|
Post by #skoskers on Feb 3, 2015 16:44:34 GMT -5
I’m all for implementing measures that will increase the integrity of the game. Nothing is worse when a call is ruled out or in but the replay shows otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Feb 3, 2015 16:55:09 GMT -5
I would think using the paddle system would work for challenges. Just stand up and hold up Red paddle so one of the refs sees it. A paddle or a colored card the coach could put in their pocket would work. I think 3 per match is a good compromise... 2 per set is way too many stoppages. Current replays don't use cameras fast enough to definitely catch touches a lot of the time. I think you could probably lobby for an uncalled net on a lot of plays too, so I wonder how that interpretation will go.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Feb 3, 2015 17:11:40 GMT -5
I would think using the paddle system would work for challenges. Just stand up and hold up Red paddle so one of the refs sees it. A paddle or a colored card the coach could put in their pocket would work. I think 3 per match is a good compromise... 2 per set is way too many stoppages. Current replays don't use cameras fast enough to definitely catch touches a lot of the time. I think you could probably lobby for an uncalled net on a lot of plays too, so I wonder how that interpretation will go. I'd have to agree about the touches. Until they get the kind of system that the Pro's use overseas, calls on touches will be tough even for replays. The use of Net Cams which were used on many BIG Ten matches will probably catch most net violations and would catch many of the "touches" if camera was raised high enough so you could see the near court "touches". I also think that something else to think about is if challenge is unsuccessful, then lose a timeout during that set. Maybe just total of 3 challenges during match but if first two challenges are unsuccessful then don't get a third.
|
|
|
Post by Sorry Ass Sal on Sept 14, 2017 16:25:02 GMT -5
Can you review whether or not a back-row setter was over the tape on an attack or block?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 14, 2017 16:33:38 GMT -5
Can you review whether or not a back-row setter was over the tape on an attack or block? The key question is not where the setter is, is it? I thought the key question was whether the ball crosses the plane or not. If any part of the ball crosses the plane, then the other team can legitimately attack it and a backrow setter is at risk for an illegal block call. But if it doesn't cross the plane, then it is a violation on the other team rather than the setter.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 14, 2017 16:37:39 GMT -5
Can you review whether or not a back-row setter was over the tape on an attack or block? The key question is not where the setter is, is it? I thought the key question was whether the ball crosses the plane or not. If any part of the ball crosses the plane, then the other team can legitimately attack it and a backrow setter is at risk for an illegal block call. But if it doesn't cross the plane, then it is a violation on the other team rather than the setter. That can be the key question, but often it is not. A setter can attack the ball over from off the net and does not need to be in the plane to raise her hands to block/defend her face from a spiked overpass. Your question applies only to scenarios when a setter might be in the plane from saving a tight pass. A coach may challenge over the tape on a play like this, for example:
|
|
|
Post by Sorry Ass Sal on Sept 14, 2017 16:42:58 GMT -5
Can you review whether or not a back-row setter was over the tape on an attack or block? The key question is not where the setter is, is it? I thought the key question was whether the ball crosses the plane or not. If any part of the ball crosses the plane, then the other team can legitimately attack it and a backrow setter is at risk for an illegal block call. But if it doesn't cross the plane, then it is a violation on the other team rather than the setter. I'll be more specific. If a back-row setter is trying to save a tight pass, but in the process sends the ball over the net, is whether or not the ball was above the tape reviewable?
|
|
|
Post by Sorry Ass Sal on Sept 14, 2017 16:43:49 GMT -5
The key question is not where the setter is, is it? I thought the key question was whether the ball crosses the plane or not. If any part of the ball crosses the plane, then the other team can legitimately attack it and a backrow setter is at risk for an illegal block call. But if it doesn't cross the plane, then it is a violation on the other team rather than the setter. That can be the key question, but often it is not. A setter can attack the ball over from off the net and does not need to be in the plane to raise her hands to block/defend her face from a spiked overpass. Your question applies only to scenarios when a setter might be in the plane from saving a tight pass. A coach may challenge over the tape on a play like this, for example: The real challenge should be for that court design.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 14, 2017 16:44:33 GMT -5
That can be the key question, but often it is not. A setter can attack the ball over from off the net and does not need to be in the plane to raise her hands to block/defend her face from a spiked overpass. Your question applies only to scenarios when a setter might be in the plane from saving a tight pass. A coach may challenge over the tape on a play like this, for example: The real challenge should be for that court design. DEEP IN THE WOODS
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Sept 14, 2017 16:51:36 GMT -5
The key question is not where the setter is, is it? I thought the key question was whether the ball crosses the plane or not. If any part of the ball crosses the plane, then the other team can legitimately attack it and a backrow setter is at risk for an illegal block call. But if it doesn't cross the plane, then it is a violation on the other team rather than the setter. That can be the key question, but often it is not. A setter can attack the ball over from off the net and does not need to be in the plane to raise her hands to block/defend her face from a spiked overpass. Your question applies only to scenarios when a setter might be in the plane from saving a tight pass. A coach may challenge over the tape on a play like this, for example: Can they? I thought that was one of the things you could not challenge.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 14, 2017 16:53:46 GMT -5
That can be the key question, but often it is not. A setter can attack the ball over from off the net and does not need to be in the plane to raise her hands to block/defend her face from a spiked overpass. Your question applies only to scenarios when a setter might be in the plane from saving a tight pass. A coach may challenge over the tape on a play like this, for example: Can they? I thought that was one of the things you could not challenge. Sorry, change may to "might want to"
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 14, 2017 16:57:57 GMT -5
Oh, I see. I was thinking that by "over" you meant "over the centerline", but apparently you actually meant "above the net height".
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 14, 2017 17:00:58 GMT -5
The answer is no. Reviewable decisions are explicitly stated in the rule book: 18.1.4 Reviewable DecisionsThe following decisions may be reviewed: 18.1.4.1 Ball ruled in or out, as defined in Rule 16.2.1 and 16.2.2; 18.1.4.2 Whether the ball contacted a player, including: • 18.1.4.2.1 A ball that may have been contacted by a player before landing outside the court boundary lines. • 18.1.4.2.2 A team that may have had four or more contacts before returning to the opponents' court. 18.1.4.3 Whether a net fault occurred, as defined in Rules 15.2.1-15.2.3; 18.1.4.4 Whether a service foot fault occurred, as defined in Rule 13.2.2.1.1. www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/VBR17.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bolleyvol on Sept 14, 2017 17:22:53 GMT -5
I'm generally leery about increasing non-players' influence on games anyway, but in this case the trials that have been going on with this idea should have made it clear by now that neither the quantity nor the quality of available video is any where near what is needed to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Sept 14, 2017 19:03:16 GMT -5
I'm generally leery about increasing non-players' influence on games anyway, but in this case the trials that have been going on with this idea should have made it clear by now that neither the quantity nor the quality of available video is any where near what is needed to make it work. How have you come to this conclusion?
|
|