Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 15:17:20 GMT -5
I think this was the call that was made initially, but I'm not sure it was correct. My recollection is that Strickland was the first contact, meaning that is was an allowable pass, not a set, and that Scambray hit on the second contact. Under these circumstances, wouldn't Scambray be allowed to contact the ball over the height of the net?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 30, 2014 15:19:28 GMT -5
If the call was correct, why, after referring with the down ref, did the up ref order a do-over?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Nov 30, 2014 15:56:26 GMT -5
I think this was the call that was made initially, but I'm not sure it was correct. My recollection is that Strickland was the first contact, meaning that is was an allowable pass, not a set, and that Scambray hit on the second contact. Under these circumstances, wouldn't Scambray be allowed to contact the ball over the height of the net? I honestly can't remember if it was 1st or 2nd contact (I thought it was a 2nd contact off a dig, but I could be wrong), but I don't believe it matters. If the ref judged Strickland to be assisting a kill using finger action inside the 3M line, doesn't matter if it's 1st or 2nd contact. If Strickland had used a closed hand, used the back of her hand, had it bounce off her head etc on a first contact it would have been legal.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 30, 2014 16:32:29 GMT -5
I think this was the call that was made initially, but I'm not sure it was correct. My recollection is that Strickland was the first contact, meaning that is was an allowable pass, not a set, and that Scambray hit on the second contact. Under these circumstances, wouldn't Scambray be allowed to contact the ball over the height of the net? If Scambray attacks the ball, then Strickland's contact was indeed a set. The libero cannot make an overhand set inside the 10-foot line.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 30, 2014 17:37:16 GMT -5
I think this was the call that was made initially, but I'm not sure it was correct. My recollection is that Strickland was the first contact, meaning that is was an allowable pass, not a set, and that Scambray hit on the second contact. Under these circumstances, wouldn't Scambray be allowed to contact the ball over the height of the net? I honestly can't remember if it was 1st or 2nd contact (I thought it was a 2nd contact off a dig, but I could be wrong), but I don't believe it matters. If the ref judged Strickland to be assisting a kill using finger action inside the 3M line, doesn't matter if it's 1st or 2nd contact. If Strickland had used a closed hand, used the back of her hand, had it bounce off her head etc on a first contact it would have been legal. It was the second contact, but IIRC she used the palm of one hand, not the fingers of both. It was definitely NOT a setting action. I thought it was a bad call.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 30, 2014 17:41:17 GMT -5
I think this was the call that was made initially, but I'm not sure it was correct. My recollection is that Strickland was the first contact, meaning that is was an allowable pass, not a set, and that Scambray hit on the second contact. Under these circumstances, wouldn't Scambray be allowed to contact the ball over the height of the net? I honestly can't remember if it was 1st or 2nd contact (I thought it was a 2nd contact off a dig, but I could be wrong), but I don't believe it matters. If the ref judged Strickland to be assisting a kill using finger action inside the 3M line, doesn't matter if it's 1st or 2nd contact. If Strickland had used a closed hand, used the back of her hand, had it bounce off her head etc on a first contact it would have been legal. It is only a violation if all of these are true 1) the libero's last point of contact with the cround was in the front zone 2) the libero uses "finger action" (actual quote from the rule book) 3) the attacker contacts the ball entirely above the height of the net In real time, it never even occurred to me that they might be calling a front zone libero set. I know the announcers decided, in slow-mo, that's what she must have called. Whatever she did actually call, the down ref clearly disagreed with it. Whatever she did call, she was unsure enough about it to decide it had been a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Nov 30, 2014 17:42:47 GMT -5
[b No way a big team doesn't get top 4 seed Not sure what your criteria of a "big team" is. I will assume you meant "Increasingly misnamed Big 10" team (abbreviated B1G). I always assumed there would be a Big14 team as one of the top 4 seeds, just no way it should be PSU based on RPI - I always assumed it would be Wisconsin, definitely now. With Texas losing yesterday (thank you Florida) the top three should be Stanford, Wisconsin, Washington and [take your pick] Texas, FSU or NC. Not sure how you would justify FSU over NC at this point, but I am sure they could come up with a way. U have t go with the best teams at top and most agree psu would beat Florida st North Carolina Florida. It's not like any of them went undefeated or penn state had bunch of loses. If u want best 4 at top in my opinion like it seems to be mosts opinion, Washington Stanford Wisconsin and penn state are best 4 teams in country
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Nov 30, 2014 17:46:21 GMT -5
We will see soon enough. A 4 or 5 seed for psu is gonna give them a pretty easy road. They could get either Florida st or North Carolina. If that were to happens I can see the board blowing up in outrage
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 30, 2014 20:42:26 GMT -5
I thought the ref had called Strickland for a hand set inside the ten-foot line. That was the call, yes. And it was correct. The delay in the whistle being blown was because Scambray attacked the ball over the height of the net following Strickland's set. If Scambray had swung flat footed or bumped the ball over, the ref would likely have swallowed her whistle. It's a bit more complicated than that. Illegal attacks... both the more familiar kind and those involving liberos... must be established before the whistle is blown. For example, the defending team can net after the illegal attack but before the attack becomes established... and the first fault ends the point, not the first sequence that could end in a fault. The interpretation section specifically states that an illegal attack first contacted by a back-row blocker is a simultaneous fault, leading to a replay. If I remember correctly, it was even more complicated because the set and attack were the first and second contact and so the slightest tip by a front row player on the attacking team would have turned the libero set into an overhand pass, the would-be attack into a set, and the tip into a legal attack.
|
|