.png)
Block Error = Attack Kill?
tl:dr
When a block error (a block attempt that directly results in a point lost, e.g. net contact violation) is charged to the blocker, the attacker automatically gets awarded a kill
I do not think this should always be done automatically because a kill should only be awarded if the attacker earned the point and not if it was unearned via an unforced error committed by the opposition, e.g. when the attacker spikes the ball out of bounds but a net touch was called on the opposition blocker
I feel that a kill should only be awarded based on whether the player earned that kill regardless if a block violation was called. It ensures the attack stats are a better measurement of attacking performance and any informed decisions based on the data can be trusted
Block Error = Attack Kill?
A block error is a block attempt that directly results in a point lost, e.g. net contact violation, centre-line fault, back-row player blocks, blocking the setter etc. When a block error is charged to a player, an attack kill is automatically awarded to the attacker (see link). I think the philosophy behind this (I can’t find a source though) is the attacker’s spiking action facilitated the blocking error so the attacker should be awarded with a kill. However, I don’t really subscribe to this philosophy because I would say the spiking action doesn’t really affect the blocking action. To put it another way, is there a way for the attacker to do something to encourage a blocking error? I really don’t think so. I think the philosophy behind this (I can’t find a source though) is the attacker’s spiking action facilitated the blocking error so the attacker should be awarded with a kill. However, I don’t really subscribe to this philosophy because I would say the spiking action doesn’t really affect the blocking action. To put it another way, is there a way for the attacker to do something to encourage a blocking error? I really don’t think so.
There is also the issue that this situation creates a logical inconsistency based on Mark Lebedew’s argument. That is, the rally ends when a player earned a point (+1) through their good actions that led to a forced error (+0) OR a player made an unforced error (-1) that led to an unearned point (+0). You can’t have a situation where a player earned a point (+1) AND the opposition player made an unforced error (-1) but the block error (-1) – kill (+1) situation treats it this way. The argument is so persuasive that I already made changes in similar +1/-1 situations like ace-reception error, tooled block-kill, and stuffed attacks-block kill.
Ultimately, what really made me question that a kill shouldn’t always be awarded to the attacker automatically when a block error is called are real-life situations that I have statted. I will outline them below. kill shouldn’t always be awarded to the attacker automatically when a block error is called are real-life situations that I have statted. I will outline them below.
When A Kill Should NOT Be Awarded
When The Spike Goes Out of BoundsThe main situation is when the attacker spikes the ball out of bounds but the referee calls for a net touch on the blocker. So what should have been an attack error (-1) is suddenly changed into a kill (+1). That doesn’t makes sense to me. The attacker shouldn’t be awarded a kill (+1) when they hit the ball out of bounds.
When The Spike Goes Into the NetThis is the same situation as spiking the ball out of bounds. The attacker shouldn’t be awarded with a kill (+1) when they didn’t earn it.
When Blocking the SetterWhen the blocker is called for blocking the setter during their setting attempt, this means the setter should technically be awarded a kill. This doesn’t make sense because the setter didn’t make an attacking attempt. In any case, I can’t see an argument where they earned the point.
When The Spike Gets DefendedA more common situation is when the opposition team defends the spiked ball but a block violation is called. When The Spike Gets DefendedA more common situation is when the opposition team defends the spiked ball but a block violation is called. Again, I would say the attacker did not earn the point because the rally would have continued if the block violation wasn’t called. Again, I would say the attacker did not earn the point because the rally would have continued if the block violation wasn’t called.
When A Kill SHOULD Be Awarded
If The Attacker Would’ve Got The Kill Anyway I feel that if the attacker would have gotten the kill regardless if a block error were called, e.g. the spike strikes the floor or the defender shanks the ball, then I would award the attacker with a kill. The attacker still earned that point despite the unforced error by the blocker. This does go against Mark Lebedew’s argument that you can’t have a situation where a player earned a point (+1) AND the opposition player made an unforced error (-1). However, I do think the attacker earned the kill and the blocker also made an unforced error so I will just have to accept the logical inconsistency.
If The Attacker Tooled the BlockWhether you consider tooled blocks as a block error or not (see link to read more), I would say the situation should still be statted the same: the attacker should be awarded a kill. Their good actions still earned them a point. This doesn’t create a logical inconsistency as explained above because I consider tooled blocks as forced errors (+0) rather than an unforced error (-1).
Final Thoughts
I never liked it when I had to give a kill to a player when they spiked the ball out of bounds just because the blocker touched the net. Kills should be earned points won by the attacker and not unearned via unforced errors committed by the opposition. This was really the main reason why I now only award the kill to the attacker if they would’ve gotten the kill anyway regardless whether a block violation was called. Statting it this way should give a better measurement of attacking performance and any informed decisions based on the data can be trusted.
Comments