|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 20:35:57 GMT -5
@ruffda is losing his mind. Bless his heart.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:36:18 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. Yeah, but in many venues they don't show the replay on the screen to the fans in the stands. I wish they did. At baseball games this makes replays a fan experience, just as you say.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Dec 9, 2018 20:39:19 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. Yeah, but in many venues they don't show the replay on the screen to the fans in the stands. I wish they did. At baseball games this makes replays a fan experience, just as you say. That’s fair. We were certainly spoiled at Carver-Hawkeye!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:41:16 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. Maybe no one is making that argument, but it is my opinion this is what is happening. Refs are overturning calls with inconclusive video -- even line calls. Yes. If they clearly see a touch. 1) I don't think they do in a lot of cases, not with the technology they have, and 2) I want to make sure coaches are faced with some sort of penalty for challenges where the refs clearly see they made the correct call. I am not consciously moving the goalposts. I just don't like wasting so much time on stuff like this. The hitter just hit the ball 20 feet out. Grazing the fingernail was not a skill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:41:56 GMT -5
@ruffda is losing his mind. Bless his heart. Really? Why? If this discussion has no value, tell me why?
|
|
|
Post by vup on Dec 9, 2018 20:45:33 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.
If the ball doesn't touch the floor, the ball is up. What don't you understand about that?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:46:06 GMT -5
I would be fine with a continued emphasis that "inconclusive" is sometimes the right call, and that refs should avoid spending too much time looking at video that is inconclusive.
But fans have to understand that there is judgment involved in replays too, and what seems to the fan like it is "inconclusive" might seem to the ref like "that was definitely a touch" or vice versa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 20:49:04 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. If the ball doesn't touch the floor, the ball is up. What don't you understand about that?
Because the refs can't tell! Change the rule. I just want a sport that can be officiated by human beings.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 9, 2018 20:52:32 GMT -5
I'm really not and I'm sorry if I come off that way. I think sports should be fun. Football, basketball, baseball aren't fun anymore. For me. And instant replay has a lot to do with it. I don't want the same thing to happen to volleyball. I don't know what the happy medium is, but what's happening now is excess. Running through an entire rally to find a minute net infraction is not fun. Reviewing pancakes is not fun. Challenging line calls with poor quality video is not fun. And I really do not like rewarding players for luck. Well, we just disagree I guess. I like the baseball replay rule. I don't watch football or basketball much, so I can't comment.. That football and basketball suck has NOTHING to do with instant replay. That's all you need to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 9, 2018 20:56:06 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?
Ha. An old friend once told me, "It's a simple game. 1) Keep the ball from landing in your area of the court 2) Try to get it to land in the other team's area of the court 3) Repeat as needed
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 20:58:48 GMT -5
If the ball doesn't touch the floor, the ball is up. What don't you understand about that?
Because the refs can't tell! Change the rule. I just want a sport that can be officiated by human beings. Most of the time the refs can tell just fine. I would say there is no physical way for a player to use two hands to contact a ball simultaneously. Every two-handed contact is a double. The only question is how obvious/perceptible it is. That's a much bigger issue than the pancake play, which physics says can actually happen.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 21:01:37 GMT -5
@ruffda is losing his mind. Bless his heart. Really? Why? If this discussion has no value, tell me why? It's not the value of the discussion I question, but the coherence of the arguments. A touch (or micro-touch) is a touch regardless of the limits on a ref's ability to see it accurately. It isn't about luck or skill, but the ability to perceive it accurately, whether that's comes from a ref or a camera. Implementing that is merely protocol. The challenge is already being implemented more effectively at the international level. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. And the pancake thing, good gawd!
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 21:08:25 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?
Ha. An old friend once told me, "It's a simple game. 1) Keep the ball from landing in your area of the court 2) Try to get it to land in the other team's area of the court 3) Repeat as needed I am glad the old friend didn't start discussing how critical it is to not touch the net.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 21:54:46 GMT -5
Really? Why? If this discussion has no value, tell me why? It's not the value of the discussion I question, but the coherence of the arguments. A touch (or micro-touch) is a touch regardless of the limits on a ref's ability to see it accurately. It isn't about luck or skill, but the ability to perceive it accurately, whether that's comes from a ref or a camera. Implementing that is merely protocol. The challenge is already being implemented more effectively at the international level. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. And the pancake thing, good gawd! OK. I disagree. And the pancake thing? They can't make the call in real time. I think it's a problem. EVERY SINGLE PANCAKE would be challenged if the coaches could do it. They definitely complain about every single call. You want to keep it legal? Fine. I just want the refs to call it down unless they CLEARLY see that it was up.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 22:02:54 GMT -5
It's not the value of the discussion I question, but the coherence of the arguments. A touch (or micro-touch) is a touch regardless of the limits on a ref's ability to see it accurately. It isn't about luck or skill, but the ability to perceive it accurately, whether that's comes from a ref or a camera. Implementing that is merely protocol. The challenge is already being implemented more effectively at the international level. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. And the pancake thing, good gawd! OK. I disagree. And the pancake thing? They can't make the call in real time. I think it's a problem. EVERY SINGLE PANCAKE would be challenged if the coaches could do it. They definitely complain about every single call. You want to keep it legal? Fine. I just want the refs to call it down unless they CLEARLY see that it was up. A chicken wing, or foot strike or any ball of the body is more problematic than a pancake. Why aren't you obsessed with being able to call those things?
|
|