|
Post by n00b on May 12, 2014 15:54:30 GMT -5
I doubt anyone is teaching players to rip up the net. They're taught to get the ball. If they happen to hit the bottom of the net, now it's not called in USAV (been that way for 4-5 years now). I wouldn't be so sure. There might be some coaches that teach their players to rip up the net to save a ball. I myself do not teach that, and the coaches I know don't teach that. But you hear about coaches doing unethical things all the time to give their team an advantage. If hitting the net from the bottom to save a ball gives that team an advantage to save the ball on a bad pass, then those coaches are going to do so if the rules state that they can. There is probably not a lot of these coaches out there, but i'm sure there are a few. How in the world is that considered unethical? My team also accepts points that are awarded to us, even when the other team is serving even though I liked sideout scoring. Is that also unethical to old-schoolers? How is teaching what is allowed withing the rules unethical? That's like saying teaching your players overhand serve receive (and doubling the ball) is unethical. The rules change form time to time. Not changing with them doesn't make you morally superior.
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on May 12, 2014 16:14:42 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so sure. There might be some coaches that teach their players to rip up the net to save a ball. I myself do not teach that, and the coaches I know don't teach that. But you hear about coaches doing unethical things all the time to give their team an advantage. If hitting the net from the bottom to save a ball gives that team an advantage to save the ball on a bad pass, then those coaches are going to do so if the rules state that they can. There is probably not a lot of these coaches out there, but i'm sure there are a few. How in the world is that considered unethical? My team also accepts points that are awarded to us, even when the other team is serving even though I liked sideout scoring. Is that also unethical to old-schoolers? How is teaching what is allowed withing the rules unethical? That's like saying teaching your players overhand serve receive (and doubling the ball) is unethical. The rules change form time to time. Not changing with them doesn't make you morally superior. Coaches that teach their kids to hit the net to save the 2nd ball would be a disservice to the kid. I used unethical in the sense that there are coaches that will do things that isn't right to try and gain an advantage to win (not necessarily the net rule). I worded that point poorly. Didn't mean for you to have a heart-attack over it. If you want to have a heart-attack then go do it over something that is actually worth having one over. I brought this up to have a conversation, not to be given the riot act by someone who feels like they're holier than thou. This has been a good conversation I thought on what is and isn't a net. I understand what everyone is saying in regards to the rules interpretations on my question. Based on what everyone has said based on their interpretation I still can't help but disagree.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 12, 2014 16:58:37 GMT -5
How in the world is that considered unethical? My team also accepts points that are awarded to us, even when the other team is serving even though I liked sideout scoring. Is that also unethical to old-schoolers? How is teaching what is allowed withing the rules unethical? That's like saying teaching your players overhand serve receive (and doubling the ball) is unethical. The rules change form time to time. Not changing with them doesn't make you morally superior. Coaches that teach their kids to hit the net to save the 2nd ball would be a disservice to the kid. I used unethical in the sense that there are coaches that will do things that isn't right to try and gain an advantage to win (not necessarily the net rule). I worded that point poorly. Didn't mean for you to have a heart-attack over it. If you want to have a heart-attack then go do it over something that is actually worth having one over. I brought this up to have a conversation, not to be given the riot act by someone who feels like they're holier than thou. This has been a good conversation I thought on what is and isn't a net. I understand what everyone is saying in regards to the rules interpretations on my question. Based on what everyone has said based on their interpretation I still can't help but disagree. First of all this isn't about your opinion. This is about the FACT that you are wrong about the interpretation of the rule. And just how are coaches doing a disservice to a player by teaching them to play within the rules. So you are 0-2 on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by okzman on May 12, 2014 17:30:26 GMT -5
Our state AAU uses NFSH rules. If a USAV tournament hires NFSH officials, it is because they are desperate for officials. But they do this because they know, that in most circumstances, they will get better performance from the HS official than from players/coaches who may have watched a 40 minute training video. FWIW, I once was an LJ2 in a D1 match involving at least one team that was top five in the country. The OH hitter on my side hit line (ball traveling away from me). The ball was 8-10 inches out, which I promptly signaled. So on this play, which was the sideline opposite the R1, he looks at me, smiles, shakes his head and pats his chest, and signals in. I was furious, and we had an interesting debriefing after the match. In another D1 match (the R1 was a gentleman who has worked several final fours the last few years) I was LJ'ing, and on a very wide set - the OH on the opposite side crushed a ball off the block and into the antenna. This requires two signals from a LJ, first - an antenna fault, then a signal indicating the team at fault (for him, the near side). My LJ partner made the first signal perfectly, but fumbled the second. The R1, concerned by the delay, sent the R2 down to talk to the LJ, who calmly explained that he understood that he had given less than a satisfactory signal - but that the ball had clearly been attacked into the block and off the antenna. The R2 then walked from the corner across to the R1 and told him what the LJ had seen. The R1, visibly unhappy, shook his head and awarded the rally to the blocking team. I could tell, from both facial expression and body language, that my partner was rapidly getting hot. The R1 spent the next 2-3 time-outs trying to calm him down. That was the loudest debriefing I have ever been involved in, with both the R1 and LJ engaged in full throated screaming for at least 10 minutes. I have talked to LJ's who told about working international matches, including Olympics, and that during pre-match instructions, they are politely told to watch the R1, and then signal whatever he signals. So clearly there is controversy at every level. Oh - and instant replay would be a HUGE failure! Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/53912/question-refs?page=8#page=6#ixzz31XdwQworThere is quite a bit of misinformation throughout this thread, on both the topics of volleyball and basketball officiating. "Nationalref" seems to have a pretty good grasp of the rules and "his" responses are generally consistent with the DCR (USAV). A few other respondents appear to be competent officials as well, however there is clearly a range of experience based on some of the opinions expressed. Others (presumably fans and parents) seem to use rumors, "common knowledge" and other techniques to render their opinions. The post above is a great example. I have no doubt that this person is a line judge, but they should not quote what goes on at the Olympic (world) level of competitions on hearsay. As a world league line judge, I can assure you that there is no information disseminated at either the technical meetings or pre-match meetings that give this type of instruction to their support staff. Further, most matches played in the States use truly international arbiters who in many cases have limited English skills and trying to give this type of instruction would be difficult at best. To the great parents on this forum, please understand that just like the players, there is a very wide range of “talent” and experience in the officiating ranks. It is likely that you do not have the top officials in your locally held regional tournament assigned to 12U. It’s OK. They are learning just like your girls and in some instances even the coaches. So...sorry to drone on so long, but please consider the source of information before putting a stake in the subject. And let me say thank you to all of you for the passion and commitment to and for our sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 18:15:13 GMT -5
what does "rip up the net" mean?
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on May 12, 2014 19:59:56 GMT -5
Based on what everyone has said based on their interpretation I still can't help but disagree. It isn't "their" interpretation. It's USAV's interpretation. At this point it seems you don't want to hear the correct answer, you want someone to agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 12, 2014 21:30:57 GMT -5
At least when I coached a few years ago...
I taught the setter to go get the ball. We even worked on her digging/setting the ball out of the net. I told her in club, if you hit the net, play on - you can't do it in high school or NCAA, but in USA you can. Play till you hear the whistle.
I didn't teach them to hit the net. I taught them technique, but told them if they happen to hit the bottom of the net, keep playing.
This is why I believe coaches aren't teaching players to "hit the net." they are teaching them to get the ball, and also teaching them the rules.
I doubt you hear "after setting drills, practice hitting the bottom of the net 10 times"... Or" Go hit the net, then if you happen to also set the ball, that would be great."
Coaches might be teaching players the RULES, but they're not teaching them to hit the net above all else.
My. Two. Cents.
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on May 13, 2014 9:52:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the input nationalreferee, Springs, and others who contributed to answering my question. It looks like I was wrong, so thank you for pointing that out. I still feel like a net call could be argued with how the rules are worded, but I understand why the nets are not being called on the setters playing the ball out of the net now.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 13, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the input nationalreferee, Springs, and others who contributed to answering my question. It looks like I was wrong, so thank you for pointing that out. I still feel like a net call could be argued with how the rules are worded, but I understand why the nets are not being called on the setters playing the ball out of the net now. Net calls are not being called on anyone unless they hit the top of the tape. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 13, 2014 12:13:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the input nationalreferee, Springs, and others who contributed to answering my question. It looks like I was wrong, so thank you for pointing that out. I still feel like a net call could be argued with how the rules are worded, but I understand why the nets are not being called on the setters playing the ball out of the net now. Net calls are not being called on anyone unless they hit the top of the tape. That's it. It's fairly difficult to actually interfere with your opponent by being in the net.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 12:22:35 GMT -5
but it could be done. yanking on the net while the other team has the ball? not legal, i bet. if they didn't have something in mind when they specify interference, then they shouldn't have brought it up at all.
usav needs to seriously think about rewriting their rule book. it is *not* well-written. seems like there's too many rules that people know what they *mean*, but actually aren't clearly delineated in the book.
interference is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 13, 2014 12:50:22 GMT -5
|
|