|
Post by hammer on Dec 9, 2018 22:03:59 GMT -5
And what's the deal with all this "old man" stuff? I'm not THAT old. I have no idea how old you are. It's what you sound like. Mike, Shame on you for calling @ruffda an old geezer. At least part of his body is vertical.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 9, 2018 22:11:33 GMT -5
now I'm hungry for pancakes with real maple syrup
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Dec 9, 2018 22:29:56 GMT -5
I don't want to make assumptions that sound like I'm bashing or criticizing someone for their level of play. As someone who does play (not a setter), I can say for sure that I felt less secure when USAV was allowing players to contact the net below the tape. Anecdotally, there seemed to be far more happening with contact between players under the net. I know some setters who say they like it because they would position themselves to make a play and it was totally legal for them to fall into the net.
I also kinda agree with a previous poster who stated that contact with the center line would also be a violation. I would probably prefer that any contact with the floor across the center line would be a violation (no more saying the whole foot has to be across), with the actual center line being a "neutral zone." I think the only problem with those scenarios is that some gyms have different line thicknesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 23:06:58 GMT -5
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? Because they are not reviewed. Simple answer. OK, the foot thing might be. But that's an accident. A deflection, that is. It's not something people do on purpose. Part of the body? I'm assuming that's what you meant and not a testicle.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Dec 9, 2018 23:08:56 GMT -5
If you think adding more gray area is a good idea, I honestly don't understand your thought process.
A touch is a touch but a micro-touch seen on replay isn't a touch? An obvious net on the tape is a violation but a minor net touch isn't a violation? Ball touching the line is in but a ball that when seen on replay compresses on the line is out? I just don't get that; adding gray area into the rules is never good.
Also, the international replay cameras are incredibly expensive. Give coaches one challenge per set. If they are correct, they keep the challenge. A timeout can be used for a second challenge but team uses timeout even if they are correct.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 9, 2018 23:22:16 GMT -5
I don't want to make assumptions that sound like I'm bashing or criticizing someone for their level of play. As someone who does play (not a setter), I can say for sure that I felt less secure when USAV was allowing players to contact the net below the tape. Anecdotally, there seemed to be far more happening with contact between players under the net. I know some setters who say they like it because they would position themselves to make a play and it was totally legal for them to fall into the net. I also kinda agree with a previous poster who stated that contact with the center line would also be a violation. I would probably prefer that any contact with the floor across the center line would be a violation (no more saying the whole foot has to be across), with the actual center line being a "neutral zone." I think the only problem with those scenarios is that some gyms have different line thicknesses. All lines are the same width (2 inches). And your centerline violation proposal would result in about 8 calls per set. That would not be good for the game.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 23:26:31 GMT -5
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? Because they are not reviewed. Simple answer. OK, the foot thing might be. But that's an accident. A deflection, that is. It's not something people do on purpose. Part of the body? I'm assuming that's what you meant and not a testicle. It's possible to challenge whether the ball touched the player twice I think. And if it's not, it's possible that what can be reviewed would be expanded with better or more standardized technology. And players definitely do intentionally try to keep the ball up with their feet. They're not often successful because this is the USA and not Europe or Latin America, but it's gotta be reviewable in a situation similar to a pancake. p.s. How did part turn to ball? Frikkin' Steve Jobs!
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Dec 9, 2018 23:32:17 GMT -5
I don't want to make assumptions that sound like I'm bashing or criticizing someone for their level of play. As someone who does play (not a setter), I can say for sure that I felt less secure when USAV was allowing players to contact the net below the tape. Anecdotally, there seemed to be far more happening with contact between players under the net. I know some setters who say they like it because they would position themselves to make a play and it was totally legal for them to fall into the net. I also kinda agree with a previous poster who stated that contact with the center line would also be a violation. I would probably prefer that any contact with the floor across the center line would be a violation (no more saying the whole foot has to be across), with the actual center line being a "neutral zone." I think the only problem with those scenarios is that some gyms have different line thicknesses. All lines are the same width (2 inches). And your centerline violation proposal would result in about 8 calls per set. That would not be good for the game. I've been in a lot of gyms in a lot of different levels. Sometimes there isn't even a center line. And I think players would adjust and play differently. The same way they did when the rule reverted back to not allowing net contact.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2018 23:37:31 GMT -5
Because they are not reviewed. Simple answer. OK, the foot thing might be. But that's an accident. A deflection, that is. It's not something people do on purpose. Part of the body? I'm assuming that's what you meant and not a testicle. It's possible to challenge whether the ball touched the player twice I think. And if it's not, it's possible that what can be reviewed would be expanded with better or more standardized technology. And players definitely do intentionally try to keep the ball up with their feet. They're not often successful because this is the USA and not Europe or Latin America, but it's gotta be reviewable in a situation similar to a pancake. p.s. How did part turn to ball? Frikkin' Steve Jobs! volleyguy, are you sure you didn't try to type "ball off the body"?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2018 23:46:26 GMT -5
Formico from UCLA was pretty good with the kick saves. As I recall, she had played a lot of soccer.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2018 23:57:16 GMT -5
It's possible to challenge whether the ball touched the player twice I think. And if it's not, it's possible that what can be reviewed would be expanded with better or more standardized technology. And players definitely do intentionally try to keep the ball up with their feet. They're not often successful because this is the USA and not Europe or Latin America, but it's gotta be reviewable in a situation similar to a pancake. p.s. How did part turn to ball? Frikkin' Steve Jobs! volleyguy, are you sure you didn't try to type "ball off the body"? Yes, of course. I'm so dumbfounded by his arguments, I can't see straight. Plus, he seems to be winning the war of attrition.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Dec 10, 2018 8:06:15 GMT -5
I love the replay!!! I've noticed a big improvement in the officiating of matches. It brings accountability to those officiating which results in fewer questionable calls over the course of a match. My only change to the system would be to get one green card back for two successful challenges.
|
|
|
Post by dawgnerd on Dec 10, 2018 9:09:25 GMT -5
Interesting reading this thread this morning. One point on the no-pancake suggestion is that it would replace one difficult call with another that is arguably more difficult. If the body part (e.g., hand) cannot be in contact with the floor, then the ref will have to judge complete clearance of the hand from the floor on a flipper move (the next option for pancake situations if floor contact is allowed). That would be even harder to see than whether the ball fully contacts the hand. (FWIW, I love the pancake play, think it adds to the sport, and think it is usually - granted not always - possible to make a good call).
|
|
|
Post by dawgnerd on Dec 10, 2018 9:18:44 GMT -5
Similar to the point that I made last night on micro-touches, the combination of limited challenges and the ability of the coach to ask the player increases the likelihood of the correct call standing without excessive reviews (at least for the half of calls that go against players actually making/not making the relevant ball contact). The player definitely knows whether they made the contact. (an interesting exception seemed to occur with Poulter's micro-net contact where it looked as though she told coach there was no touch - argument against long sleeves?)
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 2, 2019 13:19:49 GMT -5
|
|