|
Post by baytree on Dec 9, 2018 19:57:13 GMT -5
It seems like coaches sometimes call a challenge as a way of getting an additional time out, without having a real expectation that the point will go to them. If a coach can't talk to her/his players during challenge, it will eliminate "time out" challenges. That's why ppl want to change the rule so that coaches can't talk to players during reviews. timeouts seem to be more about breaking momentum than they are about conveying some key piece of strategy to your players (that is so secretive that it can't be conveyed to your players standing in the middle of the court through hand gestures and/or yelling). Coaches that challenge just for the "extra timeout" would still do it even if they aren't allowed to "talk" to their players during the challenge time. Thus such a rule doesn't really accomplish anything. I guess that depends on the coach and, perhaps, the situation. I agree that breaking momentum is often the primary reason for calling a time out but I don't think it's the only one. Teams often seem to come out of time outs with specific plays or a different approach. I think that perhaps mikegarrison's suggestion of losing a challenge only if you're wrong (or the other side getting a point) might be better ways to address the "timeout" challenges. I don't have a problem with the way it is now except I'd like for there to be better cameras.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 20:01:10 GMT -5
timeouts seem to be more about breaking momentum than they are about conveying some key piece of strategy to your players (that is so secretive that it can't be conveyed to your players standing in the middle of the court through hand gestures and/or yelling). Coaches that challenge just for the "extra timeout" would still do it even if they aren't allowed to "talk" to their players during the challenge time. Thus such a rule doesn't really accomplish anything. I guess that depends on the coach and, perhaps, the situation. I agree that breaking momentum is often the primary reason for calling a time out but I don't think it's the only one. Teams often seem to come out of time outs with specific plays or a different approach. I think that perhaps mikegarrison's suggestion of losing a challenge only if you're wrong (or the other side getting a point) might be better ways to address the "timeout" challenges. I don't have a problem with the way it is now except I'd like for there to be better cameras. Internationally, they have that rule (two challenges only, keep it if you're right), and better cameras. It works much better.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:06:31 GMT -5
You are essentially asking for a judgment call by the refs on whether the ball would have been in except for the touch. Is that really where you want to take this? No. Same as the pancake. If you don't clearly see a touch, you call it out. You don't review it to find that micro touch. Scenario 1: Player from Team A hits the ball into the block of Team B. Ball bounces out to the side but R1 calls that it touched the hitter. Replay shows a) it did not touch the hitter, b) it did touch the hitter, c) inconclusive. You want all cases to be called a point for the blocking team. Scenario 2: Player from Team A hits the ball into the block of Team B. Ball bounces out to the side and R1 calls it out. Replay shows a) it did not touch the hitter, b) it did touch the hitter, c) inconclusive. You want all plays to be called for the attacking team. Scenario 3: Player from Team A hits the ball "high hands". Ball goes long. R1 thinks it touched a blocker. Replay shows a) it did not touch the blocker, b) it did touch the blocker, c) inconclusive. You want all cases to be called for the attacking team and you claim the high hands hit is "skill". Scenario 4: Player from Team A hits the ball "high hands". Ball goes long. R1 thinks it was not touched. Replay shows a) it did not touch the blocker, b) it did touch the blocker, c) inconclusive. You want all cases to be called for the blocking team and you claim the block touch is "luck". ================ Isn't it obvious that what you are calling "luck" or "skill" is merely whether the R1 thinks he/she sees a touch or not?
|
|
|
Post by vup on Dec 9, 2018 20:06:33 GMT -5
Pancakes are one of the most satisfying plays in volleyball. On a successful pancake, the ball never touches the floor. That is the definition of our sport.
Redefine the sport then. If it can't be reffed, don't allow it. I would argue that it isn't the definition of the sport, btw. It's a cute play -- often a lazy play -- that has become popular because it is perceived as being cool. At the very least, if the ref cannot clearly see that the ball was up, call it down -- and don't review it. Now, the exact opposite seems to be the mindset. I can't tell, so I better not call it down. Challenge! The SSS pancake would be a perfect example -- a play I have not seen on replay. If that ball was down, why was it called up? I want refs to call that play good only if they are sure it was, not because they don't know if it was good or not. Note: I am saying that play should have been called down. If Hugh wants to challenge it, that should be the challenge.
What's the definition of the sport, if it's not keep the ball off the floor on your side and get it down to the floor on your opponents side. What would you argue the definition of volleyball is?
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Dec 9, 2018 20:06:41 GMT -5
I guess that depends on the coach and, perhaps, the situation. I agree that breaking momentum is often the primary reason for calling a time out but I don't think it's the only one. Teams often seem to come out of time outs with specific plays or a different approach. I think that perhaps mikegarrison's suggestion of losing a challenge only if you're wrong (or the other side getting a point) might be better ways to address the "timeout" challenges. I don't have a problem with the way it is now except I'd like for there to be better cameras. Internationally, they have that rule (two challenges only, keep it if you're right), and better cameras. It works much better. Yes, I prefer the way they do it in international play. But I realize the better cameras are expensive and aren't likely to be mandated for a non-revenue sport. I can dream . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:07:52 GMT -5
My issue with that would be if the replay is inconclusive. I don't think they should lose their challenge in that case.
And I think it should be a yellow card. Team delay. Next one is a point.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:09:37 GMT -5
My issue with that would be if the replay is inconclusive. I don't think they should lose their challenge in that case. Yes, I agree. An inconclusive review should not result in a loss of a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 20:11:10 GMT -5
Internationally, they have that rule (two challenges only, keep it if you're right), and better cameras. It works much better. Yes, I prefer the way they do it in international play. But I realize the better cameras are expensive and aren't likely to be mandated for a non-revenue sport. I can dream . . . . The camera equipment can't be that expensive. It doesn't have to be the Hawkeye level used for tennis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:18:18 GMT -5
No. Same as the pancake. If you don't clearly see a touch, you call it out. You don't review it to find that micro touch. Scenario 1: Player from Team A hits the ball into the block of Team B. Ball bounces out to the side but R1 calls that it touched the hitter. Replay shows a) it did not touch the hitter, b) it did touch the hitter, c) inconclusive. You want all cases to be called a point for the blocking team. I don't understand this scenario. Sorry. It went off the block and then may or may not have hit the hitter on the way out of bounds on the hitter or blocker's side? I want it called out unless the ref sees (or the replay CLEARLY shows) that it hit the hitter. I don't want to spend a lot of time searching for evidence that it might have hit the hitter so let's overturn the call. CLEARLY. No. And I don't think I said that. See above response. Actually, this is the exact opposite of what I said. I think if the refs, including line judges, don't see a touch, they shouldn't worry that there might have been a micro touch. Play should only be reversed if replay clearly shows a touch. Investing in super slo-mo to find a micro touch? A waste of time and money and rewarding luck. No. I do not think the micro touch is skill. I think it is luck. If the refs can't see it, if super slow-mo technology is needed to see it, it is not worth finding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:24:12 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. This was my original post. I appreciate the back and forth. I am not planting any flag in this position. I can be persuaded that I am wrong, but ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:26:04 GMT -5
Redefine the sport then. If it can't be reffed, don't allow it. I would argue that it isn't the definition of the sport, btw. It's a cute play -- often a lazy play -- that has become popular because it is perceived as being cool. At the very least, if the ref cannot clearly see that the ball was up, call it down -- and don't review it. Now, the exact opposite seems to be the mindset. I can't tell, so I better not call it down. Challenge! The SSS pancake would be a perfect example -- a play I have not seen on replay. If that ball was down, why was it called up? I want refs to call that play good only if they are sure it was, not because they don't know if it was good or not. Note: I am saying that play should have been called down. If Hugh wants to challenge it, that should be the challenge. What's the definition of the sport, if it's not keep the ball off the floor on your side and get it down to the floor on your opponents side. What would you argue the definition of volleyball is?
I would argue that when the hand is on the floor, as it is with a pancake, it is part of the floor. At the very least, I want the refs to clearly see that the ball was up, not let it go because they can't tell. Is that really such an outrageous position?
|
|
|
Post by vup on Dec 9, 2018 20:31:35 GMT -5
What's the definition of the sport, if it's not keep the ball off the floor on your side and get it down to the floor on your opponents side. What would you argue the definition of volleyball is?
I would argue that when the hand is on the floor, as it is with a pancake, it is part of the floor. At the very least, I want the refs to clearly see that the ball was up, not let it go because they can't tell. Is that really such an outrageous position?
The first sentence is outrageous, the second one is not.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:33:04 GMT -5
Ruffda, you are totally moving the goalposts here. Replay can never be conclusive on all plays. You say "let the replay be used for the obvious stuff" but what is obvious in real time is not the same as what is obvious in replay. And no matter how good the replay is, there will always be some play that will still be inconclusive.
No one (no one!) is arguing that inconclusive replays should result in a point being overturned. But you seem to be arguing that there is some fraction of plays that can be conclusively seen in replay to be a touch that you think are "micro touches" and should be let go.
Let me ask you plainly: if the ref conclusively sees a touch on replay, no matter how small, should it be called a touch?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Dec 9, 2018 20:34:30 GMT -5
During the lone Iowa match I was able to attend, every time a challenge was up the board we all got to discuss what it was for, analyze the video board ourselves, debate what we were seeing and whether and refs were going to find it conclusive, etc.
People in front and behind us turned around and joined in the convo on what they saw and I loved that. The challenges enhanced my live viewing experience, not detracted from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:35:16 GMT -5
Why is the first sentence outrageous? I watch teams practice the pancake. 90% of the time they could play those balls before they hit the floor/hand. They don't. Why? I think it's mainly for two reasons: 1) it's a cool play and 2) they know the refs have a hard time seeing what happened.
Sometimes -- rarely -- the pancake is the only play possible. I want those plays to be clearly up.
|
|