|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 1:18:50 GMT -5
Am I the only one getting really tired of all of the challenges for net violations? Now many teams have an assistant who basically has the job of watching for the net to be touched during rallies. The replays take forever.
Change the net rule so it is simple.
- IF YOU TOUCH THE TOP OF THE TAPE, IT IS A VIOLATION - BELOW THE TOP OF THE TAPE IT IS A VIOLATION ONLY IF THE NET IS GRASPED BY THE HAND (MEANING ALMOST NEVER).
You could strictly enforce having the foot over the center line so if a player leans into the net a bit they still have to keep on their side of the court.
The game would be a better game, more fun to watch and get rid of the crazy replay challenges. The downside is maybe teams will need less assistant coaches because the "watch for the net violation" job would go away.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball20102011 on Dec 9, 2018 1:23:36 GMT -5
This was basically the USAV rule for a couple seasons and they went away from it. I think the net rule is fine as it is.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 1:30:51 GMT -5
This was basically the USAV rule for a couple seasons and they went away from it. I think the net rule is fine as it is. But what is the big deal if the net is lightly touched? It is such a severe penalty and who cares? Curious why you like it?
|
|
|
Post by ohligarch on Dec 9, 2018 1:35:47 GMT -5
I think the problem is that then it becomes a subjective call. If the rule is changed, players are going to be a lot more aggressive and there will be more net touches by the body that may not be grasps but be severe enough to perhaps impede the play of the opposing team. I agree the net challenges are annoying but then again so is the microtouches on blocks without a high fps camera.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 1:47:11 GMT -5
This was basically the USAV rule for a couple seasons and they went away from it. I think the net rule is fine as it is. But what is the big deal if the net is lightly touched? It is such a severe penalty and who cares? Curious why you like it? Because having to avoid the net changes the play at the front line. Players have to stay in control if they know touching the net is a violation.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 1:52:01 GMT -5
But what is the big deal if the net is lightly touched? It is such a severe penalty and who cares? Curious why you like it? Because having to avoid the net changes the play at the front line. Players have to stay in control if they know touching the net is a violation. What if the players have less control at the net? Is that a big deal?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 2:04:41 GMT -5
Because having to avoid the net changes the play at the front line. Players have to stay in control if they know touching the net is a violation. What if the players have less control at the net? Is that a big deal? As noted, USAV tried this. FIVB also tried it. Both went back to "any contact with the net is a fault". Relaxing the net rule did not improve the game.
|
|
|
Post by tallguy86 on Dec 9, 2018 2:08:00 GMT -5
I think the problem is that then it becomes a subjective call. If the rule is changed, players are going to be a lot more aggressive and there will be more net touches by the body that may not be grasps but be severe enough to perhaps impede the play of the opposing team. I agree the net challenges are annoying but then again so is the microtouches on blocks without a high fps camera. Hit the nail on the head. Subjectivity is bad.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwmic on Dec 9, 2018 9:02:16 GMT -5
Because having to avoid the net changes the play at the front line. Players have to stay in control if they know touching the net is a violation. What if the players have less control at the net? Is that a big deal? Yes...why would you want less control? Aside from injuries, I think it lessens the game and ability of the players when you just have a free for all at the net. I feel like being able to control your body and stay out of the net is a key skill of an attacker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 9:09:38 GMT -5
Does anyone know the logic behind allowing a player’s hair to touch the net with no net call, but if a player’s clothes touch the net it is a violation?
|
|
|
Post by treblejig on Dec 9, 2018 9:22:48 GMT -5
Does anyone know the logic behind allowing a player’s hair to touch the net with no net call, but if a player’s clothes touch the net it is a violation? You can't control your ponytail?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 9:25:10 GMT -5
Does anyone know the logic behind allowing a player’s hair to touch the net with no net call, but if a player’s clothes touch the net it is a violation? I think it's so that long hair does not become a disadvantage. If we didn't have this, you would see lots more players with short hair.
|
|
|
Post by dawgnerd on Dec 9, 2018 9:46:30 GMT -5
I think the problem is that then it becomes a subjective call. If the rule is changed, players are going to be a lot more aggressive and there will be more net touches by the body that may not be grasps but be severe enough to perhaps impede the play of the opposing team. I agree the net challenges are annoying but then again so is the microtouches on blocks without a high fps camera. Hit the nail on the head. Subjectivity is bad. Examples of where this went bad when USAV tried it: Big follow through on an attack that catches the net just below the tape (or was the tape also touched). Whole net bounces radically and the down ref has to make a micro call on part of a macro event - really tough. Out of control attacker falls into the net (does not grab or step over the line), but bends the belly of the net fully into the opponent's space, interfering with opponents. Did they use the net for support? Did they interfere? All more subjective than 'Did they touch the net?. It did not help and created some very strange situations that were very hard to make a good call. Another idea: If the problem is inadvertent contacts low on the net that really do not affect the play, why not just remove the bottom half of the net? (I am sure there are some unanticipated consequences, but I am not coming up with them right off the bat).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 10:00:12 GMT -5
You need to have rules that can be enforced by human beings during the play. You cannot have a sport where you need high definition high-frame-per-second video to enforce those rules.
In my opinion.
If you keep the rule set as is, then you accept the fact that if the human eye can't detect it in real time, it really wasn't that important. We are rewarding luck -- to the detriment of the sport.
Use replay for the obvious stuff that was missed. You get two. If you are right, you keep your challenges. If you are wrong, one of them is gone.
There are way too many calls being overturned on inconclusive evidence, imo.
And give Reyes/Banwarth/Cook a fricking yellow card, please.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 9, 2018 11:04:38 GMT -5
Hit the nail on the head. Subjectivity is bad. Examples of where this went bad when USAV tried it: Big follow through on an attack that catches the net just below the tape (or was the tape also touched). Whole net bounces radically and the down ref has to make a micro call on part of a macro event - really tough. Out of control attacker falls into the net (does not grab or step over the line), but bends the belly of the net fully into the opponent's space, interfering with opponents. Did they use the net for support? Did they interfere? All more subjective than 'Did they touch the net?. It did not help and created some very strange situations that were very hard to make a good call. Another idea: If the problem is inadvertent contacts low on the net that really do not affect the play, why not just remove the bottom half of the net? (I am sure there are some unanticipated consequences, but I am not coming up with them right off the bat). Also, if the ball was passed low and into the net the preferred technique became hit up at the body of the net, contact both the ball and the net, and hope for the best.
|
|