opponent, the action might be either block or attack hit. During the judgment, the position of the player’s hand(s) or other part of body should be counted, but the height of the ball is irrelevant. The player’s hit is considered as an attack, i.e. first team hit, if the player uses a classical spiking/backswing movement of the arm as on video shown, then hits the ball directing it towards the opponent. Therefore, if the player for this first hit executes an attack “spike”, then hits again the ball rebounding from the net, he/ she commits a “double hit” fault. Based on the above interpretation the situation illustrated by the video should be considered as a “double hit”, faulty action. The rally should immediately be stopped and won by team B.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse