Message sent to r.s.v.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rules: Block vs. Attack on tight overpass to net (was: Please, help)
- Subject: Re: Rules: Block vs. Attack on tight overpass to net (was: Please, help)
- From: Todd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 09 Feb 1999 21:49:09 -0600
- Bcc: Tom Blue <email@example.com>
- In-Reply-To: "Rainer Perske"'s message of Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:48:45 +0100
- Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball
- Organization: Not likely
- References: <Xsorp01.6.000C8258@vse.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.A41.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
- Xref: nathan.enteract.com sent-to-rsv:195
"Rainer Perske" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Rob Peglar wrote:
> > In a nutshell, if the R1 judges the action was something more than
> > an 'intercept', i.e. an 'active' (vs. passive) or 'swinging'
> > (vs. stable) motion, then the play becomes an attack per jure.
> > Otherwise, it is a block.
> As an FIVB-rule referee, I say no. If this is your wording, I totally
> disagree. Do not read meanings in rules where there are no meanings. The
> wording "action to intercept" does not contain any description of allowed
> or forbidden motions. And if you want to read between the words: Blocking
> is an "action". An action is normally active, not passive.
> Blocking is, as defined in the citated rule,
> If the rule committee wants to forbid the arm swinging action, it has to
> change the rule wording.
I agree with you Rainer...we shouldn't have to be so dependent on
official interpretations to clarify things that are misleadingly
presented in the ruleboo. However, Tom Blue (USAV rules interpreter
and international FIVB official, if I'm not mistaken) has informed me
that the rulemaking bodies--USAV and FIVB-- are content with the state
of affairs: namely, the current rule wordings combined with the
current interpretation that Rob has stated above.
I agree that the current rule wording does not stand alone and support
the interpretation that has been handed down. The rule should be
reworded to make this interpretation self-evident.
At any rate, one thing is clear: no one at the highest levels of the
ruling bodies seems interested in making an active arm-swingin' attack
legal in this situation.
> > >>[Tom Blue wrote:]
> > >>>The issue arises as follows: The USA Volleyball definition of a
> > >>>block (taken almost verbatim from the FIVB rules): "Blocking is the
> > >>>action that deflects the ball coming from the opponent by (a)
> > >>>player(s) close to the net reaching higher than the net." Given that
> > >>>definition, why should the manner in which a ball coming from the
> > >>>opponents is contacted matter? Logically speaking, a blocker could
> > >>>use a passive motion with hand(s) above the height of the net to
> > >>>deflect the ball or an active swing of the arm contacting the ball
> > >>>with one hand to deflect and the result is a blocked ball.
Ah, preachin' to the choir. :-)
It all depends on what you want to take as gospel...the intentions of
the rules writers, the actual words in the rulebook, or the
clarifications of the rules writers' intentions as depicted in the
official interpretations of the written rules [deep breath].
In this case, unfortunately, these do not mach up with the current
definition of "block" in our rulebooks.
If their intention is to make an active attack on the opponents side
of the net illegal, then by all means the block and attack definitions
should be reworded to make the distinction crystal clear in this
situation. So few people have access to all of these interpretations,
but everyone can get their hands on a rulebook.
Todd H. email@example.com
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 |