The 1st hit flew outside of the antenna. The setter pursued the ball into the opponent’s free zone and tried to play it back – but the ball went towards the court and net on the opponent’s side.
The 1st referee whistled and signaled “ball out”.
At what moment does the ball become “out”?
Ruling
This ball had become “out” when it had left completely the space above the free zone and entered the space above the court on the opponent’s side of the net.
Rules 10.1.2, 10.1.2.2
Can a player legally hit the ball with the palm of one hand up?
Ruling
Yes, he can.
The hit must be judged by the quality of the ball contact – whether or not the ball was caught and/or thrown. The 1st referee must not be too hasty in whistling this play unless he can clearly see that the ball is caught and/or thrown.
Rules 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4
During a first hit the ball rebounded from one arm to the other and then onto the chest of a player during one action and without being caught or thrown. The 1st referee allowed the game to continue.
Is this correct?
Ruling
The decision of the 1st referee was correct. “First hit” cases, in which successive contacts are allowed, are:
1. Reception of the service.
2. Reception of an attack hit. This can be either a
soft or a hard attack.
3. Reception of a ball blocked by one’s own team.
4. Reception of a ball blocked by the opponent.
A player has the right to make successive contacts at the first hit, so long as he/she makes only one action to play the ball. It is possible, however, to whistle a “catch” or “throw” on the first hit if two different phases (first catch, then throw) are recognized within the action.
Rules 9.2.3.2, 14.2, Refereeing Guidelines and Instructions
A blocker “redirected” the ball to the floor of the opponents.
Is this legal?
Ruling
This depends on whether the ball is caught or thrown (fault) rather than rebounding (no fault). It is legal to block the ball and direct it back to the opponent’s court, but the illegal contact of “catch” can be whistled during blocking.
Rules 9.2.2
The left side attacker played the ball with two hands in a throwing action.
How should the 1st referee judge the action?
Ruling
There is nothing to prevent a player making a two handed attack. However, this not be done using a catch and throw action. The ball in this clip is contacted almost behind the player’s head and released more than 50 cm later. This is a CATCH.
Rule 9.2.2
A player jumped into the air over the advertising panels 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?
Ruling
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
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?
Ruling
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.
Rules 9, 9.1.3
Must the 1st referee whistle for a handling fault if the player is making a spectacular recovery?
Ruling
The referee should consider the principle of “keep the ball flying”.
It means, if a player makes a quick movement and a big effort to recover the ball, and during the hit a slight double contact has occurred, he/she must be less severe, than in a normal situation
Refereeing Guidelines and Instructions; Rule 9.7
A ball went off the blocker A’s head, over the antenna into the free zone of ‘B’. A player of ‘A’ pursued the ball to play it back to his side of the net.
Is it possible to play it back like this?
Ruling
Yes. The ball passed over the antenna into the opponent’s free zone partially through the external space. Therefore, it was legal for team ‘A’ to return the ball to its own court through the external space on the same side of the court. Line judges should not signal while the ball moves in this way until the moment it is finally out of play.
Rule 10.1.2
A player chased the ball out of court, then took
support from the score table to return the ball to his team. The contact with the ball was over the end of the score table which was on the opponent’s side of the net. The 1st referee took no action and allowed play to continue.
Did the player have the right to play the ball from this position?
Ruling
Yes. This was a very spectacular action. According to the rule text, the ball may be retrieved from over the complete length of the score table, even the part on the side of the opponent. So this was a legal play and the 1st referee was correct to allow the rally to continue.
Rule 9
Should the line judge signal when after the second hit of a team the ball crosses the net plane through the external space into the opponent’s free zone?
Ruling
No, to judge this ball is not the duty of the line judge.
Rules 8.4.1, 8.4.2, 9.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.2.1, 10.1.2.2
Team A’s setter hit the ball above the net so that at the moment of the hit his/her fingers were in the opponent’s space. After the set the ball flew parallel to the net toward an attacker.
The blocker of team B touched the ball in team A’s
space, so that the team A player could not execute the attack hit.
How should the 1st referee decide?
Ruling
Each team must play the ball within its own playing area and space (except in the case of Rule 10.1.2).
Above the top of the net, the position of the hand should be considered. Therefore, since the setter has hit the ball in the opponent’s space, the setter committed a fault.
The blocker also committed a fault by touching the ball in the opponent’s space before the attack hit, because above the top of the net, the position of the hand should be considered.
However, only the first fault is penalized.
To hit the ball in the opponent’s space under the net is different. Here the position of the ball should be counted, i.e. the play is illegal only if the ball has completely crossed the vertical plane of the net.
Rule 9
May the coach standing in a legal position in his/her free zone catch the ball flying over the antenna, when an opponent player is running to replay it?
Ruling
No.
Any team member, including the coach, has no right to prevent an opponent player from replaying the ball crossing the net plane outside the crossing space.
It does not matter if the action of the team member to hit the ball was intentional or unintentional. It means, that the coach standing legally in his/her free zone must “give way” if an opponent player is running to replay and return the ball.
Rule 10.1.2.2
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?
Ruling
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 was on purpose, it can be considered as an interference, he committed a fault.
Rule 10.1.2.2
The ball rebounded from the blocker of team A,
before hitting the antenna and the side band on team B’s side, then it landed on the court. The 1st referee decided that the action was a successful block and the next serving team was to be team A.
Was it a correct decision?
Ruling
No, decision is not correct.
As shown on the video, the ball touches to the antenna and side band at the same time and changes it’s direction on the team B side .
“Referees signal the end of the rally, provided
that they are sure that a fault has been committed and they have identified its nature” (Rule 22.2.1.2).
They must refrain from deciding solely upon their
assumptions, as shown on the accompanying video.
In cases:
a. lf the ball touches to the antenna, the ball
becomes out (Rule 8.4.3) Referees must whistle
and give the hand signal ball “out”.
b. If the ball contacts only to the side band, referees may not stop the game, this is not a fault.
c. lf the ball touches to the side band and antenna
at the same time. Most of the times it changes its
direction. Since the contact of the ball to the antenna is a fault, referees must whistle and display ball “out” hand signal.
Rules 22.2.1, 8.4.3
The ball hit the tape but not the antenna.
Should the rebound from the tape automatically be judged to have hit the antenna?
Ruling
No, the referees must actually see the ball hit the
antenna. Many forces come into play when the ball rebounds so referees should not automatically assume that a fault has occurred.
Rules 22.2.1, 8.4.3
After a poor team hit, the setter ran after the ball
and played it in the opponent free zone.
What should the referees consider in the action?
Ruling
Good optical position should inform the referees if the ball passed to the opponent free zone inside the crossing space. If this occurred, then as soon as the ball is played by the setter, it becomes a fault and must be whistled.
However, if the ball passed over or outside the antenna, the contact by the setter is legal, and if the ball travels back to his own side over or outside the antenna, it may be legally attacked.
A spiker landed with his heels on the center line, but with most of his feet on the feet of the opponent’s blocker preventing his ability to move.
Is this interference?
Ruling
Yes. This is interference.
Interference means a player stops an opponent from moving, or playing the ball, or disturbing the opponent while attempting to play the ball.
Rules 11.2.1, 11.2.2.1, 11.2.4
Is physical contact always interference?
Ruling
No. Many circumstantial contacts actually occur in a match - but the referee should whistle a player if he/she interfered with or stopped the opponent’s ability to play.
Rule 11.2.1
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?
Ruling
No. By the Rule 11.2.2 it is al so permitted to touch the opponent’s court 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
Looking carefully at the blue player’s movement, it is clear that he makes a fault by standing on the
opponent court and side line, having initially
believed that he can retrieve the ball. The opponent had to take urgent and evasive action to get out of the way.
Is this interference?
Ruling
The first fault is that the blue player’s foot was on the opponent court and side line.
Had this not been the case, the definition of interference is preventing a player from making a play on the ball.
By making the opponent take such evasive action, this can be judged as interference.
Rule 7.5
The player chased the ball passing partly outside the crossing space to the opponent free zone. In so doing her complete foot was in contact with the opponent side line.
Should the 1st referee have whistled this as a fault?
Ruling
Yes, this is a fault. The side line is inside the opponent’s court dimensions.
Had the whole foot contact with the side line been simultaneous contact with the center line by that foot (or if part of the foot had been over the center line), it would not have been a fault.
Rules 11.2.2.1
After a simultaneous contact above the plane of the net, the ball landed outside the court of team A.
Who gets next service?
Ruling
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
An attack hit drove the net into the blocker’s
forearms.
Is this a net fault?
Ruling
No. If the net hits the player, there is no fault.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
After a blocker landed securely, he turned and hit the mesh of the net between the antennae with his shoulder.
Should this have been called a fault?
Ruling
No. Because the action of playing the ball was complete before he turned, the contact with the net is not a fault.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
While attempting to block, but without touching the ball, which was close to him, the blocker touched the net.
Is this a fault?
Ruling
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
A middle blocker reached over the net and touched its top band while attempting to stop a combination play close to him.
Is this a fault?
Ruling
Yes – the touch of the net was indeed a “net fault”: the blocker was close to the action, and the contact was between the antennae.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
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?
Ruling
No the player did not commit a fault because:
First:
- the contact was outside the antenna
Then:
- he/she did not use the net as support or stabilizing aid.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.4.4
An attacker landed on the floor off balance, took two steps and pushed with his chest against the net between the antennae while the ball was still in play.
If the player had not caught the net, he would have fallen onto the opponent’s court.
Is this a fault?
Ruling
Yes, if a the player is using the net as a support or stabilizing aid, between the antennae, his action is considered as interference with the play.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
A setter made a short set and when the attacker hit the ball, he/she also hit the setter with his/her knee.
This hit caused the setter to brush against the net.
Is this a fault?
Ruling
Yes, because the setter was in the action of playing the ball.
Rules 11.3.1, 11.4.4
A player hit the net with her hair while playing the
ball.
Was her action legal?
Ruling
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 pony- tail 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
In the first case, an attacker after spiking the ball
hit the blocker’s hand which had reached over the
net plane and drove it to touch the top band of the net.
In the second case, both the attacker and blocker make contact with the ball. However, the attacker follows through and contacts the arm of the blocker, forcing it on to the net band.
Could it be judged as a net fault or interference during these two game actions?
Ruling
In first case, 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 realizes 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 penalized, considered as rude conduct, with the application of the appropriate misconduct sanction.
In second case, it is not interference. Interference involves preventing an opponent making a play on the ball. Here the ball has already been played by the blocker – so no interference. Many incidental or accidental contacts are made between opponents anyway, and these are not automatically faults. This is clearly one of those instances, and the referees must be prepared to assess this as a “no fault” situation by either player. Play should continue.
Of course, if the action by the spiker was clearly a deliberate attempt to make the opponent contact the net or misguide the referees, this would be subject to misconduct sanctions.
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?
Ruling
Yes. The players of a collective block are counted as a “unit”. If one of them is still in the action of playing the ball, it means the entire unit is in the action. Therefore the other player’s net touch should be considered as a fault.
Rule 11.3.1
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?
Ruling
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
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?
Ruling
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
As soon as a player had hit the ball for service, the
scorer signaled “wrong server” or rotational fault to the 2nd referee, who stopped the game.
Is this the correct action by the scorer?
Ruling
Correct action by the scorer.
When a wrong server is ready to serve the ball, the scorer must wait until the service action has been completed before notifying the referees of the fault.
Rules 7.7.1, 12.2.1, 12.7.1, 27.2.2.2
After the whistle for service, the serving team
recognized it was the wrong server. The correct
server then entered the service zone ready to serve.
Can this player now serve?
Ruling
Yes – provided the service is made by the correct player within 8 seconds from the whistle for service.
The 1st referee does not whistle a second time.
Rule 12.4.4
Team ‘A’ served. The ball hit the net and dropped
towards the floor on ‘A’’s side of the net. A player of ‘B’ reached under the net and caught the ball before it hit the floor.
Is this allowed?
Ruling
Yes – the 1st referee must whistle immediately it is clear the ball will not cross the net through the crossing space. At this moment the ball is out of play.
The 1st referee must not wait until the ball hits the floor or a player of the serving team.
Rule 12.6.2.1
Is this allowed to execute the jump service hitting the ball with 2 hands?
Ruling
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
A back row setter jumped from within the front zone and set the ball while it was completely above the height of the net, directing it towards an attacker.
Before the attacker could contact the ball, it
penetrated the vertical plane of the net where it was blocked by the opponent’s setter.
Was there a fault?
Ruling
Yes. The set became an illegal attack hit by a back row player when the attack hit was completed (in this case by contacting the opponent’s block). The rally is won by the blocking team.
Rule 13.1.3
On a second hit, a player passed the ball near the net towards the opponent’s court. In the 1st referee’s evaluation, 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?
Ruling
Yes, it was. 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 evaluation, 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
A back row player took off in the front zone and as a second hit spiked the ball which was completely higher than the top of the net. The ball rebounded from the net band and did not cross to the opponent.
Is this a fault?
Ruling
No. Since the ball neither crossed the plane of the net nor was contacted by the blocker, the attack hit was not completed.
The rally continues.
Rules 9.1, 13.1.3, 13.2.2, 13.3.3
‘A’s’ receiver jumped from behind the attack line and contacted the served ball from completely higher than the top of the net. The contact was behind the attack line and the ball returned to the serving team's side of the net.
Should play continue?
Ruling
Yes, because it was a legal action. Although it is illegal to block or to complete an attack hit on the service from completely above the height of the net over the front zone, the attack was legal since the contact point of the hit was completely behind the attack line.
Rules 13.3.4, 19.3.1.3
‘A’ passed badly and the ball crossed the plane of the net. The middle blocker of ‘B’ hit the ball across the net against the raised arm of the back row setter from ‘A’, who was still close to the net and above the height of the net. The ball then rebounded across the net into ‘B’s’ court.
Who committed the fault?
Ruling
The setter’s "block" was illegal because he/she was a back row player. Intercepting a ball from opponent close to the net is a block if a part of the body is above net height.
Rules 14.1.1, 14.1.3, 14.6.2
When the ball was completely above the court of
team A, it was attacked by the team A player in
position 2. Simultaneous with this, the opponent
blocker also contacted the ball. Is this a blocking
fault?
Ruling
This is not a fault of either player. It would be a fault if the blocker had contacted the ball first, but blocking simultaneously is NOT a fault.
Rule 14.3
Is it legal for a blocker to reach over the net to block an opponent’s “setting” action?
Ruling
No, it is not legal. It is a fault to block a set.
However, it is absolutely necessary for the 1st referee to determine the action of the setter. He/she must know whether the set was:
made parallel to the net (block fault) or
was going towards the net, thus making it an attack hit (no fault, if there is no setter’s teammate close to the ball and willing to play it).
Rules 14.1.1, 14.3
A player of ‘A’ blocked the attack of ‘B’. Then the
middle blocker of ‘B’ blocked the block of ‘A’.
Is it legal to block a blocked ball?
Ruling
Yes, to block is to intercept a ball coming from the opponent, thus it is legal to block an opponent’s block.
Rule 14.1.1
A ball blocked by the legally penetrating blocker of team B flew some meters parallel to the net before a second player of B hit the ball with a blocking action down to the floor on the side of team ‘A’. The ball had never penetrated into the air space of ’B’.
Who gets next service?
Ruling
Team A. The second player’s action cannot be considered as block, because the ball was coming from the block of his/her teammate. Thus, he/she was attacking in the opponent’s space - which is a fault according to the rules.
Rules 11.1.2, 14.1.1, 14.2, 14.3
Can an attacker hit the ball coming from the reception of his/her teammate with both hands using a blocking action, directing the ball to the other side of the net?
Ruling
Yes, he can. It is a legal play, provided it is not a double contact or a catch or throw. The contact must be on the player’s own side of the net, however – not on the opponent’s.
The ball made multiple contacts with the head and hands of several blockers.
Should this be permitted?
Ruling
Provided it is a blocking action and not separate actions, this is considered as block touch . After the block, a team is allowed three more ball contacts.
Rules 9.1, 9.2.3.2, 14.2, 14.4.1
Back row player’s illegal attack versus illegal block (i.e simultaneous contact by back row player) in the attacker’s team space.
What is the fault?
Ruling
Double fault and therefore replay.
The attack hit by the back row player was illegal. The simultaneous block by the back row player was also illegal.
Rules 13.3.3, 14.1.1, 14.6.2
A back row player is separate in distance from a collective block and lower than the top of the net – but is hit by the ball.
Is this an illegal block?
Ruling
No. The player was not part of the collective block and was not higher than the top of the net when the ball contacted him/her.
This contact is considered as a first team hit.
Rules 9.3.1, 14.1.1
The contact with the ball by a blocker was lower than the top of the net, although part of his/her hand was above the net.
Is this a block?
Ruling
Yes – having part of the body above the net is critical; the team would, therefore, have three more hits.
Rules 9.1, 14.1.1, 14.4.1
A blocker hit the ball when he had already come
down from his jump and his whole body was lower than the top of the net. When he hit the ball again, the referee called a “double hit”.
Was this correct?
Ruling
The decision was correct. At the moment of the ball contact, no part of the body of the blocker was higher than the top of the net. So the action could not be considered as a block, but the first contact of the team and his later contact made this a double hit.
Rules 9.1, 14.1.1, 14.4.1
Illegal attack hit by back row player versus attempted Libero block- which occurs first?
Ruling
The attack hit becomes a mistake at the moment when the ball has crossed the net totally or the block touched it.
The attempt of the Libero to block was an action before the completion of the opponent’s attack hit and is therefore the first mistake.
Rule 19.3.1.3
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?
Ruling
It should be considered as a perfect block, the rally has been won by the team B.
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?
Ruling
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 neither. The rally would have to be won by the defending team.
During a block, the player was seen to catch and
throw down the ball.
Is such an action allowed?
Ruling
Volleyball is a rebound sport. Any catch and throw is a fault. The ball may only be redirected towards the floor. This action in the video should be called as a fault by the 1st referee.
Rule 9.2.2
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/block the ball, which rebounded from the top band and the same player hit it again.
Is this a legal play?
Ruling
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, intercepts 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 legal blocking action.
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?
Ruling
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.
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?
Ruling
Yes, this is an illegal block because it is completed by a back row player.
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.
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?
Ruling
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 is an 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.