|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 9, 2006 9:59:05 GMT -5
A collective Block resulting in a illegal BR block when a BR player is in the vicinity of the blockers near the net is to keep a BR player from fake blocking. If two FR blockers prepare to go up and a BR player is also with them an attacker who sees the block will see 3 blockers at the net. Dargan's presence at the net near Lynch could alter that attack of the opponent who thinks she'll be facing a double block instead of a single block; regardless of whether Dargen ducks out at the last second. That is just silly. Blockers are already required to be aware of the location and attacking options of all six players on the other side of the net. If there is a tight pass to a back row setter, and the opposing blocker jumps with the setter, it's an example of poor training and when that set goes outside and the backrow defense gets pegged because the blocker couldn't recover and get out to the pin, you can be sure the coach and teammates will let the blocker know she screwed up. If the rules of the game are structured to where we consider it perfectly reasonable to expect blockers to know the location/status of all six opposing players, why would it be terrible to expect an attacker to be tracking the fr/br status of only two (or at most three) players at the net?
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Oct 9, 2006 11:37:47 GMT -5
A collective Block resulting in a illegal BR block when a BR player is in the vicinity of the blockers near the net is to keep a BR player from fake blocking. If two FR blockers prepare to go up and a BR player is also with them an attacker who sees the block will see 3 blockers at the net. Dargan's presence at the net near Lynch could alter that attack of the opponent who thinks she'll be facing a double block instead of a single block; regardless of whether Dargen ducks out at the last second. That is just silly. And the rules committee scream, "Silly or not, here we come." Explaination of collective block has been an interesting topic for years. Throw in BR player and you have a LOT of different opinions as to what, where, when, how, etc. I just go by what I'm told, has worked most my life. Well, that's not quite correct either. Blockers are already required to be aware of the location and attacking options of all six players on the other side of the net. If there is a tight pass to a back row setter, and the opposing blocker jumps with the setter, it's an example of poor training and when that set goes outside and the backrow defense gets pegged because the blocker couldn't recover and get out to the pin, you can be sure the coach and teammates will let the blocker know she screwed up. I'd agree with this on a pass that is simply tight to the net. But on an overpass where it's debatable if the setter even has a play on the ball it becomes a much more likely situation that the blocker will simply go up and attack the overpass. This is the EXACT situation where probably 99% of backrow blocks are called. If the rules of the game are structured to where we consider it perfectly reasonable to expect blockers to know the location/status of all six opposing players, why would it be terrible to expect an attacker to be tracking the fr/br status of only two (or at most three) players at the net? I have no idea what your question is? Yes, the first thing a MB does before her team serves is to point out the hitters and indicate whether or not the setter is FR or BR. But I still don't get your question?
|
|