|
|
Post by big10volleyballfan on Dec 14, 2015 9:25:19 GMT -5
I did it this past summer in our end of season softball tournament on what would have been a winning run. I went out and informed the umpires that we were not allowed to take the base we took even though they counted it. We ended up winning the next inning (my assistants were most unhappy with me until then). However it was more important that the kids (10-13) saw the right call being made than to win on an asterisk. Was told about a month later that the coach from the other team was mentioning it to other people after he ran into my sister during a business deal and found out that she was my sister. I know it was only little kids ball but sportsmanship is more important than winning and they need to learn it early That's very impressive, and something that few coaches would do. Kudos to you for teaching the kids the right lesson. |
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Dec 14, 2015 9:33:40 GMT -5
Or what if after the match Mary Wise told Jerritt during their handshake "the ball was in" and started a shoving/yelling match? Has there ever been an example of such poor sportsmanship? I'm just bringing this gem up again. |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Dec 14, 2015 10:33:16 GMT -5
This is completely misguided. Note that FIVB took that position for a while and then realized it was wrong. They changed the rule back to be basically the same as the NCAA rule. The requirement to not touch or go under the net absolutely does change how the point is played. A player has to change the approach, limit their horizontal momentum, and (most of all) stay under control. Take away the net contact rule and you make play near the net very different. The FIVB found that out when they tried easing the net rule, and that's why they changed it back. FIVB rule: Rule 11.3 (Volleyball and Beach Volleyball) Contact with the net by a player between the antennae, during the action of playing the ball, is a fault. I still have a problem with that. As a player and coach, I believe all 12 players on the court are always in the "action of playing the ball". In a training video, a middle blocker went up to block a quick, but the set went outside. The middle touched the net attempting to block the quick, but was not called for a net violation because the ball went to the outside attacker. But maybe the middle hitter missed the set, or could have cut it off before it got to the outside. So maybe it should be a net foul?? The blocker was 'playing the ball', they just played it incorrectly. |
|
|
|
Post by big10volleyballfan on Dec 14, 2015 13:31:42 GMT -5
an absurd number of net calls are being made when the net contact has absolutely no influence on the point in progress. This is completely misguided. Note that FIVB took that position for a while and then realized it was wrong. They changed the rule back to be basically the same as the NCAA rule. The requirement to not touch or go under the net absolutely does change how the point is played. A player has to change the approach, limit their horizontal momentum, and (most of all) stay under control. Take away the net contact rule and you make play near the net very different. The FIVB found that out when they tried easing the net rule, and that's why they changed it back. I'm well aware of what FIVB did, but that does not mean that a change in the monitoring of what happens near the net is not needed. I agree that playing under control at the net is very important for several reasons, however, watching to see if a player's hair brushes the net while all attention should be focused on the location of a ball driven toward the back of the court is illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Dec 14, 2015 13:36:55 GMT -5
I think the NCAA needs to try to work on getting younger refs. So many of these refs are older people who often times don't see what a younger person would've caught much more clearly. It's common knowledge that your reactions and senses start to decline as you age. Not joking either, so don't take it as so. Younger people are a lot more keen in real-time observations. Amen! Vision, perception, processing all get worse and worse as you get older. Lots of bad calls from the TX match this weekend. Jerritt was just fine in his advocating. Mary was as well. I'd been a lot more upset at that line call than Mary was. I was not so happy with Alhassan's blocking of Lauren's sets...like four of them...but the passers better adjust. Granted, tough in the waning moments of the fifth set. I really felt for FL on that call, but it's an unfortunate fact of the game without instant replay. |
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Dec 14, 2015 13:49:40 GMT -5
This is completely misguided. Note that FIVB took that position for a while and then realized it was wrong. They changed the rule back to be basically the same as the NCAA rule. The requirement to not touch or go under the net absolutely does change how the point is played. A player has to change the approach, limit their horizontal momentum, and (most of all) stay under control. Take away the net contact rule and you make play near the net very different. The FIVB found that out when they tried easing the net rule, and that's why they changed it back. I'm well aware of what FIVB did, but that does not mean that a change in the monitoring of what happens near the net is not needed. I agree that playing under control at the net is very important for several reasons, however, watching to see if a player's hair brushes the net while all attention should be focused on the location of a ball driven toward the back of the court is illogical. Agreed....but I do not think many officials call the hair touching the net...I know I have been told to disregard this. Not sure what NCAA officials have been told. As I mentioned before, it is R2's responsibility to hang on the net on the defensive side, R1 should follow the ball....and if the hitter does contact the net, this is almost simultaneous to the attack so not too hard to call. |
|
