|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 14, 2021 21:51:18 GMT -5
This is a part of the rules that I feel is typically interpreted against the backrow setter. Hilley has often argued against it. I found it odd that in this instance they gave the setter the benefit of the doubt. I've rarely seen them do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Nov 14, 2021 21:57:18 GMT -5
It would have been a back row attack on Rousseau if 1) her contact sent the ball onto Wisconsin’s side or 2) her contact sent it into the block of Rettke. Since there was still a portion of the ball above the net tape, Rousseau still had a right to play the ball. Her lucky save in keeping the ball on her side made it legal. While I was waiting, I went looking on the internet. The link below is to a page that seems to say otherwise: "A backrow player can play the ball above the top of the net as long as it doesn’t go over the net. Think of a setter playing the ball with a jump set. She needs to set the ball completely on her side of the net while she is backrow. If the ball “breaks the plain of the net” (any part of the ball goes over the net) and she tries to set it, she broke the backrow attack rule, point for the other team." "Part of the ball" was clearly over the net when she jumped and pulled it back. So they have it wrong, did I explain it badly, etc? www.cornnation.com/2019/7/13/18631987/nebraska-huskers-womens-volleyball-strategyI…don’t think that’s right? 15.1.3 Ball Penetrating the Vertical Plane 15�1�3�1 A ball penetrating the vertical plane of the net over or below the net may be returned to a team’s side by a player on that team provided the ball has not completely crossed the vertical plane of the net when such contact is made� Once the ball penetrates the vertical plane above the net, opponents have an equal right to play the ball� |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 14, 2021 22:03:16 GMT -5
While I was waiting, I went looking on the internet. The link below is to a page that seems to say otherwise: "A backrow player can play the ball above the top of the net as long as it doesn’t go over the net. Think of a setter playing the ball with a jump set. She needs to set the ball completely on her side of the net while she is backrow. If the ball “breaks the plain of the net” (any part of the ball goes over the net) and she tries to set it, she broke the backrow attack rule, point for the other team." "Part of the ball" was clearly over the net when she jumped and pulled it back. So they have it wrong, did I explain it badly, etc? www.cornnation.com/2019/7/13/18631987/nebraska-huskers-womens-volleyball-strategyI…don’t think that’s right? 15.1.3 Ball Penetrating the Vertical Plane 15�1�3�1 A ball penetrating the vertical plane of the net over or below the net may be returned to a team’s side by a player on that team provided the ball has not completely crossed the vertical plane of the net when such contact is made� Once the ball penetrates the vertical plane above the net, opponents have an equal right to play the ball� You're trying to draw me into saying a "Nebraska Husker" volleyball web site is wrong about something volleyball related?? That's like telling somebody from Minnesota they're wrong about a hockey-related question: dangerous! might get you punched out!  Thanks for the posts. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 14, 2021 22:05:34 GMT -5
While I was waiting, I went looking on the internet. The link below is to a page that seems to say otherwise: "A backrow player can play the ball above the top of the net as long as it doesn’t go over the net. Think of a setter playing the ball with a jump set. She needs to set the ball completely on her side of the net while she is backrow. If the ball “breaks the plain of the net” (any part of the ball goes over the net) and she tries to set it, she broke the backrow attack rule, point for the other team." "Part of the ball" was clearly over the net when she jumped and pulled it back. So they have it wrong, did I explain it badly, etc? www.cornnation.com/2019/7/13/18631987/nebraska-huskers-womens-volleyball-strategyI…don’t think that’s right? 15.1.3 Ball Penetrating the Vertical Plane 15�1�3�1 A ball penetrating the vertical plane of the net over or below the net may be returned to a team’s side by a player on that team provided the ball has not completely crossed the vertical plane of the net when such contact is made� Once the ball penetrates the vertical plane above the net, opponents have an equal right to play the ball� Yeah. My argument is that the on court interpretation is typically different -- if the backrow setter touches the ball above the net, it is usually called a back row attack. In this case it wasn't. A little consistency would be good. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 14, 2021 22:07:22 GMT -5
I…don’t think that’s right? 15.1.3 Ball Penetrating the Vertical Plane 15�1�3�1 A ball penetrating the vertical plane of the net over or below the net may be returned to a team’s side by a player on that team provided the ball has not completely crossed the vertical plane of the net when such contact is made� Once the ball penetrates the vertical plane above the net, opponents have an equal right to play the ball� Yeah. My argument is that the on court interpretation is typically different -- if the backrow setter touches the ball above the net, it is usually called a back row attack. In this case it wasn't. A little consistency would be good. Next question is "is that reviewable?" I'm guessing not, or that would have been Sheffield's challenge (and there's probably *really* good video from the net cam, too). |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 14, 2021 22:09:20 GMT -5
Yeah. My argument is that the on court interpretation is typically different -- if the backrow setter touches the ball above the net, it is usually called a back row attack. In this case it wasn't. A little consistency would be good. Next question is "is that reviewable?" I'm guessing not, or that would have been Sheffield's challenge (and there's probably *really* good video from the net cam, too). I don't think that particular call is because it's a judgement call. I think they were reviewing 4 hits. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 14, 2021 22:13:11 GMT -5
Next question is "is that reviewable?" I'm guessing not, or that would have been Sheffield's challenge (and there's probably *really* good video from the net cam, too). I don't think that particular call is because it's a judgement call. I think they were reviewing 4 hits. Officially (according to the video board) they were challenging a touch on the ball a couple volleys later, when Dana ended up hitting it wide on a cross-court try. But quite clearly from the BTN video, the source of all the discussion and delay was the "backrow" play of the ball by the setter. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 14, 2021 22:42:55 GMT -5
I don't think that particular call is because it's a judgement call. I think they were reviewing 4 hits. Officially (according to the video board) they were challenging a touch on the ball a couple volleys later, when Dana ended up hitting it wide on a cross-court try. But quite clearly from the BTN video, the source of all the discussion and delay was the "backrow" play of the ball by the setter. Backrow attack is not a reviewable call, as far as I'm aware. EDIT: Not by the setter anyway. A violation of the 10' line by an attacker is reviewable. |
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Nov 14, 2021 23:24:42 GMT -5
I feel like Wisconsin is going through the same rough patch that Purdue hit when Johnson and Hornung were both out. Badgers are really missing Civita, and I'm hoping that she'll eventually make it back soon. They have some big tests coming up in the next few weeks, and I'm hoping they finish the season strong!
|
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 14, 2021 23:33:13 GMT -5
I feel like Wisconsin is going through the same rough patch that Purdue hit when Johnson and Hornung were both out. Badgers are really missing Civita, and I'm hoping that she'll eventually make it back soon. They have some big tests coming up in the next few weeks, and I'm hoping they finish the season strong! Civita was dressed in 'ready to play' clothes both matches this weekend, and went through warm-ups, but to my eye at less than full speed (though I thought that same thing the first match she showed up after her ACL failed, and she went out and played that night). So she's probably pretty close. Dani Hart, on the other hand.... she's actually walking around pretty well, freely; even handing out balls during serving warm-ups. That seems surprising to me less than two months out from surgery. But of course, she won't be back until the fall. So we will likely get "Hornung" back, but not "johnson". |
|
