@@narwhal004 not really, the camera angle is off-centered, to say with confidence even with the replay that the call was definitely incorrect is wrong in my opinion. But regardless of our disagreement here, Gary's point that it was even more difficult of a call real-time to make is 100% correct.
@@TheRio966 The setters hand was between the net and the ball. She was pushing the ball back and it was an interference on a potential block. If her hand were pointed the other way, I would agree it was more difficult to call. A good rule of thumb is never block a second touch.
I have had problems refereeing volleyball and especially calling illegally blocked balls. Great video (1st clip) and narrative. I only wish others would follow your example.NFHS says the near-the-net calls are judgment calls.
The first one was going to enter the plane of the net, but i think the block made first contact penetrating the plane which makes it illegal. If she kept her hands flat or behind the plane at first contact, it wouldve been legal.
You are aloud to touch the ball on the opponents side when you are making a block FIVB rulebook 14.3 - In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net, provided that this action does not interfere with the opponent’s play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit.
@@WimVandewijngaerde 1. This is not an attack hit. 2. This is indeed interference with her one hand touch/set play. In real time its anyones ball as its too close to call. But in slow mo footage its a bit more definitive to call.
@@alvink8317 13.1.1 in the FIVB rule book states that a ball towards the opponents side is an attack hit. It doesn't matter of it was a first or second touch, and the characteristics of the hit is also irrelevant.
@@jpzehner Only if it is an attack hit (13.1.1 - All actions which direct the ball towards the opponent, with the exception of service and block, are considered as attack hits.). And yes, a very bad reception that will cross the net is also an attack hit and is aloud the be blocked on the side of the opponent before it crosses the vertical plane above the net.
"Directional" blocks are the WORST thing that the rules makers let the players get away with! I have seen so many THROWS (in college) that are not called, it's ridiculous !
I agree that in NCAA volleyball there have been way too many throws that are either overlooked or misjudged as double touches. Plenty of setters committed throwing when they tipped the ball with both hands. But the directional block in this video was clean and legal.
It is important to know if the middle is blocking the ball... In the first clip the ball was coming over the net and therefore it is a block which you may do over the net. If the ball was not going over the net then it was a over reach.
At 1:16 the ball is not in the plane of the net, the white player is over-reaching and making contact while the ball is still inside the attacking team's side. The reason this is still a legal block is because this was the attacking team's 3rd touch with the ball clearly going over to the other side, therefore the white team can legally block it, even before it enters the net plane.
on the third play it's debatable whether the receiving team couldnt make a play on the ball - it seems to me that it was possible for a player to make a play had the blocker not reached over . That ball was coming in short and couldve bounced back into the receiving teams court for more touches. I dont see how its legal. 0:56
The rule book being used in these cases is US National Federation of High Schools, age group is 14-18. The principles used in NFHS are similar to FiVB but the verbage sometimes differs. Under NFHS rules, if the ball has not broken the plane of the net, the back row setter has all rights to play the ball without interference. When the blocker reached over before the ball entered the plane of the net, she committed a blocking fault by interfering with the setter's attempt to play the ball. if the ball had entered the plane of the net, or the back row setter had directed the ball toward the opponent while above the net, the correct call would be back row block/attack, depending on who touched the ball first.
Thanks for this interesting video. However, concerning the example at 1'00", international volleyball rules art. 14.6 states that : "it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net before an opponent has executed an attack hit."
1st one was too close to call, camera angle is off centered so impossible to confidently say it was correct or incorrect. However, the explanation is specific enough that the point gets across, so that's good!
Is it possible to have a link for the rulebook you are using, I can't find one that has a ''rule 9-6 art. 4'''. I was able to find the USAV indoor (2019-2021) rules 14.3b that would allow the second block shown, but the VC_Rulebook (canada 2020-2021) rule 14.3 states that an opponent must have executed an attack hit for it to be legal.
@@RobLivingstonVB Thank you for the answer. It seems there is a difference between the ones we have here in Canada but I have noticed that high school rules tend also to make adjustments.
So my daughter has played for years and I’m learning as she does. She starts jr high next season. And I want some help understanding this. More then likely she’s going to start upfront as she’s 5’6 in 6th grade. The first play, you said since back row setter is attempting to play ball it was interfering with the play. But the person who was trying to set when the lady hit it was always in the front. Did I miss something? Thanks for the help
Usually when the opposite team is serving, setter moves up front and front court player usually moves back for 'receive formation' since setter isn't receiving because setter is always second touch not first. Since setter was trying to set, it is illegal to block the set because it is second touch or considered interfering with the play. only time you can block the setter is when they are doing a dump or is third touch.
You are correct, the setter was a front row player. The issue was the blocker on the right, who put her hands over the net to block. Since no part of the ball ever went over the net, and the setter was attempting to play the ball, it should have been called an illegal block and the point awarded to the left side.
Front and backcourt players during serve reception has to do with the placement of their feet. The setter was in the front "space", but as long as her feet are behind front foot of the front court player, she is in correct backcourt position. We saw that she stood behind the front court player when the serve took place, and then she ran to the center front to set.
@@brendanh8193 From what I saw during serve reception, the setter was a backcourt player. If she put that ball over instead of setting, she would have been called for back row attack.
@@9y2bgy Hmm, it seems my reply didn't go through. If we look at the position at serve, at 0:06, we can see that she is in the front left position. In the left back position is a considerably taller girl. Her swapping is entirely to do with moving to the centre front from the left front.
I wish they'd do this for beach volleyball lol. Their rules are all over the place, sometimes they will call a lift.. sometimes not. Sometimes they will call a tip.. sometimes not.
Setting rules for beach are ridiculous. Especially at amateur level where you're expected to ref each other. No two people can agree on what comprises a double, or how long you're allowed to touch the ball before it's a carry
In the third example, its a judgement call, but in my opinion 1) the ball would not cross the net 2) the players from the receiving team were close enough to play the ball off the net. Hence - in my opinion incorrect call.
I'm not so sure about #3. As an R1 my perspective would be quite different than a person at the camera's position. In MY opinion, a lot depends upon how close player (#1) was to the ball/net .... she could have made a foot dig on the ball if she was close enough to the net ..... we'll never know !
Nope, perfectly legal. See FIVB casebook 3.34, 3.38 and 9.1. If the ball is moving towards the blocker's side of the net, the blocker is allowed to reach over and block the ball provided that it does not interfere with any attackers trying to make a play on the ball
@@cliffworsfold1994 The ball isn't moving towards the block in this clip.. that was obviously going to the net and maybe with the second and third touch the team could make pass the ball in the other part of field.
@@lucacristiano1321 “moving towards the net” does NOT require the ball to cross the net. It’s exactly as it sounds - moving towards (in the direction of) the net. PERFECTLY legal to block it, under the conditions above.
1st call is a different call if at least 1% or more of the ball is over the net, in fact, I think that is what the ref was calling, and was right in the 1st situation.. Thank you for citing that your perception is that the ball wasn't over yet - that's the right rule and call, however, one you didn't mention is that if a backrow setter is trying to set a ball that is over the net, the blocker can have her way with it.
Nevertheless in the case the ball had entered the blocker's space, she was still not allowed to touch the ball inside the opponent's space, but only inside her team's space. Her fingers are clearly touching the ball inside the opponent's space. Fault.
All you need to know: 1. Penetrating the center line is allowed for any part of the body above the feet, so long as it doesn't interfere with opponents' play. 2. The feet may be completely on the opponents' side without touching the ground, but if a foot does touch the ground, the entire foot can not be past the edge of the center line. Everything else is allowed so long as it does not interfere with opponents' play. Bonus: If you fall/ slide past the line, your teammate may pull you back to prevent your feet from going completely past the line and touching the ground.
it wasn't the setter is in the back row u can see her hand is open and she's jumping up if goes over that's a backrow attack if she sets it up its a carry. the block isn't illegal given that the bad pass would have putt the ball over the net.
it does not even need to enter the plane above the net. A block player is aloud to touch the ball on the side of the opponent as long the block player doesn't hinder the opposite team. Blocking is also only aloud on attacking balls (balls that show a trajectory that will cross the net if the ball will not be touched anymore). But that is clearly the case here.
@@ivanlima244 Can you explain why? Let me clarify my earlier statement: FIVB Rule Book 14.3 - In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net, provided that this action does not interfere with the opponent’s play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit. What is an attack? FIVB Rule Book 13.1.1 - All actions which direct the ball towards the opponent, with the exception of service and block, are considered as attack hits.
@@WimVandewijngaerde The setter was not attempting to play the ball towards the opponent. She was trying to keep it on her team's side, and that does not count as an attack.
@@rubentoth2770 but the first touch would have gone over the net, so it would be aloud to block the ball on the side of the opponent on condition the play of this opponent was not hindered. I accept that this last part can be a point of discussion, although there are plenty of examples in the FIVB case book that show that this kind of blocking should be judged as illegal because the setter is hindered. But besides that all conditions are fulfilled to block the ball on the side of the opponent.
First one I disagree with. Angle of the camera makes it look like it hasn’t entered but I do think the nose of the ball is in the plane and therefore legal. I agree with all others.
I see it the same. The ruling is correct in my opinion, and the video is wrong IMO for the 1st call. Once 1% of the ball has come over the net, the blocker is allowed to do what she pleases regardless of back row setters attempts or intentions. I see the ball as
Some good video demonstrations of illegal and legal blocks, thanks! But the face diapers, man, what a shameful period of coerced idiocy in our history; glad it only lasted about a week where I live before people wised up to how stupid and harmful it was.
They can. A back row setter cannot make an jumping offensive play on a ball or block at the net, however. They can do what's called a standing block, where they don't leave their feet. Totally legal. The second they leave their feet to make an offensive play or block/joust, it then becomes illegal.
Sorry, the rule book makes no mention of jumping as legal or illegal. The referee needs to make a judgement as to whether the ball is completely above the net on contact. It's only illegal if the the ball is completely above net when played by a back-row player. This is applicable in all rule codes.
The first one is legal. The setter is a backrow player and once she leaves the ground and the opposing player touches the ball at the same time, the setter will be called for a backrow attacker. The third is an over reach because the ball didn't even cross the plane of the net. Second and fourth videos are correct.
The first one is illegal. Backrow setters are allowed to leave the ground, but they can't attack the ball if the ball is above the tape of the net. The ball was above the tape, but it was not being attacked; the setter tried to set the ball. That makes it a legal hit for the setter but an illegal block.
@@danvandenboogaard2673 She's still a backrow player. She cannot jump and be above the net when making contact with the ball and the blocker makes contact with the ball at the same time.
@@alanac.2828 Huh? This isn't true by any means. The only restrictions on back row players are attacking. Suggesting that someone in the back row can't touch the ball above the tape line is crazy.
@@MikeQOutdoors Read my comment again, she cannot make contact with the ball while above the plane of the net while the blocker for the other team makes contact with is as well. She becomes a back row blocker/attacker, whatever you want to call it. That's illegal.
@@alanac.2828 What rule are you basing this on? If that were the case than a blocker could attack at any point a back row setter jumps in an attempt to “joust”. That runs contrary to the point of the rule
It was illegal, you can see her trying to do one handed set as her hand was in front of the ball not behind. blocking set is illegal/interfering with play.
in the first one, they both made contact above the net. the setter, implied by the receive formation is back row and cant reasonably be expected to make a legal play by jump setting. citing the same rule that you used Rule 9-6 Art. 3 c, blocker team was right to do that.
Nah, the rules states that the ball is a free ball when its hanging above the net. Eventho the setter is in tbe back she is allowed to jump set, and the ball wasnt hanging above the net so its the fault of the block!
1st example, I believe the rule should be cited as: Rule 9-6 Art. 3 as Art. 4 defines the elements of a legal block. In this case it was illegal so it would be Art. 3
First situation - It is a legal block since the reception would have crossed the plane above the net. A block is aloud to contact the ball before it crosses the plane. The block also played the ball before the setter touched the ball. If it was simultaneously, it would have been a block fault. In this case, it was a legal block.
Bruh, you're talking nonsense. Did you even check the articles mentioned in the video? For others, don't listen to him, go check the rules in §3.38 and §9.1. The latter addresses specifically the first situation
@@Rotlapek I have no idea whicj rule book is being used. The numbers do not correspond to the FIVB rule book. After reading the FIVB case book I would reconsider me first opinion from legal to illegal. Not because of the fact the blocker is touching the ball in the opponents side (which is aloud), but because of hindering the setter. FIVB 13.1.1 and 14.3
@@WimVandewijngaerde You are correct, the only way this play wouldn't be called a fault on the setter is if she had both feet on the ground while attempting that set, because she is a back row player.
@@alanac.2828 I would say it would be a legal block if the setter didn't make an attempt. The fact is she is touching the floor or not with her feet has nothing to do in this situation. As a matter of fact, considering the legality of attack by backrow players, it is not the touching of the ground that is of relevance, but the height of playing/touching the ball. This is a rule not known by many players.
@@kainguyen5248 the setter is protected as long as the ball stays on her side, because it is illegal for the opponent to interfere the play unless the ball is 1/directed to them, 2/breaks the plan of the net.
Not if 1% of the ball is over. I don't thing the ball is 100% on the setters side. I agree with ref, diasree with video. This is a judgement call, not the rule the video cited. The video is correct if the ball is 100% on the setters side. i don't see it that way.
I disagree if you’re saying the blocker touched the ball before setter. It’s only IF the setter touched the ball first and attempted to set (not attack) then it would be an illegal block. Otherwise the blocker is just blocking an overpass and the setter was too late. But I cannot tell who touched it first on the video. It’s a tough call.
I have no idea which rule book you are using, but none of the explanations you're giving is in accordance with the FIVB rulebook. It is legal to block on the side of the opponent, as long it is an attacking ball (ball that will cross the plane above the net), and it does not hinder any player on the other side.
@@NootWust not sure if you are replying to me. But as I have said, these are illegal reach over by the blocker, because a ball is legal to block if in the referee judgement , if the ball is going to penetrate the crossing space, or has penetrated the crossing space, OR the ball is directed toward the opponent’s playing area.
The first block is legal what are you talking about??? the blocker block was 1 directional, no reaching whatsoever, no wrist bending. Its literally a soft block and you cannot call a soft block illegal. LOL common Rob. PLUS the setter was going up with 1 hand, her hand also went above the net. Of course you're allowed to block this one LOL. Bruh. But all the other calls are correct.
The first block was called correctly, camera angle makes it look like it hasn't crossed the plane when it has. Also, the setter is back row and in attempting to jump set the ball if the setter and blocker contact the ball simultaneously the setter should be called for an illegal back row attack.
As far as I know the backrow players are allowed to play the ball above the net in the front row, if they don't get it on the other side, but just set it for another player. The set would've been completaly legal. But it was a really tough call even with that being allowed, because if the setter wouldn't have touched the ball it definelty would've gone to the other side.
@@phillipd8343 If the setter is back row and jump sets the ball for attempts to(in the front row), and the ball is then blocked by the other team one of two things should be called if it's the second touch. Either a roofing call or an illegal back row attack
It looks like the ball is entirely on the setter's side of the net. As the setter didn't complete an attack hit, the blocker is not allowed to touch the ball
The setter was likely going for a one handed set which is a common practice when the first pass is tight. Imagine touching the ball when a setter is in the motion of setting or correcting a bad pass, that's very illegal.
@@cliffworsfold1994 the fact that the ball is still entirely on the side of the setter is irrelevant. The question that should be asked is, does the block player hinder the setting?
@@lipeeefl That's indeed the only observation you need. In slow motion I am rather sure the block was on the ball way before the setter would have been. In other words, no hindering (my opinion). But certainly at real speed I completely understand that you judge the setter is hindered. I would make the same call. But also in the slow motion images there is room for discussion :-) The thing that is irritating me in the video and the discussions here is that the explanations are not in line with the FIVB rules. As if a different rule book with different explanations was used.
Good examples of each. First one is a tough call in real time.
All of these calls were pretty easy to call from the camera angle at least
1st one agree is a tough call in real time, even in slo mo. I think the ref got it right.
@@narwhal004 not really, the camera angle is off-centered, to say with confidence even with the replay that the call was definitely incorrect is wrong in my opinion. But regardless of our disagreement here, Gary's point that it was even more difficult of a call real-time to make is 100% correct.
@@TheRio966 The setters hand was between the net and the ball. She was pushing the ball back and it was an interference on a potential block. If her hand were pointed the other way, I would agree it was more difficult to call. A good rule of thumb is never block a second touch.
Since the setter was playing the ball, there shouldn’t be a block in the first place
If only volleyball had the same amount of dedication to ensuring a correct call was made like they do in Foosball...
they do, in professional play. It's the same program that they use in tennis.
I have had problems refereeing volleyball and especially calling illegally blocked balls. Great video (1st clip) and narrative. I only wish others would follow your example.NFHS says the near-the-net calls are judgment calls.
The third play might have been playable off the net. The players were getting low to try and make a play off it.
Easy calls for experienced players! Thanks for sharing for those who question the rules!
The first one was going to enter the plane of the net, but i think the block made first contact penetrating the plane which makes it illegal. If she kept her hands flat or behind the plane at first contact, it wouldve been legal.
You are aloud to touch the ball on the opponents side when you are making a block
FIVB rulebook 14.3 - In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net, provided that this action does not interfere with the opponent’s play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit.
@@WimVandewijngaerde 1. This is not an attack hit. 2. This is indeed interference with her one hand touch/set play.
In real time its anyones ball as its too close to call. But in slow mo footage its a bit more definitive to call.
@@alvink8317 13.1.1 in the FIVB rule book states that a ball towards the opponents side is an attack hit. It doesn't matter of it was a first or second touch, and the characteristics of the hit is also irrelevant.
@@WimVandewijngaerde the implications of your interpretation would allow *any* contact across the plane into the opponent's side to be legal.
@@jpzehner Only if it is an attack hit (13.1.1 - All actions which direct the ball towards the opponent, with the exception of service and block, are considered as attack hits.). And yes, a very bad reception that will cross the net is also an attack hit and is aloud the be blocked on the side of the opponent before it crosses the vertical plane above the net.
"Directional" blocks are the WORST thing that the rules makers let the players get away with!
I have seen so many THROWS (in college) that are not called, it's ridiculous !
I agree that in NCAA volleyball there have been way too many throws that are either overlooked or misjudged as double touches. Plenty of setters committed throwing when they tipped the ball with both hands. But the directional block in this video was clean and legal.
It is important to know if the middle is blocking the ball...
In the first clip the ball was coming over the net and therefore it is a block which you may do over the net. If the ball was not going over the net then it was a over reach.
At 1:16 the ball is not in the plane of the net, the white player is over-reaching and making contact while the ball is still inside the attacking team's side. The reason this is still a legal block is because this was the attacking team's 3rd touch with the ball clearly going over to the other side, therefore the white team can legally block it, even before it enters the net plane.
on the third play it's debatable whether the receiving team couldnt make a play on the ball - it seems to me that it was possible for a player to make a play had the blocker not reached over . That ball was coming in short and couldve bounced back into the receiving teams court for more touches. I dont see how its legal. 0:56
The rule book being used in these cases is US National Federation of High Schools, age group is 14-18. The principles used in NFHS are similar to FiVB but the verbage sometimes differs. Under NFHS rules, if the ball has not broken the plane of the net, the back row setter has all rights to play the ball without interference. When the blocker reached over before the ball entered the plane of the net, she committed a blocking fault by interfering with the setter's attempt to play the ball. if the ball had entered the plane of the net, or the back row setter had directed the ball toward the opponent while above the net, the correct call would be back row block/attack, depending on who touched the ball first.
Thanks for this interesting video.
However, concerning the example at 1'00", international volleyball rules art. 14.6 states that :
"it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net before an opponent has executed an attack hit."
I’ve never watched a video about valleyball and have no idea what these mean, but thank you for recommending me this RUclips.
1st one was too close to call, camera angle is off centered so impossible to confidently say it was correct or incorrect. However, the explanation is specific enough that the point gets across, so that's good!
Is it possible to have a link for the rulebook you are using, I can't find one that has a ''rule 9-6 art. 4'''. I was able to find the USAV indoor (2019-2021) rules 14.3b that would allow the second block shown, but the VC_Rulebook (canada 2020-2021) rule 14.3 states that an opponent must have executed an attack hit for it to be legal.
NFHS, not USAV
@@RobLivingstonVB Thank you for the answer. It seems there is a difference between the ones we have here in Canada but I have noticed that high school rules tend also to make adjustments.
So my daughter has played for years and I’m learning as she does. She starts jr high next season. And I want some help understanding this. More then likely she’s going to start upfront as she’s 5’6 in 6th grade. The first play, you said since back row setter is attempting to play ball it was interfering with the play. But the person who was trying to set when the lady hit it was always in the front. Did I miss something? Thanks for the help
Usually when the opposite team is serving, setter moves up front and front court player usually moves back for 'receive formation' since setter isn't receiving because setter is always second touch not first. Since setter was trying to set, it is illegal to block the set because it is second touch or considered interfering with the play. only time you can block the setter is when they are doing a dump or is third touch.
You are correct, the setter was a front row player. The issue was the blocker on the right, who put her hands over the net to block. Since no part of the ball ever went over the net, and the setter was attempting to play the ball, it should have been called an illegal block and the point awarded to the left side.
Front and backcourt players during serve reception has to do with the placement of their feet. The setter was in the front "space", but as long as her feet are behind front foot of the front court player, she is in correct backcourt position. We saw that she stood behind the front court player when the serve took place, and then she ran to the center front to set.
@@brendanh8193 From what I saw during serve reception, the setter was a backcourt player. If she put that ball over instead of setting, she would have been called for back row attack.
@@9y2bgy Hmm, it seems my reply didn't go through. If we look at the position at serve, at 0:06, we can see that she is in the front left position. In the left back position is a considerably taller girl. Her swapping is entirely to do with moving to the centre front from the left front.
I wish they'd do this for beach volleyball lol. Their rules are all over the place, sometimes they will call a lift.. sometimes not.
Sometimes they will call a tip.. sometimes not.
Setting rules for beach are ridiculous. Especially at amateur level where you're expected to ref each other. No two people can agree on what comprises a double, or how long you're allowed to touch the ball before it's a carry
In the third example, its a judgement call, but in my opinion 1) the ball would not cross the net 2) the players from the receiving team were close enough to play the ball off the net. Hence - in my opinion incorrect call.
I'm not so sure about #3. As an R1 my perspective would be quite different than a person at the camera's position. In MY opinion, a lot depends upon how close player (#1) was to the ball/net .... she could have made a foot dig on the ball if she was close enough to the net ..... we'll never know !
I think that block at minute 1:00 is not legal.
Ya fs, but I think the first clip can be hard to see in real-time without instant replay
I agree. The attack was not complete.
Nope, perfectly legal. See FIVB casebook 3.34, 3.38 and 9.1.
If the ball is moving towards the blocker's side of the net, the blocker is allowed to reach over and block the ball provided that it does not interfere with any attackers trying to make a play on the ball
@@cliffworsfold1994 The ball isn't moving towards the block in this clip.. that was obviously going to the net and maybe with the second and third touch the team could make pass the ball in the other part of field.
@@lucacristiano1321 “moving towards the net” does NOT require the ball to cross the net. It’s exactly as it sounds - moving towards (in the direction of) the net. PERFECTLY legal to block it, under the conditions above.
1st call is a different call if at least 1% or more of the ball is over the net, in fact, I think that is what the ref was calling, and was right in the 1st situation.. Thank you for citing that your perception is that the ball wasn't over yet - that's the right rule and call, however, one you didn't mention is that if a backrow setter is trying to set a ball that is over the net, the blocker can have her way with it.
Nevertheless in the case the ball had entered the blocker's space, she was still not allowed to touch the ball inside the opponent's space, but only inside her team's space. Her fingers are clearly touching the ball inside the opponent's space. Fault.
Please make a video on center line violation
All you need to know:
1. Penetrating the center line is allowed for any part of the body above the feet, so long as it doesn't interfere with opponents' play.
2. The feet may be completely on the opponents' side without touching the ground, but if a foot does touch the ground, the entire foot can not be past the edge of the center line. Everything else is allowed so long as it does not interfere with opponents' play.
Bonus: If you fall/ slide past the line, your teammate may pull you back to prevent your feet from going completely past the line and touching the ground.
more importantly to me here is why the setters always are off the net and have to move back to it again
it wasn't the setter is in the back row u can see her hand is open and she's jumping up if goes over that's a backrow attack if she sets it up its a carry. the block isn't illegal given that the bad pass would have putt the ball over the net.
I don’t think that setter in the first clip was going to make that set work. It appears to me that she was a trying to tip it over.
The first clip, in my opinion, was called correctly, as that ball appears to have entered the plane of the net.
it does not even need to enter the plane above the net. A block player is aloud to touch the ball on the side of the opponent as long the block player doesn't hinder the opposite team. Blocking is also only aloud on attacking balls (balls that show a trajectory that will cross the net if the ball will not be touched anymore). But that is clearly the case here.
You are WRONG.
@@ivanlima244 Can you explain why?
Let me clarify my earlier statement:
FIVB Rule Book 14.3 - In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net, provided that this action does not interfere with the opponent’s play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit.
What is an attack?
FIVB Rule Book 13.1.1 - All actions which direct the ball towards the opponent, with the exception of service and block, are considered as attack hits.
@@WimVandewijngaerde The setter was not attempting to play the ball towards the opponent. She was trying to keep it on her team's side, and that does not count as an attack.
@@rubentoth2770 but the first touch would have gone over the net, so it would be aloud to block the ball on the side of the opponent on condition the play of this opponent was not hindered. I accept that this last part can be a point of discussion, although there are plenty of examples in the FIVB case book that show that this kind of blocking should be judged as illegal because the setter is hindered. But besides that all conditions are fulfilled to block the ball on the side of the opponent.
First one I disagree with. Angle of the camera makes it look like it hasn’t entered but I do think the nose of the ball is in the plane and therefore legal. I agree with all others.
I see it the same. The ruling is correct in my opinion, and the video is wrong IMO for the 1st call. Once 1% of the ball has come over the net, the blocker is allowed to do what she pleases regardless of back row setters attempts or intentions. I see the ball as
Some good video demonstrations of illegal and legal blocks, thanks! But the face diapers, man, what a shameful period of coerced idiocy in our history; glad it only lasted about a week where I live before people wised up to how stupid and harmful it was.
i thought a back row setter could not jump to set at the net.
They can. A back row setter cannot make an jumping offensive play on a ball or block at the net, however. They can do what's called a standing block, where they don't leave their feet. Totally legal. The second they leave their feet to make an offensive play or block/joust, it then becomes illegal.
Sorry, the rule book makes no mention of jumping as legal or illegal. The referee needs to make a judgement as to whether the ball is completely above the net on contact. It's only illegal if the the ball is completely above net when played by a back-row player. This is applicable in all rule codes.
1 illegal setter exhibited , 2 legal the setter no longer touched the ball , 3 legal, 4 legal,
The first one is legal. The setter is a backrow player and once she leaves the ground and the opposing player touches the ball at the same time, the setter will be called for a backrow attacker. The third is an over reach because the ball didn't even cross the plane of the net. Second and fourth videos are correct.
The first one is illegal. Backrow setters are allowed to leave the ground, but they can't attack the ball if the ball is above the tape of the net. The ball was above the tape, but it was not being attacked; the setter tried to set the ball. That makes it a legal hit for the setter but an illegal block.
@@danvandenboogaard2673 She's still a backrow player. She cannot jump and be above the net when making contact with the ball and the blocker makes contact with the ball at the same time.
@@alanac.2828 Huh? This isn't true by any means. The only restrictions on back row players are attacking. Suggesting that someone in the back row can't touch the ball above the tape line is crazy.
@@MikeQOutdoors Read my comment again, she cannot make contact with the ball while above the plane of the net while the blocker for the other team makes contact with is as well. She becomes a back row blocker/attacker, whatever you want to call it. That's illegal.
@@alanac.2828 What rule are you basing this on? If that were the case than a blocker could attack at any point a back row setter jumps in an attempt to “joust”. That runs contrary to the point of the rule
Маски зачем?
I think the first one was legal. The setter was not trying to set, but to tip. Legal play.
It was illegal, you can see her trying to do one handed set as her hand was in front of the ball not behind. blocking set is illegal/interfering with play.
@Michael E Ye you are probably right, also because the setter was in the backrow and could not tip anyway.
first one is legal. the setter also only went up with one hand. the 2nd one is illegal. last 2 are easy
“One hand” has nothing to do with the call.
in the first one, they both made contact above the net. the setter, implied by the receive formation is back row and cant reasonably be expected to make a legal play by jump setting. citing the same rule that you used Rule 9-6 Art. 3 c, blocker team was right to do that.
Nah, the rules states that the ball is a free ball when its hanging above the net. Eventho the setter is in tbe back she is allowed to jump set, and the ball wasnt hanging above the net so its the fault of the block!
1st example, I believe the rule should be cited as: Rule 9-6 Art. 3 as Art. 4 defines the elements of a legal block. In this case it was illegal so it would be Art. 3
First situation - It is a legal block since the reception would have crossed the plane above the net. A block is aloud to contact the ball before it crosses the plane. The block also played the ball before the setter touched the ball. If it was simultaneously, it would have been a block fault. In this case, it was a legal block.
Bruh, you're talking nonsense. Did you even check the articles mentioned in the video?
For others, don't listen to him, go check the rules in §3.38 and §9.1. The latter addresses specifically the first situation
@@Rotlapek I have no idea whicj rule book is being used. The numbers do not correspond to the FIVB rule book. After reading the FIVB case book I would reconsider me first opinion from legal to illegal. Not because of the fact the blocker is touching the ball in the opponents side (which is aloud), but because of hindering the setter.
FIVB 13.1.1 and 14.3
@@WimVandewijngaerde You are correct, the only way this play wouldn't be called a fault on the setter is if she had both feet on the ground while attempting that set, because she is a back row player.
@@alanac.2828 I would say it would be a legal block if the setter didn't make an attempt. The fact is she is touching the floor or not with her feet has nothing to do in this situation. As a matter of fact, considering the legality of attack by backrow players, it is not the touching of the ground that is of relevance, but the height of playing/touching the ball. This is a rule not known by many players.
@@WimVandewijngaerde Correct, I shouldn't have said only way because she can be off the ground but below the net and it be legal.
She was over the net so it should have Ben the other team point
the setter is back row so its legal
Back row player or not has no effect on that play.
@@oneup8 yea it does the setter shouldn't be going up for that ball and playing it over the net
@@kainguyen5248 the setter is protected as long as the ball stays on her side, because it is illegal for the opponent to interfere the play unless the ball is 1/directed to them, 2/breaks the plan of the net.
First call is illegal. White shirt is over reaching.
Not if 1% of the ball is over. I don't thing the ball is 100% on the setters side. I agree with ref, diasree with video. This is a judgement call, not the rule the video cited. The video is correct if the ball is 100% on the setters side. i don't see it that way.
It’s and illegal block she touched the ball before the setter could touch it
I disagree if you’re saying the blocker touched the ball before setter.
It’s only IF the setter touched the ball first and attempted to set (not attack) then it would be an illegal block.
Otherwise the blocker is just blocking an overpass and the setter was too late.
But I cannot tell who touched it first on the video. It’s a tough call.
I have no idea which rule book you are using, but none of the explanations you're giving is in accordance with the FIVB rulebook. It is legal to block on the side of the opponent, as long it is an attacking ball (ball that will cross the plane above the net), and it does not hinder any player on the other side.
Really? In Haikyuu they do this all the time!!!
you mean they do a direct its a different kind of thing. also please shut up :)
1st illegal she was tryna set
It does not matter what she’s trying to do, it only has to do with the position of the ball and where the blocker contact it.
@@oneup8 you good? if someone is going to set the ball you cant reach over and touch it
@@NootWust not sure if you are replying to me. But as I have said, these are illegal reach over by the blocker, because a ball is legal to block if in the referee judgement , if the ball is going to penetrate the crossing space, or has penetrated the crossing space, OR the ball is directed toward the opponent’s playing area.
The first block is legal what are you talking about??? the blocker block was 1 directional, no reaching whatsoever, no wrist bending. Its literally a soft block and you cannot call a soft block illegal. LOL common Rob. PLUS the setter was going up with 1 hand, her hand also went above the net. Of course you're allowed to block this one LOL. Bruh. But all the other calls are correct.
Well First one is not called foul because setter have to use his both hands while making a set then it was caller an overnet block foul
Can you reference the rule to your claim?
The first block was called correctly, camera angle makes it look like it hasn't crossed the plane when it has. Also, the setter is back row and in attempting to jump set the ball if the setter and blocker contact the ball simultaneously the setter should be called for an illegal back row attack.
As far as I know the backrow players are allowed to play the ball above the net in the front row, if they don't get it on the other side, but just set it for another player. The set would've been completaly legal. But it was a really tough call even with that being allowed, because if the setter wouldn't have touched the ball it definelty would've gone to the other side.
@@phillipd8343 If the setter is back row and jump sets the ball for attempts to(in the front row), and the ball is then blocked by the other team one of two things should be called if it's the second touch. Either a roofing call or an illegal back row attack
I got them all right
The first two are an illegal block but the 3rd one is debatable
1-3 are illegal reach over by the blocker.
4 is illegal double contact.
Back row setter only went with one hand, the refs made the right call on that one
One-hand or not , it is not a criteria to make that call.
ilegal
The first one look legal, try playing it in slow motion
It looks like the ball is entirely on the setter's side of the net. As the setter didn't complete an attack hit, the blocker is not allowed to touch the ball
The setter was likely going for a one handed set which is a common practice when the first pass is tight. Imagine touching the ball when a setter is in the motion of setting or correcting a bad pass, that's very illegal.
@@cliffworsfold1994 the fact that the ball is still entirely on the side of the setter is irrelevant. The question that should be asked is, does the block player hinder the setting?
@@WimVandewijngaerde it looks like it does imo
@@lipeeefl That's indeed the only observation you need. In slow motion I am rather sure the block was on the ball way before the setter would have been. In other words, no hindering (my opinion). But certainly at real speed I completely understand that you judge the setter is hindered. I would make the same call. But also in the slow motion images there is room for discussion :-)
The thing that is irritating me in the video and the discussions here is that the explanations are not in line with the FIVB rules. As if a different rule book with different explanations was used.
LOOOOL MASSSKKKK AHAHHAHHHA
XDDD WITH MASKS?
Real question here is... Why are they wearing muzzles while doing sports?
Not sure if anyone has told you, but we're in the middle of a pandemic.
@@Lithoxene If by saying in the middle of a pandemic you mean Psychological Operation, then yes, It's obvious.
@@mataszelnys8219 You don’t have any relatives die from COVID yet, right?