|
Post by bumpkill on Nov 23, 2010 14:31:10 GMT -5
* when i said court, i meant to say the standard/pole *
|
|
|
Post by reign69heir on Nov 23, 2010 14:50:28 GMT -5
Has this ever been done successfully? Tyler Hildebrand of Long Beach State did it. I like the dazed-and-confused non-calls by the linesman and R1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2010 14:53:09 GMT -5
Sorry if I missed someone posting this, but I think you can pursuit the ball under the net now as opposed to having to run around the court. You may not step in the opponents court while doing so. Uh...
|
|
|
Post by reign69heir on Nov 23, 2010 14:57:24 GMT -5
There's plenty of room between the antenna and the net post. Going under the net that way saves at least 2 full strides. I've noticed that plenty of officials are slow on the uptake of the more lenient net violation rules, calling faults on setters that hit the net with their bums after a set, especially. It's my understanding that a net violation should only be called when contact is made with the top of the net, and only when making a play on the ball. That's the USAV rule. It comes in two parts: "11.3.1 Contact with the net by a player is not a fault, unless it interferes with the play.... 11.4.4 A player interferes with the opponent’s play by (amongst others): - touching the top band of the net or the top 80 cm (2’ 7.49”) of the antenna during his/her action of playing the ball" The NCAA rule is written in the negative: "15.2.1 Player Contact with Net or Antennas Contact with the net by a player is not a fault, unless it is made during an action of playing the ball, or it interferes with the play. Playing the ball may include actions in which the player(s) does not actually touch the ball." For a comparison of the NCAA, USAV, and NFHS net rule, see item 86 on pavo.org/Portals/0/docs/Rule_Comparison_%28NCAA-NFHS-USAV%29_10.pdfThanks for the link. My brain is appeased. Interesting factoid from the USAV rule set: the end line does not always define the beginning of the service zone. When the playing area does not provide 2 meters beyond the end line to constitute the service zone, the service zone encroaches into the court to compensate.
|
|
|
Post by sinjinkarch on Nov 23, 2010 16:19:02 GMT -5
Tyler Hildebrand of Long Beach State did it. I like the dazed-and-confused non-calls by the linesman and R1. The LJ could have signaled pursuit and then dropped the signal if the return path was in fact legal. The LJ could have moved from base position to get a better angle on the path of the ball (both ways) in relation to the antenna. Assuming the return path of the persuable ball was also legal....the R1 has nothing to signal except point to LBSU for a great play.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Nov 23, 2010 17:52:50 GMT -5
I like the dazed-and-confused non-calls by the linesman and R1. The LJ could have signaled pursuit and then dropped the signal if the return path was in fact legal. The LJ could have moved from base position to get a better angle on the path of the ball (both ways) in relation to the antenna. Assuming the return path of the persuable ball was also legal....the R1 has nothing to signal except point to LBSU for a great play. Correct...the LJ should have given an arm straight out to their side signal for pursue-able ball then dropped the arm to their side to indicate a legal return path....and positioned themselves to make the call.
|
|
|
Post by reign69heir on Nov 23, 2010 20:46:43 GMT -5
The R1 should have signaled the result of the play, but I guess he couldn't because the LJ made no signals and the R2 seems to have stepped out for a sodie-pop.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Nov 23, 2010 22:37:14 GMT -5
The R1 should have signaled the result of the play, but I guess he couldn't because the LJ made no signals and the R2 seems to have stepped out for a sodie-pop. The R1 could have signaled such after the clip cuts out.
|
|
|
Post by reign69heir on Nov 24, 2010 2:05:32 GMT -5
The R1 should have signaled the result of the play, but I guess he couldn't because the LJ made no signals and the R2 seems to have stepped out for a sodie-pop. The R1 could have signaled such after the clip cuts out. Let's go out on a limb and say that he did. I'd say that's more likely than his brain exploding.
|
|
|
Post by sinjinkarch on Nov 24, 2010 9:37:14 GMT -5
The R1 should have signaled the result of the play, but I guess he couldn't because the LJ made no signals and the R2 seems to have stepped out for a sodie-pop. The R2 has nothing to signal in this play. Wait for the R1 to signal at the end of the rally and mirror their signals. There is no pursuable signal for the R2. Let's assume the R1 signals after the video clip stops. Or lets assume....that this is a superb official who may in fact have a called a conference with the LJ's and R2 immediately following the play before signalling anything. Better to gather information first then signal one way, then have the LJ provide missing information and have to change the call. Since the LJ didn't provide a ton of help (signal or movement off corner), the R1 probably wanted to confirm that the shanked ball was in fact pursuable and the return path was also legal. Confirm with the R2 that no centerline or interference should be called. Now the R1 has all the info they need....they can signal who won the rally correctly the 1st time around. This is a very special play that happens once in a season if lucky. There were many decisions to be made within less than 2 seconds. There is 1 more "potential" violation that no one in this thread has even mentioned yet!!! Just another decision the R1 had to be aware of. Bonus points for the 1st person to figure it out. Look at the clip again.
|
|