Volley Talk - Da plane! Da plane!

Volley Talk :: Volleyball :: Women's/Girls' Volleyball Forum :: Da plane! Da plane!

Page 1 of 2 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: Da plane! Da plane! (Read 663 times)

(R)uffda!
Professional

member is offline

[avatar]

First born and someone famous

Joined: May 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 4,992

Da plane! Da plane!
« Thread Started on Nov 1, 2007, 4:08pm »

I'm referencing a PrepVB thread here and then I'm pasting it. And it's really, really long. Lots of words, Beevis! Sue me!!

http://p094.ezboard.com/fprepvolleyballfrm2.showMessage?topicID=20500.topic

West Coast Apologist
Registered Member
Posts: 82
(10/30/07 12:45 pm)

Over the Net Revision

On a TV telecast of either Penn state-Minnesota or UCLA-Stanford replays on Sunday the commentator said that FIVA is considering revising the over the net rule so that defenders could contact before the third touch, then said he/she would get back to it, but didn't, or did during part of the telecast deleted. Anybody heard anything about that? Details? Would sure change the game if you could deflect anything you could get your hands on, regardless of touch number.

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 56
(10/30/07 2:56 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

I just wish they'd let the back row setter have a right to the plane, da plane. The backrow block call has got to go.

Torami
Registered Member
Posts: 154
(10/30/07 3:21 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Maybe the ref at a match I was watching the other night thinks this change is already in place. I watched a blocker go over the net and block the ball into the setters hands, as she was making a play for it. No call. My wife and I looked at each other with "what the?" expressions on our faces and said, almost in unison.. "okay, where's the replay?" We both thought we might have seen it wrong, being further way, but I don't think so!

docvolleyball
Registered Member
Posts: 461
(10/30/07 5:37 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

They are expirimenting with that rule as well as incidental net contact, and the joust rule. Now a joust where the ball stays at rest is a replay, as for the net rule any net vioation not to deal with the block such as on the way up to block or after the ball has cleared the block any incidental contact away from the play also is no longer a violation is my understanding.. should be interesting.

BJT3
Registered Member
Posts: 515
(10/30/07 9:02 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

The net violation interpretation is that if the net is contacted in an action not involving making a play at the ball, or interfering with play, then it is not a violation. That is, if a left side player grazes the net coming off when the ball is set to the other side of the court, it is not a violation. That is unless the infraction is so gross as to interfere with the play or cause distraction.

xtremevball
Registered Member
Posts: 201
(10/31/07 9:37 am)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Wow okay now with all those changes and perceptions/interpretations, how will all these parents make the right calls from the stands??? I do have to ask what do you mean with the back row block call or did I read that wrong?
Edited by: xtremevball at: 10/31/07 9:38 am

eweeyeewesee
Registered Member
Posts: 242
(10/31/07 10:06 am)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Quote:

I just wish they'd let the back row setter have a right to the plane, da plane. The backrow block call has got to go.

Yes, by all means, let all six players block.

BJT3
Registered Member
Posts: 517
(10/31/07 10:50 am)

Re: Over the Net Revision

The "back row block" being referred to is an "illegal block" call. This occurs when a back row player contacts the ball above the plane (horizontal) of the net while the ball is in the (vertical) plane of the net and being contacted by the opposing team. It is also called when a back row player makes a block in the front row (definition of block/block attempt is different per rule group)

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 57
(10/31/07 11:17 am)

Re: Over the Net Revision

It's also an impossible call for the up ref to make most of the time, and the same ref has to make a call. He/she can't just let them play on. It's either a backrow block or an illegal attack, but it has to be one or the other.

I say if the backrow setter is making an attempt to set the ball, she should have a right to the plane.

eweeyeewesee
Registered Member
Posts: 244
(10/31/07 11:21 am)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Quote:

I say if the backrow setter is making an attempt to set the ball, she should have a right to the plane.

The back row setter DOES have a right to the plane.

She/he just doesn't have the sole right to the plane. The blocker also has a right to the plane.

mhjets
Registered Member
Posts: 44
(10/31/07 12:28 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Actually the back row setter does not have the right to the plane at all. Once the ball breaks the plane and if it is 100% over the net, he/she has to let it go. I hate this rule to no end. We allow setters to make "athletic" moves that result in blatant double contacts that are not called, yet if they try to go into the plane to retrieve a bad pass, they get penalized.

eweeyeewesee
Registered Member
Posts: 245
(10/31/07 12:37 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Quote:

Actually the back row setter does not have the right to the plane at all. Once the ball breaks the plane and if it is 100% over the net, he/she has to let it go. I hate this rule to no end. We allow setters to make "athletic" moves that result in blatant double contacts that are not called, yet if they try to go into the plane to retrieve a bad pass, they get penalized.

Actually...this is wrong.

In College and HS, as long as the ball is still in the plane, the setter may even reach with hands across the net to play a ball. However, once it breaks the plane of the net, the blocking team has every right to make contact with the ball as well.

In USAV, the setter may play the ball in the plane of the net, so long as they don't have hands in the other team's playing space (across the net). If they contact the ball with hands in the other team's playing space, the call is reaching over on the setter.

Edited by: eweeyeewesee at: 10/31/07 12:39 pm

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 58
(10/31/07 1:45 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Actually, that's not what we're talking about. The setter has a right to the plane unless the opposition blocker also touches the ball -- then it's either an illegal attack or an illegal block on the part of the setter. That is what I want done away with. Let the setter have complete rights to the plane, just like the blocker, as long as she's trying to set the ball.

This is also the situation where the ref has to make a call, one way or the other, never a good idea with a judgment call.

I would also contend that it's a ridiculously difficult call for the up ref to make.

GAvolleyballer
Registered Member
Posts: 10
(10/31/07 2:35 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

How about we demand better passes from our serve receive and defense instead of changing the rules to allow setters to go after overpasses?

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 59
(10/31/07 2:37 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Let me know how that goes for you.

Torami
Registered Member
Posts: 158
(10/31/07 2:53 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

Hey, as a 6'6" player with limited skills, I love those "birthday present" overpasses! I don't want no stinkin' setter getting in the way!! :^/

BJT3
Registered Member
Posts: 519
(10/31/07 5:03 pm)

Re: Over the Net Revision

There is a no call situation in this instance. If the ball is in the vertical plane of the net, a blocker contacts it, a back row setter is contacting the ball below the horizontal plane of the net; then neither is in violation, and there is no call unless the setter mishandles the ball.

NuCoach
Registered Member
Posts: 102
(10/31/07 6:11 pm)

Get out of the way!

This situation just happened last week with my daughter's team. There was an overpass and the back row setter (my daughter who's 5'7") jumps up and while in the air, determines that she can't reach the overpass so she lowers both arms below the top of net. The ball breaks the plane of the net, so the opposing team player plays the overpass and pounds the ball right into my daughter's arms and it goes over the net and falls inbound on the opposite side.

What do you think the referee did? Did he call a violation?

Nothintuit
Registered Member
Posts: 21
(10/31/07 6:57 pm)

Did he?

Yes.

Should he have?

No.

BJT3
Registered Member
Posts: 521
(10/31/07 10:17 pm)

Re: Did he?

Agreed...The official probably whistled a violation, which he/she shouldn't have. As long as the player is completely below the net height, there is no block attempt (NCAA rules...I can't remember NFHS interpretations, but they have been goofy at times in considering what a block attempt is)

Not JLP
Registered Member
Posts: 91
(10/31/07 10:45 pm)

Re: Did he?

I think I understand your argument (R)uffda! and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I don't see how the call is difficult for a ref. Either the ball breaks the plane of the net and there is an illegal block by the back row setter, or it doesn't and there is illegal penetration by the blocker. The first ref is in perfect position to see and make this decision. I think trying to judge the setter's intent (set or block, or block with a setting action?) puts the ref in a more difficult situation. It seems to me that if you allow a "play on" situation you are not rewarding the serve or spike that led to the overpass.

Maybe L.A. old timers can help on this: Team Cup at the Forum used to allow a player to come out of the back row to block. I never saw the league and I don't know how the rule worked, but if this was allowed maybe allowing a back row setter block to be a "play on" would work?

I much prefer the USA rule about setters reaching over the plane of the net and bringing a ball back to their own side (as long as they get the ball before the blocker). I wish the FIVB would adopt this version of the rule.

Going back to the original post in this thread:

I remember this rule was talked about several years ago (maybe 10?). The point was to move the offense away from the net a little bit. In theory it would give the defense some advantage and lead to longer rallies. Where are they experimenting with this rule? I hadn't heard anything about it being used anywhere.

NuCoach
Registered Member
Posts: 103
(10/31/07 11:15 pm)

Re: Did he?

No, he didn't! He let it play on and the opposing team coach made his floor captain address the referee. He later admitted that he (coach) was just stalling to get his players mentally back in the game.

No violation which was the right call!

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 60
(11/1/07 9:24 am)

Re: Did he?

NotJLP, I think it's a very difficult call because you have a round object entering (or not yet entering) a vertical space. On top of that, you have the horizontal plane to worry about (as discussed in the previous post). On top of THAT you have a setter and a blocker who more than likely are going to follow through with their hands and arms well into or past the vertical and horizontal planes.

If the backrow setter had a right to the plane, it's a no-call. If the up ref had the option to simply bail on the call and let it go, it would even help. But as it stands now, unless part of the ball is below the horizontal plane, he/she must make a call. And even in that case, he/she must make part of the ball was in the _vertical_ plane to go with a no-call, otherwise the blocker has attacked the ball illegally.

Here's a demo for everyone with spare time -- that's all of us. Take a volleyball and two rulers. The rulers will represent the vertical and horizontal planes. The volleyball will be playing itself. Now, re-enact the plays in question.

I rest my case.

Edited by: Ruffda at: 11/1/07 9:27 am

Torami
Registered Member
Posts: 160
(11/1/07 10:45 am)

Re: Did he?

Quote:

Take a volleyball and two rulers. The rulers will represent the vertical and horizontal planes. The volleyball will be playing itself. Now, re-enact the plays in question.

Works great.... if you have three hands!

Ruffda
Registered Member
Posts: 61
(11/1/07 11:11 am)

Re: Did he?

You don't have a lovely assistant?

Torami
Registered Member
Posts: 161
(11/1/07 11:30 am)

Re: Did he?

Lovely yes... willing to assist me obsessing about rule changes... no!