|
Post by rogero1 on May 6, 2015 10:13:36 GMT -5
At the end of the day...all i did was make a comment about a ref that i tbink (my opinion...) sucks Why you freaking idiots get so worked up confuses me. See ya'll in the stands! In your opinion, who is a good ref? Someone who calls your interpretation of ball handling? Since you can't take criticism here, you would not last up on the stand. Those people who have responded to you have over 20 years of being up there and have done that. One of the main reasons why there is a shortage of refs is people like you who dissuade others from becoming an official by your negativity.
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on May 6, 2015 13:10:05 GMT -5
Actually, at the end of day, UPREFSENEMY, makes me yearn for Orphan Junior Volleyball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 13:24:52 GMT -5
Who's going to make sure the score is right?
|
|
|
Post by Garand on May 6, 2015 13:40:26 GMT -5
Why do I feel sure that UpRefHater is the first to yell, "SCORE !!!!".
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 7, 2015 0:59:39 GMT -5
From that angle assuming that it's not the 3rd contact, reaching over the net on the guy in red still reaching over if it's the third contact. The attack (third hit) must be completed before a blocker may block beyond the net. This picture is simultaneous contact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 8:07:30 GMT -5
If it's the third contact, that setter had no intention of doing anything other than setting a teammate for a fourth contact.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 7, 2015 11:07:34 GMT -5
If it's the third contact, that setter had no intention of doing anything other than setting a teammate for a fourth contact. Still reaching over. Intent / directing the ball towards the opponent is only a judgment after a first or second contact. A third hit or an attack must be complete before a blocker may reach over. Simultaneous contact is always a fault in this picture. Even if this was an outside hitter swinging toward the opponents - the blocker must let the action occur before contacting the ball beyond the net. Even if the setter didn't realize it was the third contact and was going to set a teammate for a fourth hit, still a blocking fault because he must let the action happen first.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 7, 2015 11:13:20 GMT -5
You may reach over and block: (1) AFTER a teams third hit (2) AFTER an attack hit (1st,2nd hit) if in the referee's judgment the ball is being directed to the opponents (3) After a 1st or 2nd hit and the ball is falling near the net, and no one is in position to play the ball
(4)if the ball, after played, would clearly have crossed the net, and no one is in position to play the ball.[ br]Simultaneous contact while reaching beyond the net is always a fault. Always. If it's after the third contact, then the blocker would be legal and the attacking team would be at fault for 4 hits
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on May 7, 2015 11:22:18 GMT -5
Can we start with... there's really no such thing as "simultaneous contact". There are some rules that allow the referee to make a judgement of simultaneous (2 players on the same side playing it at the same time. No complaints of course, but I'd say that any referee that penalizes an otherwise great block on a ball and award the rally to the team that made a poor set due to a ruling of "simultaneous" should reconsider making that call.
That being said, from the photo, common sense tells us that the setter was setting a hitter and it's an illegal block. Quick note, when in Colorado and you hear hoofbeats, stop thinking "zebra?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 11:30:28 GMT -5
If it's the third contact, that setter had no intention of doing anything other than setting a teammate for a fourth contact. Still reaching over. Intent / directing the ball towards the opponent is only a judgment after a first or second contact. A third hit or an attack must be complete before a blocker may reach over. Simultaneous contact is always a fault in this picture. Even if this was an outside hitter swinging toward the opponents - the blocker must let the action occur before contacting the ball beyond the net. Even if the setter didn't realize it was the third contact and was going to set a teammate for a fourth hit, still a blocking fault because he must let the action happen first. Not arguing about that. Just saying that was not a third contact regardless. I agree it's an illegal block, no matter what contact it was.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 7, 2015 11:36:49 GMT -5
Can we start with... there's really no such thing as "simultaneous contact". There are some rules that allow the referee to make a judgement of simultaneous (2 players on the same side playing it at the same time. No complaints of course, but I'd say that any referee that penalizes an otherwise great block on a ball and award the rally to the team that made a poor set due to a ruling of "simultaneous" should reconsider making that call. That being said, from the photo, common sense tells us that the setter was setting a hitter and it's an illegal block. Quick note, when in Colorado and you hear hoofbeats, stop thinking "zebra?" Uhhh what? simultaneous - occurring, operating, or done at the same time Are you telling me that in that picture the two players aren't contacting the the ball at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by vboldschool on May 7, 2015 12:07:22 GMT -5
Can we start with... there's really no such thing as "simultaneous contact". Maybe in some theoretical sense, but that's not ever relevant. Are you implying that every handset should be called a double, since one hand contacts the ball a microsecond before the other? And even so, that wouldn't be relevant here, because even if the setter contacted the ball first, the two players are contacting the ball simultaneously, so the setter isn't finished doing whatever he's planning to do with the ball, so it's interference.
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on May 7, 2015 15:46:06 GMT -5
I agree it's an illegal block, no matter what contact it was. Not trying to pick nits, but it's illegal reaching beyond the net. There's no way we'd use the illegal block signal here.
|
|
|
Post by nationalreferee on May 7, 2015 19:05:30 GMT -5
I agree it's an illegal block, no matter what contact it was. Not trying to pick nits, but it's illegal reaching beyond the net. There's no way we'd use the illegal block signal here. Nitpicking the nitpicker, In this case, reaching beyond the net is still a blocking fault, we just use a separate signal for reaching beyond the net. So you are both correct.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on May 8, 2015 7:44:31 GMT -5
You may reach over and block: (1) AFTER a teams third hit (2) AFTER an attack hit (1st,2nd hit) if in the referee's judgment the ball is being directed to the opponents (3) After a 1st or 2nd hit and the ball is falling near the net, and no one is in position to play the ball (4)if the ball, after played, would clearly have crossed the net, and no one is in position to play the ball.[ br]Simultaneous contact while reaching beyond the net is always a fault. Always. If it's after the third contact, then the blocker would be legal and the attacking team would be at fault for 4 hits Is that ruleset from: A - FIVB B - NCAA C - NFHS D - Outdoor E - All of the above ??
|
|