※ 引述《omfg (鬪)》之铭言： : 案例说明：九十三学年度台大盃於五月三十日举行之Ｍ队对Ｂ队进行之复赛中，Ｍ队之後 : 排举球员於前排攻击区内跃起，将完全位於白带高度之上的球托起，当球通过网子的垂直 : 平面而将穿越至Ｂ队场域上方之时，Ｂ队前排球员跃起以拦网动作碰触球体，该比赛主裁 : 判即鸣哨比赛中止，试问，该裁判的判断有何规则依据及其适用有无错误？ : 案例解析：本案关键在於该场比赛Ｍ队後排举球员处理Ｍ队的第二击球动作究竟是否为攻 : 击动作，进而才衍申出Ｂ队前排拦网球员的拦网动作使否为合法之问题，然而根据国际排 : 协(FIVB)所公布之比赛规则中14.1.1中定义的攻击动作(attack hit)： : 　　　All actions which direct the ball towards the opponents, with the ~~~~~~~ I had asked the same question at that day but ur answer was that "the ball was under the field of our opponent." U stopped the game to be continuous because u said our setter penetrate the field of our opponent. That means u did not follow any official rule to stop the game. By the way, if this is ur answer at that moment , how could u recognize the action as an attack hit? U did not mention the movement of the ball as I asked u. : exceptions of service and　block, are considered as attack hits. : 另根据该规则中14.1.3所示： : 　　　An attack is completed at the moment the ball is completely crosses the : vertical plane of the net or is touched by the oppenent. : 意即攻击动作的完成要件有球体完全穿越网子或碰触至对方的身体，是故当球员将球击向 : 对方的场地而触碰到对方拦网球员的手即完成攻击动作．本案当中Ｍ队举球员将球托起， : 经主裁判认定有击向Ｂ队场地之可能，依据规则定义不论Ｍ队举球员为故意与否，均为一 : 攻击之动作，依规则14.3.3构成攻击之违例(Faults of the attack hit)： : 　　　A back-row player completes an attack hit from the front zone, if at the : moment of the hit the ball is entirely higher than the top of the net. : 并於攻击完成之时，即球体越过网子或触碰到Ｂ队球员身体时，裁判应鸣哨Ｍ队举球员攻 : 击违例，由Ｂ队得一分并取得发球权，方属妥当。 If u did not mention the movement as I asked u, why don't u referee the rule 14.3 BLOCKING WITHIN THE OPPONENT'S SPACE In blocking, the player may place his/her hands and arms beyond the net provided that this action does not interfere with the opponents’ play. Thus, it is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until an opponent has executed an attack hit. Did we finish an attack hit if our setter hit the ball toward our field , Mr. Referee? So that the mistake will be emerge if u referee the case 4.37 in the case book published in the website of FIVB. : 於FIVB公告的2005 Volleyball Rules Casebook中4.37有同样见解： : 　　　The set by Ball(the back-row setter for the USA MEN)become an illegal : hit by a back-row player when the attack hit is completed by Lima's(Brazilian : setter) block. As soon as the blocker, Lima, contacted the ball the attack hit : was completed and was illegal.... : 注意此判例中认为美国队举球员的动作构成违例的原因乃是：当他举出来的球越过网子的 : 假想垂直平面(penetrate the vertical plane of the net)，该举球动作即属攻击动作 : ，有後排球员违例的限制，已属非法攻击，拦网者触球仅仅是造成比赛中止的事由。反面 : 来说，倘若後排举球员二传球，未过网子的假想垂直平面或触碰到对方球员，则因攻击动 : 作尚未完成，没有比赛中止的必要，纵使举球员乃意图将球击过网子，亦然．参照上述 : Casebook4.35： : 　　　Since the ball neither crossed the plane of the net nor was it : contacted by the blocker, the attack hit by Toson(back-row player for Egypt) : was not completed.... : 另外，由於规则15.3规定： 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 opponents' play. Thus,it : is not permitted to touch the ball beyond the net until the opponent has : executed an attack hit. : 於是乎，上述拦网者的动作又可以分为两种情况，一为其手和手臂未越过网子垂直平面， : 一为越过平面拦阻球的行进．判例中与本案较为相关的是4.41： : 　　　It is absolutely necessary for the first referee to determine the action : of the setter. He must know whether the set was made parallel to the net or : whether the set was going toward the net, thus, making it an attack hit.... : It is not a fault to block an attack hit beyond the net. It is importent for : the referee to be able to differentiate between a set and an attack using an : overhand pass. : 此判例赋予主裁判任务是判断举球员的球是否有过网而形成"攻击球"的可能，若有，则拦 : 网者越过网子拦截球则为拦截攻击球，应为合法；若球尚未过网，拦网者即违反规则15.3 : 後段规定，为违法拦网，亦即所谓妨碍举球。 Yes, u got the point. And right now, may I ask that why did u not mention this consideration as I asked u at that whistle but gave me the "rule" I mentioned above. : 亦应提及判例4.45所示： : 　　　Blocker may not contacted the ball across the net until the attack hit is : executed, except when in the judgement of the first referee, no possibility : exists for further play on the ball by the attacking team. : 该判例阐明：纵使攻击方的来球为一传或二传而有通过网子到对方场地之可能，当球体尚 : 未通过网子垂直平面时，倘若有攻击方其他球员有机会碰触到球而拦网者抢先触球，即属 : 拦网方犯规．判例4.45应为4.41的例外。 : 综之，於攻击方来球有可能过网而尚未过网的情形应该分成两种状况，有其他攻击方球员 : 球员可以触碰球的可能及没有的情形，若有，而拦网者越网拦截，则拦网者犯规，即所谓 : 的妨碍举球；若没有，拦网者所为乃合法拦网。 : 本案事实经主裁判判定，Ｍ队後排举球员所托出之球确有越过网子垂直假想平面之可能， : 而Ｂ队拦网者并未越过网子拦截该攻击球，故不生判断拦网违例与否的原则与例外问题． : 主裁判判断Ｍ队举球员後排攻击球违例，并於Ｂ队拦网球员碰触球之际鸣哨中止比赛，应 : 属正确。 : 　　　 : 以上为本人回应Ｍ队球员於赛後对裁判规则的讨论 : 欢迎板上其他前辈先进不吝指教。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.253.93