|
Post by Northern lights on Dec 9, 2018 15:26:02 GMT -5
The most useless rule in the volleyball game to me, is the micro touches below the tape that have nothing to do with the play. Drives me nuts every time I see some overzealous down ref blow his whistle with glee when he catches one of these.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 9, 2018 16:17:21 GMT -5
I think I heard that the NCAA was using better quality high-speed cameras for the semifinals/championship next weekend. If that truly provides a benefit, I'd like to see the NCAA spring for such cameras to be used in the round-of-eight/quarterfinals as well. It would just require 3 more sets of equipment (assuming that they could move one set from one of the regional sites to the championship site in the week or so that they have between the rounds).
As far as net touches, I say remove them as an option for calling a challenge. Or at least only make it an option to challenge if a net call is whistled (and the team didn't think they touched the net). If there was no net call whistled, then play continues. And maybe issue a guideline that the refs shouldn't whistle it unless it was obvious.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 16:31:49 GMT -5
I think I heard that the NCAA was using better quality high-speed cameras for the semifinals/championship next weekend. If that truly provides a benefit, I'd like to see the NCAA spring for such cameras to be used in the round-of-eight/quarterfinals as well. It would just require 3 more sets of equipment (assuming that they could move one set from one of the regional sites to the championship site in the week or so that they have between the rounds). As far as net touches, I say remove them as an option for calling a challenge. Or at least only make it an option to challenge if a net call is whistled (and the team didn't think they touched the net). If there was no net call whistled, then play continues. And maybe issue a guideline that the refs shouldn't whistle it unless it was obvious. No. The refs have too much they are supposed to be looking at. Sometimes they just don't see an obvious call because they are not looking at it. If a player is in the net she is in the net. If replay shows it, then let it be subject to replay. I actually think refs in general have been getting better with replay. They have been more willing to say "inconclusive, call stands" than they were the first year or two we had it. There is no call that can't be ambiguous. Line calls can be ambiguous. Touch calls can be ambiguous. Net calls can be ambiguous. A challenge that they don't allow but should is "four hits" and/or real "double contacts". I don't mean the judgment call about whether a setter perfectly contacted the ball with two hands, but these wacky plays where somebody makes two different plays on the ball in a row.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 9, 2018 16:36:07 GMT -5
A challenge that they don't allow but should is "four hits" and/or real "double contacts". I don't mean the judgment call about whether a setter perfectly contacted the ball with two hands, but these wacky plays where somebody makes two different plays on the ball in a row. I'm fairly sure that is already a challengable call, and that such a challenge was made yesterday (the coach challenged that the opposing team had made four contacts, and upon review it was decided that they there had in fact been 4 contacts)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 16:41:34 GMT -5
A challenge that they don't allow but should is "four hits" and/or real "double contacts". I don't mean the judgment call about whether a setter perfectly contacted the ball with two hands, but these wacky plays where somebody makes two different plays on the ball in a row. I'm fairly sure that is already a challengable call, and that such a challenge was made yesterday (the coach challenged that the opposing team had made four contacts, and upon review it was decided that they there had in fact been 4 contacts) You are right. I didn't realize that the rule included that. OK, that's good. 18.1.4 Reviewable Decisions The 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, and whether the ball contacted a player before landing outside the court boundary lines; 18.1.4.2 Whether the ball contacted a player, including a team that may have had four or more ball 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; 18.1.4.5 Whether a back-row player was an illegal attacker as defined in Rule 14.5.4.2.1.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Dec 9, 2018 16:44:19 GMT -5
The problem isn't the net rule. It's the stupid challenge system. Take a fast-paced game and allow coaches to slow it down, get extra timeouts, express frustration for what...the possibility of a microtouch. Every sport has been ruined by challenges, but it's the worst in volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 16:52:25 GMT -5
Ullmer was nowhere near as bad as Reyes, who is a fricking assistant coach. Put a leash on him, John. Yes, I watched part of PSU/Stanford. There's too many replays and too many grumpy coaches. Everywhere. That, and too many grumpy VolleyTalk posters. Investment in better cameras for replays at the venues solves the vast majority of these issues. It requires a one-time expenditure, and they should last for many seasons.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 16:53:33 GMT -5
The problem isn't the net rule. It's the stupid challenge system. Take a fast-paced game and allow coaches to slow it down, get extra timeouts, express frustration for what...the possibility of a microtouch. Every sport has been ruined by challenges, but it's the worst in volleyball. I personally do not want a set like set 2 of Oregon/Minnesota decided by what is clearly on replay a bad call. For that matter, in Washington v. Creighton, set 3, Creighton went up 24-20 on a ball that was called out, but the replay clearly showed the Creighton blocker's finger being knocked back by the ball. So it was 23-21, and then Washington ran off the next four points. Incorrect calls should not be how such exciting play is decided. Video replay can't conclusively prove every call, but when it can conclusively prove a call one way or another, we should use it.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 17:10:41 GMT -5
Picture in basketball giving the coach the ability to challenge the offense being 3 seconds in the lane. The coach issues a challenge to the ref, "I think they were in the lane some time during their entire possession. The ref looks at the tape for 4 minutes and says, "Yep. The center had his toe in the lane for 3.1 seconds early in that possession. Turnover by the offense."
That is my other sport comparison to touching the net in volleyball. I simply don't care and I don't want to waste everybody's time on a meaningless technicality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 17:12:53 GMT -5
I personally think the pancake should be illegal. That would solve that problem right there.
My rule: if the hand, or foot, is in contact with the floor, it's part of the floor.
I really think the sport should not have rules that human beings can't officiate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 17:15:05 GMT -5
Ullmer was nowhere near as bad as Reyes, who is a fricking assistant coach. Put a leash on him, John. Yes, I watched part of PSU/Stanford. There's too many replays and too many grumpy coaches. Everywhere. That, and too many grumpy VolleyTalk posters. Investment in better cameras for replays at the venues solves the vast majority of these issues. It requires a one-time expenditure, and they should last for many seasons. OR we could realize it's not that important. It's a sport. Not major surgery with lives at stake. Or getting my order right in the drive-thru. I'm not grumpy, btw. I'm spreading good cheer. Constantly. It's exhausting.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 17:17:05 GMT -5
I'm not grumpy, btw. I'm spreading good cheer. Constantly. It's exhausting. You are the grumpiest old man who ever denied he was a grumpy old man.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 17:18:42 GMT -5
That, and too many grumpy VolleyTalk posters. Investment in better cameras for replays at the venues solves the vast majority of these issues. It requires a one-time expenditure, and they should last for many seasons. OR we could realize it's not that important. It's a sport. Not major surgery with lives at stake. Or getting my order right in the drive-thru. I'm not grumpy, btw. I'm spreading good cheer. Constantly. It's exhausting. Hmm. Based on your past experiences, how long do you anticipate the mourning period will take?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Dec 9, 2018 17:47:51 GMT -5
Ullmer was nowhere near as bad as Reyes, who is a fricking assistant coach. Put a leash on him, John. Ulmer spoke for the volleyball nation when Reyes started throwing a temper tantrum about a Raskie double contact during the middle of a rally and Ulmer stood up and threw his hand up at him, dismissing Reyes.
|
|
|
Post by vbct3 on Dec 9, 2018 17:49:26 GMT -5
Few thoughts: 1) In order to be eligible to host a regional, you need to have a video replay system available. Most schools just re-use the same system they already have in place with DV-Sport that they use for basketball, which utilizes existing TV cameras in the venue. Schools will not spend additional money for high speed cameras specific to volleyball for a non-revenue generating sport - especially if it is not mandated either by the NCAA or their conference for regular season play.
2) NCAA has no desire to spend more money than necessary on volleyball. They will not pay for regional site replay systems - they need to save their billions of dollars for their lawyers so they can sue everybody and anybody.
3) The international Hawkeye system is obnoxiously expensive and will not come to NCAA volleyball - but it definitely speeds up the pace of challenges on line calls (like tennis), and touch calls because of the high speed, and high definition cameras.
4) The replay rules I'd like to see changed are the following: a) If you win your challenge, you retain it. Nobody receives an extra challenge for the 5th set. b) During the challenge, coaches must remain on/near the bench and cannot communicate with their athletes. Athletic trainers may bring athletes towels / water. c) The challenges that take the longest, in my anecdotal opinion, are the challenges that a coach makes saying "I want to review that [violation] that happened on the second or third play of the rally. Go find it and make the right call." If a coach wants to challenge something mid-rally, you must challenge mid-rally - if you lose the challenge, you lose the point. This rule is already used internationally. d) Once a challenge review has concluded, the challenging coach may request an explanation but cannot argue. Arguing is an automatic yellow card. e) You have 8 seconds from end of rally to challenge the result. No arguing for 30 seconds with the down-ref, then yelling at the up ref for 5 seconds, THEN challenging. Same rule as FIVB. f) The green card is stupid. Get rid of them - they serve literally no purpose.
|
|