Block or attack? | Beach volleyball rules

FIVB rules
13.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 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.
14.1 BLOCKING
14.1.1 Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact. At the moment of the contact with the ball, a part of the body must be higher than the top of the net.
Similar video
Suggestion is to also analyze this video together (where it the player is not blocking intentionally, but the ball hits him and the contact is judged as a block: • Unintentional block. B...
VBTV
tv.volleyballworld.com/video/...
Match
Perusic/Schweiner (CZE) v Boermans/De Groot (NED) - Pool A - Joao Pessoa 2023

[@johnharrywagner2314]

“Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact. At the moment of the contact with the ball, a part of the body must be higher than the top of the net.” This is the entire definition of a block in the rule book. So this is a block touch as the ball is coming from their side and they made contact above the net.

[@bluepawn]

It's a kind of impossible for the referee to know if it's a block... in the slow motion = yes, all rules are respected and it's a perfect right block... but for a humain it's IMPOSSIBLE to see such details in such a little time... about 50cm of the net = yes, 1 nail of 1 finger must be higher than the net when the ball is higher than the net = yes, the ball has to come from the opponent's court = yes, I think I might miss some other rules to respect the very strict rule of a block... but in the slow motion video... that is a right block... that is impossible for the referee to see such details and the "challenge" doesn't exist for such fault... and don't forget : the referee can make a mistake as well = that is in the rule's game... and the block is terrible and technically, this player is idiot by making such strange and not technical touch... Don't play with the net and you will be OK with the referee ^^

[@bluepawn]

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 The player is technically bad so he will never forget his terrible bad aweful touch...

[@cjroyse0111]

@@bluepawn completely illogical comment. also if you are gonna call a pro top world athlete a "terrible and technically bad player" maybe you should be at this tournament and show us how good you are.

[@bluepawn]

@@cjroyse0111 that is the way of this competition... The bad player will lose and as you can see this kind of mistake is a kind of "huge"

[@bluepawn]

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 no it s really not easy to have many rules in your mind and giving the solution in less than 1 second on such enormous strange rule... It s a kind of impossible for humain brain... And as said... The referees can make mistakes and that's why we still have referees in all sports... In 100 years maybe not anymore...

[@nothingbutstatic]

There is certainly a good case to be made that this should *not* count as a block, but based on the current rules, this is technically a block. Ref got it wrong.

[@JacksonHam-ge8np]

Literally had this happen to me in my match today. Asked my teammate if I was allowed to go for second hit he said no. I’ve got a KZbin video to show him!

[@iheartalgebra]

In beach, when blocking it does not matter how you contact the ball, what your "intention" is, etc.: "14.1.1 Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact. At the moment of the contact with the ball, a part of the body must be higher than the top of the net." There is little room for judgement on behalf of the ref when determining whether a touch was a block. The only ambiguity here was whether the player was "close to the net". But the ref doesn't seem to be contesting this point.

[@JuancarlosGomez-ey6lp]

no where in your comment do you mention the intention of the player and what his body language is showing. I think the czech player tried to tap it straight down and fucked up. so if his arm swing is showing an obvious attack, how do you count that a block? GOOD CALL REF!!! On a side note: I hate how volleyball is no longer a game where skills and rules are to be followed and more so to use "judgement" to have more rallies and make the game more "exciting"

[@iheartalgebra]

Yes I agree with you, he intended to swing and hit the ball rather than making a more typical block touch; this is quite clear. But intention is completely irrelevant according to the rules. And this is a good thing because it minimizes the role of judgement: the ref does not need to guess at the intention of a player or try to interpret their body language. They simply consider 1) was the some part of the player above the height of the net, and 2) was the player close to the net. Much less ambiguity this way.

[@carstenrolles1545]

you are contradicting yourself@@JuancarlosGomez-ey6lp his intention could be to end world hunger for all I care and the ref should care. If he intercepts the ball coming from the other side, and all the other criteria are met, it is a block! Therefore wrong call.

[@JuancarlosGomez-ey6lp]

So even if his body language shows 100% he's trying to attack the ball. That's a block? I miss the real rules

[@cjroyse0111]

@@JuancarlosGomez-ey6lp your side note is so ignorant.

[@2Swift4u]

the problem is the fivb volleyball rule book is terrible. It's missing so many things. Over the last 20 years I've been in many situation when something unusual happened on the court and noone knew whether it was legal or illegal.

[@sk.43821]

Hello Simas, can you find arguments in the rules framework which support the decision by the referee? Briefly scanning my rules knowledge, I can not. In _indoor volleyball_ the action should not be considered a block. Case 3.54 in the casebook. An analogue interpretation does not exist in the beach volleyball rules documentation - as far as I know. Best regards!

[@SimasSkilinskas]

The best explanation using official material that I can come up actually need volleyball (indoor) guidelines. So there is explanation about backswing and how when its an attack its not a block. And general rules about block and attack is pretty much the same, meaning the indoor guideline also should be applicable to the beach. At the very least this video should be added to case book, but I also think that official rules in both indoor and beach should be updated about the explanation of "to intercept" and distinction from attack.

[@sk.43821]

I wonder if the spike motion had been discussed in the beach volleyball rules and refereeing committee, or not. The beach volleyball guidelines and casebook were more recently published (for 2022) than the indoor volleyball casebook (2020). However, this specific indoor interpretation didn't find the way into beach volleyball rules. A German FIVB top referee said he doesn't apply the spike motion argument (offensive action) vs. block (defensive action) for beach volleyball because it is not codified in the rules documentation. On the other hand the interpretation of an overhand play with fingers ('set') not being considered a block (case 5.72) even though it fulfills the block criteria - close to net, body part above net, ball from opponent - shows that the differentiation between defensive action and offensive action exists for actions at the net.

[@bluepawn]

@@SimasSkilinskas for this case, indoor and beach = same rule. I ve explained above the rule.

[@CRamon9]

By the rules, a block.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

What rule says that I cannot intercept the ball with a backswing block🤔🤷‍♂ > 13.1.1 All actions which direct the ball towards the opponent, with the exception of service and block, are considered as attack hits. "According to definition of the block and 13.1.1 this cannot be attack, since it is a block" - can any current rule unambiguously argue against that? Why the only way to learn real world judgement (that this is actually an attack and cannot be a block) in this situation is not by reading the rules, but facing judgement in the elite 16 tournament. Or by reading indoor volleyball guidelines which are not unambiguously supported by official rules in this situation...

[@goldblueranger]

I often see discrepancies in how people judge and what the rules say. I don't think any other sports have even close problems.

[@bertramstier2540]

a block action can lead to an attack. Sure. In fact, every successful block that is done on the receiving side, where the ball crosses the net and lands in the opponents field is an attack as well. Block and attack are not exclusive as one is define as an action of the defenders, and the attack is just defined by a ball movement - again all these conditions can be true and thus a block and an attack are NOT either or. It CAN be both.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@bertramstier2540 rules completely and clearly disagree, same action cannot possibly be considered an attack and a block at the same time, rule 13.1.1 13 ATTACK HIT 13.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 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.

[@bertramstier2540]

@@SimasSkilinskas ha. Jeah. That's a misunderstanding of that rule though. An attack HIT can not ba a block. But a block can lead to a attack ball.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@bertramstier2540 well I don't see how, and still dissagree. Do you have any material or better explanation how can block be an attack and not violate 13.1.1? Have you discussed that with any referees?

[@beachvolleyclubbobologna9797]

It's a block. Referee's mistake.

[@Chernikru]

это атака. а не блок.

[@MarkMyerson]

Here's the part I don't get: people are trying to take the rules from a **completely different Olympic Sport** and use them to interpret the BVB rules. If it's not in the FIVB BEACH rulebook, it doesn't exist.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

But it's not completely different. VB and BVB are both managed by the same international federation - FIVB. Also BVB is based on VB rules with some modifications and uses the same terminology.

[@MarkMyerson]

I’m aware of the FIVB link, but they are very different disciplines and the origin of the rules shouldn’t matter. It’s either in the BVB rules, or it isn’t. I think it’s about time beach and indoor were properly separated. They are two different sports that share a few skills. No-one would try to referee a game of futsal by referencing the rules of football!

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@MarkMyerson I agree that BVB rules should cover this case better and not just be explained behind closed doors to the international referees.

[@zipanych]

It was clearly an attack, kinda dumb to argue that it could also be a block

[@SimasSkilinskas]

Rule wording is kinda dumb

[@SadDetonator]

The ball being played across the net by the other team makes any contact at and above the net a block or block attempt. The FIVB beach volleyball rulebook (§14) places no restrictions on the players as some argue here relying on indoor (!) volleyball rules. Different sports, friends, different sports.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

Can you tell me the relevant difference?

[@SadDetonator]

@@SimasSkilinskas Two separate competitions, organisational structures, rulebooks, world rankings and entry points lists, different surfaces, playing formats, numbers of players, balls, outfits etc. etc.... I'd argue that it is harder to find similarities than differences between both sports. I don't recall ever seeing this kind of debate about tennis or hockey.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@SadDetonator both are managed by FIVB rule wording is the same, beach rules are based on volleyball. Block definition is exactly the same, with only difference of front row player rewuirement in indoor

[@SadDetonator]

@@SimasSkilinskas When comparing beach rules §14 with 3.51/3.54 indoors, I can't agree that they are exactly the same. If the indoors judgement regarding blocking applied to the beach, it would have been included in the beach rulebook.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@SadDetonator but they are. Tell me what ia different about 14.1.1. and your mentioned 3.51 and 3.54 are not the rules, it's probably case book?

[@javicarranzas2390]

1 ..de.donde viene el balón. 2. Donde se produce el contacto con el balón. 3. Que contacto se produce. Responde a ello y ...

[@qmoroz]

I totally agree with the decision of the ref and the opinions that the first hit wasn"t a block whatsoever. Referees who have read not just the BVB Rulebook, but also at least attended courses, seminars and have read the refereeing guidelines and casebooks, can differ attacking actions from block attempts. Besides, it's written in the indoor volleyball casebook (cases 3.51 and 3.54). I know, that some people can say that it's not written in the BVB casebook, but all the rules of volleyball are written by the same FIVB people and BVB rules are just an adaptation for the beach and 2x2 format. So, a lot of logic and cases apply from the indoor too. And by the way, the title of that casebook is "RULES OF THE GAME VOLLEYBALL CASEBOOK". Not "Indoor volleyball casebook". Indoor and beach versions are just disciplines of voleyball as a type of sport. In addition, in our country there is no way to get an officiat referee status just for beach volleyball, only for the whole volleyball as a type of sport.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

I hope that rules will get better and more understandable for everyone as there is definitely room for improvement in documentation. There shouldn't be any hard to understand secrets that are told only in seminars. I'm not very interested in reading information about substitutions, libero and back row, just to find the case that tells me how to differentiate attack from the block and which one to choose when both seem to apply by the rules.

[@qmoroz]

@@SimasSkilinskas I agree with that, but partially. As my experience shows less than a 1/3 of players have read even whole BVB rulebook, which is just a bit more than 70 pages, including introduction, titles, notes and so on..... Even fewer have read casebook and judges instructions and guidelines. Besides, some players try to cheat when possible. That's why professional judges exist =)))

[@SadDetonator]

Contrary to your claims, there is of course an FIVB rulebook for beach volleyball only. Under paragraph #14, it makes no such distinction to blocking as the indoor game does, and why would it, being a separate sport and all.

[@user-fq3vz9dz7r]

Поддерживаю - это блок. Правила не различают вид касания в такой ситуации. Играл игрок рукой, ногой, животом или его действия были похожи на атаку (более того правила не описывают как технически выполняется атака) это не имеет значение для правил. Судья решил субьективно и совершил ошибку.

[@Chernikru]

это не блок, а атаку на ту сторону, просто не попал по мячу и ударил своим же в сетку

[@yoray_s]

Not a block, easy decision - The player tried to attack, not to block.

[@RobVole1]

Not a block. Strange he would try to argue that swinging at a ball is a blocking action. He intended to attack the ball and didn't get the ball over the net.

[@sk.43821]

Please show the corroboration for your argumentation in the rules.

[@petrjirkovsky8087]

every first contact with ball above the net coming from opponent is block, it does not matter how you play it...swing, soft hand, head, nail, elbow. Your intention does not matter.

[@RobVole1]

​@@petrjirkovsky8087 Wrong. Read the rules or ask a FIVB ref for clarification.

[@michaelandrew83]

@@RobVole1I’ve read them, this qualifies as a block, nowhere in the rule book does intentional style if the block disqualify the block. Can you find it???

[@RobVole1]

@@michaelandrew83 Lol. This type of play on the ball has happened a lot and refs always call it as an attack. You're literally trying to argue against a FIVB ref. It's up to the refs interpretation whether or not it's a block or attack. It's clearly an attack. You're interpretation is wrong, so you can keep being wrong or you can realise it's the right call and start understanding the rules better.

[@dickwa1050]

While it may be a legal Double contact because the First one Counts as a Block, it definetely shouldnt be legal as he clearly tried to attack swing and fucked up. I think its pretty easy to judge whether it was a block or attack attempt. Anyways if this would Happen to me, i think i would be Kind of ashamed and wouldnt try to argue that im allowed to take a second contact

[@SimasSkilinskas]

not that easy to apply the attack rule when reading block definition in the rules and some case scenarios that don't cover back swing, there is an issue with the wording

[@blakemerkley6547]

He's right... that's a block

[@justwanna3374]

This is clearly defined as a fault in FIVB case book, not a block

[@blakemerkley6547]

​@@justwanna3374it is not. This meets every criteria of a block.

[@giorgiovallesi631]

Bad call. Commentator making sarcasm is even worse.

[@justwanna3374]

This is clearly described in fivb case book and this is a fault, not a block. The referee did great job. And the delay warning is right on to shut off the nonsense complain from the player. I am surprised that the pro players at this level didn't know this, shame.

[@SimasSkilinskas]

Mind sharing the case number?

[@justwanna3374]

3.54

[@SimasSkilinskas]

@@justwanna3374 it seems you are referring to indoor case book and not beach volleyball. But I understand how it could be relevant.

[@spicythaivlog]

It was a offensiv Aktion Not a Defense! NO BLOCK !!! 2 touch…fault!

[@SadDetonator]

Wrong. The ball coming from across the net automatically makes it a block. The manner in which you contact the ball is irrelevant, as long as you do it at and above the net.

[@richard3987]

Block attempt

[@DaniDani-oc8ex]

not a block 100%

[@beacher8450]

Not a block .