Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2006 13:04:52 GMT -5
But how many times do you see the backrow setter AND a front row hitter going up for the same ball? Generally, if it's a ball the setter can play, the hitters have transitioned to attack. p-dub needs to refresh my memory on this one -- if I was ever clear on it. Or we could just let it go, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 8, 2006 13:13:54 GMT -5
My memory is right, and it is more or less like you said, I think.
An overpass leading to a ball over the net. The other team hitter is going to get it, but the Purdue middle (Lynch) was also there, and went to go after it, too. Dargan is in the vicinity, but ducks away. The ball gets through Lynch's hands, falls down and off Dargan's back. Powell calls back row block.
Technically, the block could be called on the basis that Dargan was near Lynch, and Lynch was nominally in the act of blocking (more in a joust). However, as Ruffda notes, this is not what the rule is for. It is to prevent a backrow blocker from setting up a block and then claiming that they didn't touch the ball.
Thus, my claim that Powell called it as a power move, just to show that she is going to follow the letter of the rule, regardless of whether there is anything to do with the spirit of it.
|
|
|
Post by JustInCase on Oct 8, 2006 14:24:33 GMT -5
Actually she made the call exactly as it should have been called and if she didn't call it, would have been questioned by the other coach.
I don't like the rule, but Powell called it as she is suppose to. Not her fault that the rule is that way.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 8, 2006 15:22:04 GMT -5
My memory is right, and it is more or less like you said, I think. An overpass leading to a ball over the net. The other team hitter is going to get it, but the Purdue middle (Lynch) was also there, and went to go after it, too. Dargan is in the vicinity, but ducks away. The ball gets through Lynch's hands, falls down and off Dargan's back. Powell calls back row block. Technically, the block could be called on the basis that Dargan was near Lynch, and Lynch was nominally in the act of blocking (more in a joust). However, as Ruffda notes, this is not what the rule is for. It is to prevent a backrow blocker from setting up a block and then claiming that they didn't touch the ball. Thus, my claim that Powell called it as a power move, just to show that she is going to follow the letter of the rule, regardless of whether there is anything to do with the spirit of it. The thing is there is no mention of the "intent" of the rule. There is no clarification or interpretation now (that I've been able to find for the 2006 rules) that exclude that particular case from not having been correctly called. At one point in the past that specific case was used as an example for making the back row blocker call. There is nothing that says ducking removes one from a collective block. The rule only mentions the close proximity of players constituting a collective block. Without having been there or seen a video of the play there is the possibility in my mind that Dargan had not ducked by the time Lynch touched (or was touched by) the ball. A joust would either be an attack or a block attempt on Lynch's part. Since the ball was an overpass it would be prefectly reasonable for the referee to make the judgement that it was a block attempt. On serve receive when so many people ask "why are they always serving right to her" while they're watching the flight of the ball rather than watching the player in question "being served to" in order see that the receiving player actually moved an appreciable distance in order to get in position to recieve the ball. On defense fans "ooh and aah" when a player makes a spectacular dig because they're watching the attackers, blockers, and the flight of the ball rather than noticing that the defending player didn't get into the correct position to dig the ball and had to make the spectacular play in order to make up for being out of position. People (naturally) have a tendency to watch the ball and "assume" things that may (or may not) have happened based on player positioning at the end of the play. It would still be interesting to see a clip of the play in question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2006 15:37:30 GMT -5
Gorf, you have to agree that this would be an extremely picky call if Dargan was not at the net, no?
If she was at the net, it's the right call.
I still can't recall ever seeing a backrow setter and an attacker going for the same ball. Why hasn't the attacker transitioned? If it's a quick overpass, why isn't the setter in her backrow defensive position.
I too would love to see the play...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 8, 2006 15:50:07 GMT -5
But how many times do you see the backrow setter AND a front row hitter going up for the same ball? Generally, if it's a ball the setter can play, the hitters have transitioned to attack. p-dub needs to refresh my memory on this one -- if I was ever clear on it. Or we could just let it go, I suppose. How many times I've seen it isn't really relevant. If it happened as Joan saw it and called it then it was a reasonable call. If it happened as p-dub saw it and Dargan was clearly ducking well before Lynch contacted the ball then it was still a valid though likely very strict call. We've both seen instances where a back row setter actually gets away with blocking an opponents attack of an overpass. We've both seen instances where a libero sets the ball in front of the attack line and her team gets a kill without a fault being called. Which of those situations is worse? Missing a fault that ought to have been called or at worst making a strict interpretation of a rule and making a valid call? Personally, on plays like the one in question I find myself wondering why referees don't save themselves some grief and simply out to make the "safe call". If the play happened quickly and the referee has to think about making the back row blocker call or simply calling the ball down make the latter call. The opponent receives a point in either case and with the latter call the referee receives less grief. The fans, players, and coaches aren't very likely to have known what a collective block is for that case let alone how it could result in a back row blocker call so it isn't likely anyone would be complaining about the "non-call". Its similar to a referee making a lift call when a player attempts to cover a block, the ball gets popped up into the net and back down to the floor. The referee makes a controversial lift call and gets grief from players, coaches, and fans. The referee calls the ball down and everyone thinks the cover needs to be made next time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2006 15:51:24 GMT -5
You aren't paying attention again. But never mind.
I've lost interest...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 8, 2006 15:58:47 GMT -5
Gorf, you have to agree that this would be an extremely picky call if Dargan was not at the net, no? If she was at the net, it's the right call. I still can't recall ever seeing a backrow setter and an attacker going for the same ball. Why hasn't the attacker transitioned? If it's a quick overpass, why isn't the setter in her backrow defensive position. I too would love to see the play... I said it would have been a very strict interpretation of the rule is it actually did happen exactly as p-dub said. FWIW: p-dub didn't say Dargan wasn't at the net, he said she was ducking. Why wasn't Lynch in transition? Perhaps because the pass was coming to the net very quickly and looked to be an obvious overpass to her at the time so she reacted by trying to block rather than transitioning for an attack of her own off of a set? Did it happen off of an overpass on serve receive or off of a dig attempt? Did Dargan get to the net early because she "obviously" wasn't going to be involved in the serve receive or defensive play? I have no idea - my contention is that the call even as described by p-dub was plausibly valid even if it was an eggregiously stricts interpretation of the rules. We've all seen referees make both very strict and very loose interpretations of various rules. The only real difference in this case to me is that it is a rather obscure rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2006 16:00:42 GMT -5
My point is there is more to do this than we know. There is no good reason for Lynch and Dargan to be at the net at the same time.
If Dargan was not at the net, it's a damned picky call.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 8, 2006 16:06:45 GMT -5
For the most part I've not disagreed with you on any of that.
A "good" reason for both of them to be at the net would be Dargan already being at the net by the time the pass / dig was made and Lynch potentially reacting to the overpass while she started to transition, changed her mind and tried to block the ball.
Those types of plays happen so quickly at times that almost anything is possible.
p-dub, do you recall call how far from the net Dargan was at the time Lynch attempted to block / joust the ball?
My contention has been that regardless of how picky the call was it was still plausibly a valid call.
It can't be said that Joan called it differently for one team than the other because as you point out the likelihood of it happening again in the same match for the other team is very low.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 8, 2006 17:30:18 GMT -5
I thought Dargan graduated.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 8, 2006 17:35:34 GMT -5
The reference was regarding a Joan Powell call during one of last year's matches.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 8, 2006 17:37:20 GMT -5
What is Dargan doing nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Oct 9, 2006 3:10:37 GMT -5
My memory is right, and it is more or less like you said, I think. An overpass leading to a ball over the net. The other team hitter is going to get it, but the Purdue middle (Lynch) was also there, and went to go after it, too. Dargan is in the vicinity, but ducks away. The ball gets through Lynch's hands, falls down and off Dargan's back. Powell calls back row block. Technically, the block could be called on the basis that Dargan was near Lynch, and Lynch was nominally in the act of blocking (more in a joust). However, as Ruffda notes, this is not what the rule is for. It is to prevent a backrow blocker from setting up a block and then claiming that they didn't touch the ball. Thus, my claim that Powell called it as a power move, just to show that she is going to follow the letter of the rule, regardless of whether there is anything to do with the spirit of it. A collective Block resulting in a illegal BR block when a BR player is in the vicinity of the blockers near the net is to keep a BR player from fake blocking. If two FR blockers prepare to go up and a BR player is also with them an attacker who sees the block will see 3 blockers at the net. Dargan's presence at the net near Lynch could alter that attack of the opponent who thinks she'll be facing a double block instead of a single block; regardless of whether Dargen ducks out at the last second. And the perfect play by a Middle on a potential close overpass is to give her setter a viable option by running a 1 in front of the BR setter so the setter has a touch set to her, this puts both the MB and the setter jumping at the net nearly simultaneously along with the opponents blocker. If the setter ducks out at the last second and the opponent blocks/attacks the overpass into the Purdue MB, then Dargan is absolutely participating in a composite illegal BR block since she could affect the play on the ball of the opponent attacking the overpass who's thinks she's possibly facing 2 blockers. Just how I see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2006 8:33:02 GMT -5
My question is still: where was Dargan? "In the vicinity" doesn't tell us enough. If she was behind the middle blocker, I think it's a picky call. If she was at the net, not so picky -- although not a call you see very often.
Had she jumped? Had she made an attempt to set the ball? It's really hard to picture the play as described. Usually, it's going to be pretty cut and dried.
The thing I don't like about these backrow setter plays is that the up ref HAS TO MAKE A CALL. If the setter and opponent both touch the ball, it's either a backrow block (or backrow attack) on the setter or an illegal block by the blocker. I'd still prefer letting both players have access to the plane of the net so a call doesn't have to be made. It's a VERY difficult call to tell whether the ball was in the plane or not.
|
|