|
Post by vbman100 on May 8, 2015 7:51:25 GMT -5
At the end of the day...all i did was make a comment about a ref that i tbink (my opinion...) sucks Why you freaking idiots get so worked up confuses me. See ya'll in the stands! In your opinion, who is a good ref? Someone who calls your interpretation of ball handling? Since you can't take criticism here, you would not last up on the stand. Those people who have responded to you have over 20 years of being up there and have done that. One of the main reasons why there is a shortage of refs is people like you who dissuade others from becoming an official by your negativity. Seriously, why has it become acceptable behavior in almost every area of sports to criticize officials (and coaches) constantly? The worst is when I am at tournaments and coaches are the officials, to save money for the clubs involved. And parents are critical about every close call. Ridiculous. Why do people not understand that sometimes this is what makes people not want to become officials or continue as officials, or not want to continue coaching? We always need to find line judges for our high school matches, per the state's rules/recommendations. Often, parents are reluctant to do it because of fear of making the wrong call (and being criticized). Sometimes, these are the same parents who are the most vocal of officials during the matches. Sometimes, I honestly wish officials would walk off the stand when host management does not control/remove the unruly spectators. And then the host should make make the unruly fan the official.
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on May 8, 2015 9:08:54 GMT -5
Not trying to pick nits, but it's illegal reaching beyond the net. There's no way we'd use the illegal block signal here. Nitpicking the nitpicker, In this case, reaching beyond the net is still a blocking fault, we just use a separate signal for reaching beyond the net. So you are both correct. A net violation is also often a blocking fault, but that, much like this, is not an illegal block either. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 11:28:51 GMT -5
Nitpicking the nitpicker, In this case, reaching beyond the net is still a blocking fault, we just use a separate signal for reaching beyond the net. So you are both correct. A net violation is also often a blocking fault, but that, much like this, is not an illegal block either. Just saying. Reaching beyond the net can be found as a rule under "blocking" in the rules. It describes reaching beyond the net as a fault in certain blocking circumstances. Net violations have their own rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 11:30:21 GMT -5
For the record, I wasn't claiming that to be the call. Just saying the action was an illegal block.
I still don't know why backrow setters are called for illegal blocks instead of illegal attacks, even when they touch the ball first.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 11:50:17 GMT -5
You may reach over and block: (1) AFTER a teams third hit (2) AFTER an attack hit (1st,2nd hit) if in the referee's judgment the ball is being directed to the opponents (3) After a 1st or 2nd hit and the ball is falling near the net, and no one is in position to play the ball (4)if the ball, after played, would clearly have crossed the net, and no one is in position to play the ball.[ br]Simultaneous contact while reaching beyond the net is always a fault. Always. If it's after the third contact, then the blocker would be legal and the attacking team would be at fault for 4 hits Is that ruleset from: A - FIVB B - NCAA C - NFHS D - Outdoor E - All of the above ?? A, B, C.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 12:55:16 GMT -5
I remember when they used to call double lifts and a replay. Those were the days.
Volleyball has way too many rules that human beings are incapable of calling. "Simultaneous" is yet another.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 13:16:25 GMT -5
I remember when they used to call double lifts and a replay. Those were the days. Volleyball has way too many rules that human beings are incapable of calling. "Simultaneous" is yet another. Depends on the situation.... A simultaneous contact by teammates equals one hit, even though laws of physics probably concludes that one player touched it microseconds before the other player. Most referees will give the benefit of the doubt to the players in this situation, and call it "one" hit, and either player can play it again (except FIVB and beach rules). If the referee clearly sees two separate hits, then it is counted as two hits. I say "most" referees here. Some up-and-comers may call that too stringent.... If they're the only one in the gym that sees two separate hits, then perhaps it shouldn't be regarded as two separate hits, but one simultaneous contact. (Rule premise here is to allow play to continue by members of the same team when it is unclear who touched it last)
Simultaneous contact by opponents is a much different story. After a third hit, a ball in the plane of the net MUST be clearly contacted by the blocker before the attacking team may hit it again (4 hits). A blocker reaching across and blocking simultaneous with an attack hit is a fault by the blocker - the attacker must be able to complete their attack hit. The ball normally doesn't lie on simultaneous contacts, either. Normally it "pops" up or comes out slower. A hard rebound usually indicates two separate contacts (i.e., attack, then block) - however we don't judge on the ball movement. The rule premise is much different than teammates having simultaneous contact - here one team is gaining a vast advantage or imposing a disadvantage on the opponent.
Simultaneous is not a fault, but accepted in once sense, but not in others. The only simultaneous contact allowed between opponents is in the plane of the net, and not after one team's third hit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 13:23:54 GMT -5
Is the instruction, on a joust, that if the ball goes out, the player on the other side of the net is the one who hit it out?
This always seemed a dubious conclusion to me.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 13:24:47 GMT -5
For the record, I wasn't claiming that to be the call. Just saying the action was an illegal block. I still don't know why backrow setters are called for illegal blocks instead of illegal attacks, even when they touch the ball first. That's an excellent point. At least with the NCAA and USAV, that was clarified about 5-6 years ago. Some referees were calling an illegal block, some were calling illegal attack on the setter. You used to be able to interpret the rule either way. The rule & casebook was specifically clarified where "simultaneous contact by a legal blocker and a back row player results in an illegal block." (paraphrasing). (assuming the setter is attempting to set a ball above the ball & in the plane of the net). Even if the setter has started their set first, and then the blocker touches the ball simultaneous, it is now & always an illegal block. These are only in situations where both setter & blocker have a legal right to the ball.
If there is separate contact, then a decision still needs to be made whether there is an illegal attack or an illegal block by the setter (one is based on the ball position, the other is based on her hands/body position)
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 13:37:20 GMT -5
Is the instruction, on a joust, that if the ball goes out, the player on the other side of the net is the one who hit it out? This always seemed a dubious conclusion to me. The SPIRIT of this rule clarification - in a true joust, the one with the more power is considered to have touched it last.
We may think "well both touched it, it landed out on the blocker's side, so therefore it's off the blocker." But in a true joust, physics tells us that if both players touch it with the same force at the same time (start & end), the ball will stop and drop. If the ball moves to one side, then the last person to touch it is from the other side. If it was a true joust, and the referee called it off of me as the blocker all the time, I'd be pissed.
Here's where physics played a part in a rule clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 15:34:51 GMT -5
Yes, but think about that for a second. Two players go up for the ball. There's a joust. The most powerful push results in the ball going out of bounds on the weaker side, OFF THAT BLOCKER. And the stronger side is called for hitting it out?
Doesn't make sense to me. You are penalizing the player who actually won the joust, no?
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 8, 2015 16:03:01 GMT -5
If they release it at the same time and goes to the blockers side, then the attacker is considered more powerful and off of them. If the ball happens to land out, it's out off the attacker.
Again, this is based in a true joust where both release at the same time. If the blocker releases it after the attack, then it is out off the blocker
|
|