|
|
Post by ucivball on Apr 18, 2007 0:29:28 GMT -5
i was at the local high school match today between o.c. powers esperanza (#1 in o.c.) vs. los alamitos (#4). esperanza was the home team.
late in a close game four with esperanza up 2 games to 1:
during a rally, an esperanza middle got tangled up with one of his wing blockers, or he just stepped/landed awkwardly and one of his shoe came off. but the play was still going on and los alamitos received a freeball which they set a pipe to their best hitter from the back row. but the esperanza player inexplicably tossed his shoe, which was on the ground, across the net right in front of the attacking player's path. the los al hitter was not hit by the shoe, but he no doubt had to stop his approach and he ended up just catching the ball and it was a dead play. in fact, the shoe actually hit another los alamitos player standing right back.
i want to note, that i don't think the esperanza player intentionally threw his shoe across the net, weird as it may sound. i believe it was just a spur of the moment thing that happened while the play was still going on. and maybe he should've thrown the shoe backwards onto his own sideline. however, i don't think any malicious intent was present.
anyway...the refs convened and called for a REPLAY.
is this the right ruling? i would think it's a bit silly to call for a replay off a distraction that one team caused to the disadvantage of the opposing team. b/c los alamitos was on the offensive from the freeball and had to stop because of the thrown shoe from esperanza. this is my initial reaction...but what does everyone think?
|
|
|
|
Post by theez1 on Apr 18, 2007 1:13:01 GMT -5
It's kind of like throwing your glove up in the air at a baseball that is going to fly over your head. Kind of funny. No idea of the ruling, but a replay seems to be the least they could do.
|
|
|
|
Post by vb on Apr 18, 2007 1:25:20 GMT -5
Got a video?
|
|
|
|
Post by ucivball on Apr 18, 2007 1:39:14 GMT -5
no video. but i think i described it as well as i could.
the important issue is that the thrown shoe by the esperanza player prevented the los al attack.
the los al captain, who was also the attacking player who stopped his approach. made a case to the ref (at least from what i heard) "he interfered with the play, how can you call a replay?"
i know that in beach, sean rosenthal always wears a hat, and it comes off quite often when he swings. and he has been called for net violations before when the hat comes off and touches the net.
so does that apply here? a part of the players equipment came across the net and affected the opposing team's play. can he be called for an under violation?
it just seems to me that a replay call would in affect neutralize any advantage los alamitos may have had since they were on the attack. although a team's advantage may be unfairly neutralized at times by a replay call, i.e. ball on, it doesn't seem right when the "shoe on" in this case is caused directly by the opposing team.
|
|
|
|
Post by volley on Apr 18, 2007 2:36:47 GMT -5
who ended up winning the match, just curious?
|
|
|
|
Post by ucivball on Apr 18, 2007 2:38:45 GMT -5
espy in 4
|
|
|
|
Post by planetasia01 on Apr 18, 2007 2:42:23 GMT -5
Shouldn't have play been stopped when he lost his shoe? I would deem it a hazard to any player on the court, especially if its near the net.
|
|
|
|
Post by ucivball on Apr 18, 2007 3:13:10 GMT -5
yea, that's also a possibility. but i don't think the refs noticed anything. it all happened really quickly. i didn't notice a loose show until after it was thrown across the net.
|
|
|
|
Post by VBbeast on Apr 18, 2007 10:10:22 GMT -5
Should have been called interference and point to other side if the player threw his shoe into the other court. If it came off and was accidentally flipped over there via a piking move or something then play should have been stopped (safety issue) and the point replayed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 18, 2007 10:48:14 GMT -5
Sounds like a reasonable call to me.
First of all, I doubt there is anything in the rule book covering this type of stoppage in play. Especially if the refs didn't see the shoe being thrown, and couldn't say that it was done intentionally to stop play.
Pretty much when ever there is a foreign object on the court (ball at tournament, etc) the refs call a replay.
|
|
OC4
Sophomore
Posts: 213
|
Post by OC4 on Apr 18, 2007 11:04:16 GMT -5
there was an MPSF player a few years back who wore prescription Oakley's on the court. One game I saw they fell off a critical time when his team was about to lose a huge point and the ref called a replay. Not as extreme as throwing a shoe across the court but pretty similar :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Apr 18, 2007 11:35:59 GMT -5
If the shoe was intentionally thrown it would have to be interference and a lost point to Esperanza. If not, Los Alamitos should have taken their shoes off every time they served, then chucked all twelve at an Esperanza hitter every time he went up for an attack. If Los Alamitos then hit the ball with one of the shoes, and it dropped on the (attacking) Esperanza side, would Los Al then get the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by CityTechLegend on Apr 18, 2007 19:30:06 GMT -5
I believe the refs did the right thing. It wasn't as you said "intentional" that would have to be the first item determined. After that they must take into account "hazzard." Since it was on the Espy side they had control of the situation and apperently it didn't keep them from playing out the rally. NOW after all that, did it interfere with the continuance of play and would have cause the rally to end in favor of one team or the other. Obviously it did and that was probably the last thing the refs thought about. If teh Al player would have just hit th eball over maybe the refs would have seen it differently. But who knows.
I think the replay was the best call. No loss of point on either side. Its PC by volleyball standards....:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Apr 18, 2007 21:01:43 GMT -5
If it were an Asics or a Mizuno, I say play on.
If it's a Nike or Adidas, then it should be a fault - point/sideout against the offending shoe-tosser.
If it's a Kaepa or Reebok, then the player wearing the shoe in the first place should be laughed out the gym.
LOL. Kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by lalalaluuuke on Apr 20, 2007 15:23:39 GMT -5
In baseball if you throw your glove in the air to stop a ball it is called interference and it is the umpire's discretion as to what call to make. The play is considered dead and the umpire will make whatever call they choose. They can award up to 2 bases to the runners and/or hitter and if the ball would have cleared the fence can award the homerun. They never "replay" the pitch.
Not sure how this relates to volleyball but I would guess, without knowing the rules for sure, that the referees would have the discretion to determine whether or not it was intentional and make an appropriate call. If intentional I think the point should be awarded.
I work with a guy who has been a baseball umpire for 20+ years and umps for the Little League World Series. He referenced a specific rule in the rule book for it.
|
|
