Unintentional block. Bello, Ja/Bello, Jo (ENG) v Diaz/Alayo (CUB)

FIVB rules
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.
Match
Bello, Ja/Bello, Jo (ENG) v Diaz/Alayo (CUB) Men's Semi-Finals - Recife - Beach Pro Tour Challenge 2024
Similar video
Suggestion is to also analyze this video together (where it could seem like its a block, but its not (its attack)): • Block or attack? | Bea...
VBTV
tv.volleyballworld.com/video/...

[@MarkMyerson]

Thanks again for posting these scenarios Simas. Seems like a good call, based on my knowledge of the rules.

[@lupocci]

As the rules in the description says, this is 100% a legit block. You can even block with the foot if any other part of the body is above the net

[@chicoryroth254]

The ambiguity is with "close to the net"

[@MarkMyerson]

@@chicoryroth254 I mean, he was no more than 1m

[@chicoryroth254]

@@MarkMyerson How does that clear up the ambiguity?

[@MarkMyerson]

@@chicoryroth254 The rules are ambiguous by nature. But if you're within touching distance of the net, you're probably close enough to be making a block.

[@bluepawn]

That is very interesting! I would be 100% ok with the referee. However can you hit in a block and doing a hit again in the same time in the same action ?
You can double hit = hit, the block give you a perfect pass block and before landing you hit again during the same action... The action would be ok so i might think that this video is perfectly Ok and the referee is perfect.
That looks very quick but that looks perfectly right to me.

[@MeepMeep88]

Wouldn't it be called a "dig" (by the black guy) with an unintentional hard driven ball by the blocker (white guy)? lol

[@JosephGavin-yl1qp]

Got roofed

[@qmoroz]

I disagree that it was a block
First, he was still in the action of an attack (hasn't even landed).
Second, he should have had a part of his body higher than the top of the net, and I don't beleive that his head (the highest part of the body at the moment of contct with the ball) was totally higher than the net. So I'd say it was a double hit fault.

[@MarkMyerson]

Pretty sure his head was above the net at contact… not sure whether your first point has any relevence in the rulebook???

[@qmoroz]

​@@MarkMyerson I'm the same pretty sure that his head wasn't completely above the net. His hat - maybe.
As for the relevance or irrelevance of my first statement - read the second paragraph of the rule 11.3.1.

[@JosephGavin-yl1qp]

No that was a double

[@wagnerwong9966]

It would have to be a joust. How can blow such an easy call

[@MarkMyerson]

Nope, check the rulebook

[@JoseMoreno-gu2bf]

That's not a block at all

[@enguerranvandenbossche2447]

The player is close to the net, the ball is coming from the opponent, the player's head is upper than the height of the net during point of contact, therefore it's a block.
Note that the height of the actual point of contact is irrelevant, you can block with your feet as long as any part of your body is upper than the net.

[@enguerranvandenbossche2447]

@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 The block has to come from the opponent, not necessarily be an attack hit.
Since same rules apply for the block in beach and indoor volleyball (except for the fact that a block is a 1st touch in beach-volley), you can extrapolate some casebook cases. Here, indoor casebook 3.39 states precisely that it's legal to block a block.

[@nilspils5223]

@@enguerranvandenbossche2447 So technically if the ball comes from your opponent side, you could jump and smash it into your own side of the net and pass the ball again?

[@MikeAIright]

​@@enguerranvandenbossche2447 i think the rule should change if the contact of the ball is above or below the net because someone tall could just stand on the ground and if the players fingers are above the net and opponent spiker hits in the blockers chest and it runs into the net able again to make a second contact is silly.

[@enguerranvandenbossche2447]

@@nilspils5223 I don't know if it applies to what you're thinking of a case, but see volleyball casebook 3.54 : if the player has the intention of smashing the ball towards the opponent (based on the movement of their arm), it is considered as an attack hit and not a block, therefore it can't be touched again by the same team member, e.g. if the ball rebounds to the net