|
Post by Hawk Attack on Feb 2, 2019 17:16:46 GMT -5
Well that’s annoying. Not the call, I have no issue with that... the sloppy footwork is annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Feb 2, 2019 20:56:08 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 easily tell when it is loose hair that touches the net. If the uniform touches the net, is there a body part behind it? Makes it more subjective, which we all know is bad.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Feb 2, 2019 22:15:46 GMT -5
Two possible solutions to the original post of the thread:
1) Change the width (top to bottom) of the net - make it about the size of a ping pong/table tennis net. 6-12" at the most. Voila! Less net violations!
2) Ask the players - The ref or opposing coach can ask "Did you touch the net?" Players are always honest, right? Coaches should encourage their players to be honest.
As to the other stuff... I love the pancake, I love doing it, I love seeing it accomplished. The first time one of my players gets it in a match, they and the whole team goes nuts. Fans love seeing it. And the kick save. Yes, people actually do practice it, maybe not as much as a pancake, but yes players try to do it. I can remember when I played and any contact below the waist was illegal. Eliminate the ability to cross the center line, even one mm. No crossing of the center line at all, it can be dangerous. And worrying about coaches arguing if a pancake was up or not...many coaches argue anything and everything - line calls, net calls, doubles, etc. I'm not going to think about changing a rule because coaches argue when it goes against their team. I can tell you from officiating club, these same coaches argue line and net calls all the time, then when their team is the work team, they are awful at calling lines and net violations.
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Feb 2, 2019 22:22:44 GMT -5
One other possibility would to be to have the net extend to the floor, perhaps with a cushioning mat-like material in the bottom two feet. Would prevent a lot of injuries but perhaps would be too unwieldy to construct and deconstruct. Sure would know when those violations occur, tho.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 2, 2019 23:01:15 GMT -5
Two possible solutions to the original post of the thread: 1) Change the width (top to bottom) of the net - make it about the size of a ping pong/table tennis net. 6-12" at the most. Voila! Less net violations! 2) Ask the players - The ref or opposing coach can ask "Did you touch the net?" Players are always honest, right? Coaches should encourage their players to be honest. As to the other stuff... I love the pancake, I love doing it, I love seeing it accomplished. The first time one of my players gets it in a match, they and the whole team goes nuts. Fans love seeing it. And the kick save. Yes, people actually do practice it, maybe not as much as a pancake, but yes players try to do it. I can remember when I played and any contact below the waist was illegal. Eliminate the ability to cross the center line, even one mm. No crossing of the center line at all, it can be dangerous. And worrying about coaches arguing if a pancake was up or not...many coaches argue anything and everything - line calls, net calls, doubles, etc. I'm not going to think about changing a rule because coaches argue when it goes against their team. I can tell you from officiating club, these same coaches argue line and net calls all the time, then when their team is the work team, they are awful at calling lines and net violations. Re: center line... So you’d be ok with a 14-13 national-championship ending center line call like the one I posted the video of?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 3, 2019 0:11:19 GMT -5
Two possible solutions to the original post of the thread: 1) Change the width (top to bottom) of the net - make it about the size of a ping pong/table tennis net. 6-12" at the most. Voila! Less net violations! 2) Ask the players - The ref or opposing coach can ask "Did you touch the net?" Players are always honest, right? Coaches should encourage their players to be honest. As to the other stuff... I love the pancake, I love doing it, I love seeing it accomplished. The first time one of my players gets it in a match, they and the whole team goes nuts. Fans love seeing it. And the kick save. Yes, people actually do practice it, maybe not as much as a pancake, but yes players try to do it. I can remember when I played and any contact below the waist was illegal. Eliminate the ability to cross the center line, even one mm. No crossing of the center line at all, it can be dangerous. And worrying about coaches arguing if a pancake was up or not...many coaches argue anything and everything - line calls, net calls, doubles, etc. I'm not going to think about changing a rule because coaches argue when it goes against their team. I can tell you from officiating club, these same coaches argue line and net calls all the time, then when their team is the work team, they are awful at calling lines and net violations. Re: center line... So you’d be ok with a 14-13 national-championship ending center line call like the one I posted the video of? You know what? I had my ankle torn up and had to wear a brace for years because I came down on the foot of a guy who let his foot cross to my side of the net. I have no f*cking sympathy for any center line violation. I get it, in that video there is nobody around and no way it would hurt anybody. But there's a reason for that rule.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Feb 5, 2019 9:27:01 GMT -5
If any rule should be changed, it chould be the double contact rule. Rules are put in place to prevent team from having advantages. A double contact is 99% of the time a bad set. It only hurts the hitter that is having to hit it and does not give the team any advantage by setting a double contact ball
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Feb 5, 2019 10:28:55 GMT -5
If any rule should be changed, it chould be the double contact rule. Rules are put in place to prevent team from having advantages. A double contact is 99% of the time a bad set. It only hurts the hitter that is having to hit it and does not give the team any advantage by setting a double contact ball 99% is a completely arbitrary number you pulled out of nowhere. How “not calling doubles” could give players an advantage is that it would allow them to be more aggressive in using an overhand set in difficult situations, allowing them to forego the “bump-set.” I would bet the doubled overhand set is still more precise than a traditional bump-set. I don’t disagree with you, but the way you got to your conclusion is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Feb 5, 2019 10:42:19 GMT -5
If any rule should be changed, it chould be the double contact rule. Rules are put in place to prevent team from having advantages. A double contact is 99% of the time a bad set. It only hurts the hitter that is having to hit it and does not give the team any advantage by setting a double contact ball 99% is a completely arbitrary number you pulled out of nowhere. How “not calling doubles” could give players an advantage is that it would allow them to be more aggressive in using an overhand set in difficult situations, allowing them to forego the “bump-set.” I would bet the doubled overhand set is still more precise than a traditional bump-set. I don’t disagree with you, but the way you got to your conclusion is wrong. Obviously ther is no real number percentage, but from watching and playing and being a setter, I can confidently say that double contacts make the ball worse than clean ones. Balls that setters bump set are almost always balls that they bump set because the pass is too low or too far away. Most bump sets would not be replaced by hands because bump setting a ball while on your feet would turn out better than diving to your knees and awkwardly trying to hand set. Players could be more aggressive in using over hand sets. But if you can me 5 plays on YouTube or anywhere where a setter bump set a ball that if the set they would have doubled, where the doubles set would be better than the bump. Ifnsetters put their hands on the bad passes the sets would forsure be worse than a bump set.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 5, 2019 11:30:45 GMT -5
97% of all statistics on the internet are just made up on the spot.
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Feb 5, 2019 13:26:08 GMT -5
99% is a completely arbitrary number you pulled out of nowhere. How “not calling doubles” could give players an advantage is that it would allow them to be more aggressive in using an overhand set in difficult situations, allowing them to forego the “bump-set.” I would bet the doubled overhand set is still more precise than a traditional bump-set. I don’t disagree with you, but the way you got to your conclusion is wrong. Obviously ther is no real number percentage, but from watching and playing and being a setter, I can confidently say that double contacts make the ball worse than clean ones. Balls that setters bump set are almost always balls that they bump set because the pass is too low or too far away. Most bump sets would not be replaced by hands because bump setting a ball while on your feet would turn out better than diving to your knees and awkwardly trying to hand set. Players could be more aggressive in using over hand sets. But if you can me 5 plays on YouTube or anywhere where a setter bump set a ball that if the set they would have doubled, where the doubles set would be better than the bump. Ifnsetters put their hands on the bad passes the sets would forsure be worse than a bump set. If you did away with doubles, I contend that you would see more players trying to hand-set many of those plays because, with practice, they would be more precise than bump-sets. I disagree with your reasoning, that’s fine. I agree that clean sets are usually better-placed than doubled sets. I don’t care enough to find any examples of plays on YouTube because you’re asking for something that is not able to be proven. And I disagree with your last statement.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Feb 5, 2019 14:29:29 GMT -5
Obviously ther is no real number percentage, but from watching and playing and being a setter, I can confidently say that double contacts make the ball worse than clean ones. Balls that setters bump set are almost always balls that they bump set because the pass is too low or too far away. Most bump sets would not be replaced by hands because bump setting a ball while on your feet would turn out better than diving to your knees and awkwardly trying to hand set. Players could be more aggressive in using over hand sets. But if you can me 5 plays on YouTube or anywhere where a setter bump set a ball that if the set they would have doubled, where the doubles set would be better than the bump. Ifnsetters put their hands on the bad passes the sets would forsure be worse than a bump set. If you did away with doubles, I contend that you would see more players trying to hand-set many of those plays because, with practice, they would be more precise than bump-sets. I disagree with your reasoning, that’s fine. I agree that clean sets are usually better-placed than doubled sets. I don’t care enough to find any examples of plays on YouTube because you’re asking for something that is not able to be proven. And I disagree with your last statement. That’s fine. Setters already try to get their hands on as many balls as possible. If this rule was outed I reallllyyy don’t think setter would start making diving sets. Just not logical. Bump sets work fine.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Feb 5, 2019 20:00:30 GMT -5
There was a thread about this doubles thing a year or two ago. I put in a lot more than my two cents on the topic. The trouble I have with doubles being called is NOT on the plays where a setter has to run a long way and they double it or save a tight pass and they double it. Absolutely call it if it's a double. The problem I have is when the setter is standing under a good pass, or the middle takes the 2nd ball and they decided early they are going to set it, or the libero is going to set the ball and they are camping out under a high dig, and the ball comes out spinning and the whole gym is arguing for a double. That should be let go. Spin is not a double.
Plus, if you watched a match and studied every set, 99% (or some other non-made up number) would have spin on them. But the ones that have more are thought to be doubles. Ridiculous.
And if you really start to call it tighter, you are leading to deep dish sets. Is that what you would want?
|
|