Message sent to r.s.v.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Co-Ed ruling.
- Subject: Re: Co-Ed ruling.
- From: Todd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 11 Nov 1997 08:24:02 -0600
- Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball
- Organization: Not likely
- References: <3467D377.A75BD90B@mindspring.com><email@example.com><346851EC.F1764DC2@mindspring.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Xref: enteract.com sent-to-rsv:102
Chris White <email@example.com> writes:
> Ok but would a "roof" be considered a block or would it be
> considered an attack?
> Thanks for the reply.
> Chris White
Uh, oh. Here we go again. :)
Technically, you can get in to quite the definitions debate here, as
happened in this forum a couple months ago. By a strict reading of
the rules, one could argue that any action deflecting the ball coming
from the opponent, above the net, is a block. However, in practice,
the Rules Gods have not yet published an interpretation on this.
The block vs. attack distinction is left to the referee's judgement.
As long as this blocker doesn't haul off and whack the ball down with
a single hand, a 2-handed roof block would be perfectly legal here.
Basically, if it looks like an attack, it probably was. A smart
back-row male blocker will play it safe and block the ball away from
The rules do not address this completely, and I do not believe a rules
interpretation clarifying the issue has been published yet.
Two threads where this discussion occurred:
"interference (contact with player, above the net)"
"Re: Contact under net . . . "
These are available via a www.dejanews.com power search.
Todd H. firstname.lastname@example.org
USAV Regional Referee, Great Lakes Region, Palatine, IL
Todd's Volleyball Referee Page http://www.io.com/~tdh/vball/
"So you're a Ref and an engineer? Oh that explains it...."
Search this archive! |
Back to Todd's Ref Page |
Main Index |