[心得] 吹判爭議之規則闡釋

看板NTUManVolley作者omfg (鬪)時間19年前 (2005/06/02 18:23)推噓5(6推 1噓 3→)

留言10則, 6人參與討論串1/3 (看更多)

案例說明：九十三學年度台大盃於五月三十日舉行之Ｍ隊對Ｂ隊進行之複賽中，Ｍ隊之後排舉球員於前排攻擊區內躍起，將完全位於白帶高度之上的球托起，當球通過網子的垂直平面而將穿越至Ｂ隊場域上方之時，Ｂ隊前排球員躍起以攔網動作碰觸球體，該比賽主裁判即鳴哨比賽中止，試問，該裁判的判斷有何規則依據及其適用有無錯誤？案例解析：本案關鍵在於該場比賽Ｍ隊後排舉球員處理Ｍ隊的第二擊球動作究竟是否為攻擊動作，進而才衍申出Ｂ隊前排攔網球員的攔網動作使否為合法之問題，然而根據國際排協(FIVB)所公佈之比賽規則中14.1.1中定義的攻擊動作(attack hit)：　　　All actions which direct the ball towards the opponents, with the exceptions of service and　block, are considered as attack hits. 另根據該規則中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. 意即攻擊動作的完成要件有球體完全穿越網子或碰觸至對方的身體，是故當球員將球擊向對方的場地而觸碰到對方攔網球員的手即完成攻擊動作．本案當中Ｍ隊舉球員將球托起，經主裁判認定有擊向Ｂ隊場地之可能，依據規則定義不論Ｍ隊舉球員為故意與否，均為一攻擊之動作，依規則14.3.3構成攻擊之違例(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. 並於攻擊完成之時，即球體越過網子或觸碰到Ｂ隊球員身體時，裁判應鳴哨Ｍ隊舉球員攻擊違例，由Ｂ隊得一分並取得發球權，方屬妥當。於FIVB公告的2005 Volleyball Rules Casebook中4.37有同樣見解：　　　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.... 注意此判例中認為美國隊舉球員的動作構成違例的原因乃是：當他舉出來的球越過網子的假想垂直平面(penetrate the vertical plane of the net)，該舉球動作即屬攻擊動作，有後排球員違例的限制，已屬非法攻擊，攔網者觸球僅僅是造成比賽中止的事由。反面來說，倘若後排舉球員二傳球，未過網子的假想垂直平面或觸碰到對方球員，則因攻擊動作尚未完成，沒有比賽中止的必要，縱使舉球員乃意圖將球擊過網子，亦然．參照上述 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，由於規則15.3規定：　　　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，上述攔網者的動作又可以分為兩種情況，一為其手和手臂未越過網子垂直平面，一為越過平面攔阻球的行進．判例中與本案較為相關的是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. 此判例賦予主裁判任務是判斷舉球員的球是否有過網而形成"攻擊球"的可能，若有，則攔網者越過網子攔截球則為攔截攻擊球，應為合法；若球尚未過網，攔網者即違反規則15.3 後段規定，為違法攔網，亦即所謂妨礙舉球。亦應提及判例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. 該判例闡明：縱使攻擊方的來球為一傳或二傳而有通過網子到對方場地之可能，當球體尚未通過網子垂直平面時，倘若有攻擊方其他球員有機會碰觸到球而攔網者搶先觸球，即屬攔網方犯規．判例4.45應為4.41的例外。綜之，於攻擊方來球有可能過網而尚未過網的情形應該分成兩種狀況，有其他攻擊方球員球員可以觸碰球的可能及沒有的情形，若有，而攔網者越網攔截，則攔網者犯規，即所謂的妨礙舉球；若沒有，攔網者所為乃合法攔網。本案事實經主裁判判定，Ｍ隊後排舉球員所托出之球確有越過網子垂直假想平面之可能，而Ｂ隊攔網者並未越過網子攔截該攻擊球，故不生判斷攔網違例與否的原則與例外問題．主裁判判斷Ｍ隊舉球員後排攻擊球違例，並於Ｂ隊攔網球員碰觸球之際鳴哨中止比賽，應屬正確。　　　以上為本人回應Ｍ隊球員於賽後對裁判規則的討論歡迎板上其他前輩先進不吝指教。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.229.119.113

推

Ducklover

220.135.80.32 06/02, , 1^F

220.135.80.32 06/02, 1^F

推

west1996

61.230.72.110 06/03, , 2^F

61.230.72.110 06/03, 2^F

→

west1996

61.230.72.110 06/03, , 3^F

61.230.72.110 06/03, 3^F