|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 20, 2019 17:13:24 GMT -5
The play-by-play at 12-10 says Jenna Ewert had an attack error? WTF? She was in the front row!!! It seems this may have been a HUGE mistake by the refs and Colorado may have had that match stolen from them. The call very well might have been blown. However, I wouldn't cite the statistician as proof. Those have nothing to do with what the actual call was. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Oct 20, 2019 17:14:29 GMT -5
I watched the replay on Sling and the refs messed that up. Maybe the Cal player got under the dig but that would have been a replay, not a Cal point. There was no violation from the CU side. That rotation had three DS’s in the back row. CU should have been up 13-9. Does the Cal coach and players always argue like they did this match? I watch a lot of volleyball, I would say he talks to the refs the most after points. Cals serve receive struggles and I am not impressed with their setting. Maybe they were really off today but they did not look like a top 15 team.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 17:15:09 GMT -5
The play-by-play at 12-10 says Jenna Ewert had an attack error? WTF? She was in the front row!!! It seems this may have been a HUGE mistake by the refs and Colorado may have had that match stolen from them. If so, that is 100% the coach's job to ask the ref "who was the call on?" and then say, "Check the rotation -- she was in the front row!" |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Oct 20, 2019 17:19:20 GMT -5
The play-by-play at 12-10 says Jenna Ewert had an attack error? WTF? She was in the front row!!! It seems this may have been a HUGE mistake by the refs and Colorado may have had that match stolen from them. If so, that is 100% the coach's job to ask the ref "who was the call on?" and then say, "Check the rotation -- she was in the front row!" For sure the CU coach is way too passive. |
|
pacnw
Junior High
Posts: 1 
|
Post by pacnw on Oct 20, 2019 17:23:14 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 17:29:33 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge. The libero is allowed to dig the ball overhand in front of the line. The libero is not allowed to set the ball overhand in front of the line. The difference is whether the ball is attacked on the next contact. If the setter dumped with the ball above the height of the net, then yes, this was a backrow violation. 12.1.2.4 A teammate may not complete an attack-hit when, at the moment of the attack-hit, the ball is entirely above the top of the net and the ball is coming from an overhand finger pass by a libero in the front zone |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131 
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 20, 2019 17:29:51 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge. Yes. The only question was is this a challengable play, and it is, as a back-row attack. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Oct 20, 2019 17:32:29 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge. Yep that’s the correct call. Makes me feel better. Still think Cal cries about a lot being the #15 team in the country playing the team in last place. |
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 17:33:15 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge. Damn. I just saw it. You're right. Thanks for clarifying. Colorado should have still won that match. Cal was clutch though. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 20, 2019 17:34:12 GMT -5
Correct call on challenge. CU libero dug the ball overhand in front of the 10 foot line, setter dumped. Epic challenge. Yes. The only question was is this a challengable play, and it is, as a back-row attack. That is not a challengeable play. Colorado coach could've protested and won. Also... pavo.org/Portals/0/docs/CRS/2019_CRS_ResourceDocument.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 17:39:07 GMT -5
Yes. The only question was is this a challengable play, and it is, as a back-row attack. That is not a challengeable play. Colorado coach could've protested and won. Is it challengeable or not? Is it not challenegable because it was the libero setting to an attacker ...and not the actual back-row attack crossing the line? I would assume it's still challengeable. Darn. Colorado should look MUCH better in 2nd half of PAC. Awesome playing and line-up. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 17:40:33 GMT -5
Yes. The only question was is this a challengable play, and it is, as a back-row attack. That is not a challengeable play. Colorado coach could've protested and won. Interesting. The challenge rule says: 18.1.4.5 Whether a back-row player was an illegal attacker as defined in Rule 14.5.4.2.1. But the libero setting rule is rule 12.1.2.4, not rule 14.5.4.2.1. Rule 14.5.4.2.1 specifies when a back-row player can complete an attack-hit: "At takeoff, the player’s feet have neither touched nor crossed the attack line or its indefinite extension (After the attack-hit, the player may land within the front zone)" |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 20, 2019 17:45:07 GMT -5
That is not a challengeable play. Colorado coach could've protested and won. Interesting. The challenge rule says: 18.1.4.5 Whether a back-row player was an illegal attacker as defined in Rule 14.5.4.2.1. But the libero setting rule is rule 12.1.2.4, not rule 14.5.4.2.1. Rule 14.5.4.2.1 specifies when a back-row player can complete an attack-hit: "At takeoff, the player’s feet have neither touched nor crossed the attack line or its indefinite extension (After the attack-hit, the player may land within the front zone)" In my above post, I added references to the PAVO (officials association) Challenge Review System document. It specifies that anything having to do with an illegal attack due to the libero setting the ball is NOT challengeable. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 17:48:27 GMT -5
So we found out:
1) a violation was actually committed, but
2) it was not actually challengeable, so
3) the refs made an error and the Colorado coach should have protested
|
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 17:49:24 GMT -5
Interesting. The challenge rule says: 18.1.4.5 Whether a back-row player was an illegal attacker as defined in Rule 14.5.4.2.1. But the libero setting rule is rule 12.1.2.4, not rule 14.5.4.2.1. Rule 14.5.4.2.1 specifies when a back-row player can complete an attack-hit: "At takeoff, the player’s feet have neither touched nor crossed the attack line or its indefinite extension (After the attack-hit, the player may land within the front zone)" In my above post, I added references to the PAVO (officials association) Challenge Review System document. It specifies that anything having to do with an illegal attack due to the libero setting the ball is NOT challengeable. That's unfortunate. Cal kind of got away with that win -- lots of crying throughout the match from the coach and some of the players. Oh well. Can't do anything about it now....and it was a Colorado violation...even if the refs got it wrong and Cal shouldn't have been able to challenge it. The refs were bad all day. Called a number of balls Cal's way after some players and coaches cried...that were way wrong. |
|
