|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Dec 17, 2021 10:55:31 GMT -5
The fact that this much attention was given to the refs calls this match says it all. Just poor officiating all around.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 10:56:44 GMT -5
The fact that this much attention was given to the refs calls this match says it all. Just poor officiating all around. Why was it poor officiating? Name other instances that you thought was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by coachk2 on Dec 17, 2021 11:00:54 GMT -5
The fact that this much attention was given to the refs calls this match says it all. Just poor officiating all around. The fact that so many VTers don’t know the the NCAA centerline rule and the NCAA attack rule resulted in lots of inaccurate “attention” while Olympic level ref Patti Rolf called the match properly. 😂 Truly amazed at the clueless comments. 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Dec 17, 2021 11:01:49 GMT -5
The fact that this much attention was given to the refs calls this match says it all. Just poor officiating all around. Why was it poor officiating? Name other instances that you thought was wrong. Off the top of my head - the five or so touches from Louisville's outsides off of Wisconsin's right side that's directly in front of her face. |
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Dec 17, 2021 11:04:30 GMT -5
NFHS (High School)-Hand or foot can touch the opponent's court as long as some part of the hand or foot is touching or over the centerline. Any other body part touching the opponent's court is a violation. NCAA-You can touch the opponent's court if you are on the center line as long as you're not interfering with play. You can completely cross the center line as long as you don't interfere or create a safety hazard for your opponent as long as some part of your body remains in contact with or is above the center line. USAV-Slightly different wording, but essentially the same rule-can't be on the line if you're interfering with play. Can cross the center line completely as long as no interference with play or safety hazard. If a shoelace touches the center line in Wisconsin they call you for it. I love it, as I said earlier, far too many injuries happen when people land over the line. It is there for a reason, you get called if you turn and your elbow brushes the net, you get called if the ball flies 10' over the pin, you should always get called if you touch the center line. If they're calling it that way in Wisconsin, then they're incorrectly applying the rules as written. Feel free to approach all of the governing bodies of the sport (FIVB, USAV, NCAA, NFHS) to try to get them to change the rules since none of them have the rule you want. Also, if you have finished your attempt to play the ball and turn and your elbow brushes the net, that's legal under NCAA, FIVB, and USAV (not legal in NFHS). The NCAA language on net contact: "15.2.1 Player Contact With Net or Antennas Contact with the net or antenna by a player is not a fault, unless it is made during an action of playing the ball, or it interferes with the play. Playing the ball may include actions in which the player(s) does not actually touch the ball." and in the Rule Interpretations under Rule 15: "SITUATION 4: After setting the ball near the net, R4 begins to move toward her defensive position. As she moves away, she brushes the net with her shoulder. RULING: Legal play. Contact with the net is only a fault if the player is playing the ball or the contact interferes with play. (See Rule 15.2.1.)" |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 11:05:08 GMT -5
Why was it poor officiating? Name other instances that you thought was wrong. Off the top of my head - the five or so touches from Louisville's outsides off of Wisconsin's right side that's directly in front of her face. So she should be able to see micro touches at the speed the ball and play is happening at? |
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Dec 17, 2021 11:07:25 GMT -5
Off the top of my head - the five or so touches from Louisville's outsides off of Wisconsin's right side that's directly in front of her face. So she should be able to see micro touches at the speed the ball and play is happening at? Are they touches? |
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Dec 17, 2021 11:08:03 GMT -5
Totally agree the right call was made immediately, that ball had all the chance in the world to hit the tape and roll back down on Wisconsin side, irrelevant if it would have been kept alive, but there was a chance it could have stayed - had she waited just another second and D-Block it or hit it we wouldn't be having this convo but Patti made the right call. In the end it didn't change the game, the wheels fell off for Louisville in set 5. Absolutely! Just a split second longer and we don't have this discussion. Though that play was a big turning point for Wisc because it turned into a 3 point swing (unless my memory is wrong about what the score was). Big momentum shift. The result of the play made it 23-23 in the 4th set, instead of Louisville ahead 24-22. Louisville won the set 25-23. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 11:09:46 GMT -5
Absolutely! Just a split second longer and we don't have this discussion. Though that play was a big turning point for Wisc because it turned into a 3 point swing (unless my memory is wrong about what the score was). Big momentum shift. The result of the play made it 23-23 in the 4th set, instead of Louisville ahead 24-22. Louisville won the set 25-23.  I could have sworn this was in set 5? Going from Louisville being up 7-6 to down 8-6 in a matter of plays. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Dec 17, 2021 11:11:30 GMT -5
If it's that close on a rally like that it's definitely the wrong call. The correct call should be made, whether or not it's "close" or not. Doesn't matter what the call may be. If it needs to be called, you call it. I thought the over was the correct call in real time and even yelled out over as she reached for the ball. The camera angle on the net in the replay did not give a good idea of the ball had crossed the plane, but the players attacking hand was well over into the other side. I think it was the correct call. All the Louisville player had to do is wait just a little longer. But her aggressiveness cost her in that instance. The irony that the action of one of the least aggressive people on the face of this earth falls under this label. lol |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 11:12:21 GMT -5
So she should be able to see micro touches at the speed the ball and play is happening at? Are they touches? Maybe they were maybe they won't. Without proper high speed cameras, one will never know. Unless the players all start calling touches honestly? Hah! Like that would happen lol |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Dec 17, 2021 11:19:08 GMT -5
If it's that close on a rally like that it's definitely the wrong call. The correct call should be made, whether or not it's "close" or not. Doesn't matter what the call may be. If it needs to be called, you call it. I thought the over was the correct call in real time and even yelled out over as she reached for the ball. The camera angle on the net in the replay did not give a good idea of the ball had crossed the plane, but the players attacking hand was well over into the other side. I think it was the correct call. All the Louisville player had to do is wait just a little longer. But her aggressiveness cost her in that instance. The overhead view, clearly showed it was above the plane. Bad call and WAY too close to call at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Dec 17, 2021 11:19:17 GMT -5
The result of the play made it 23-23 in the 4th set, instead of Louisville ahead 24-22. Louisville won the set 25-23. I could have sworn this was in set 5? Going from Louisville being up 7-6 to down 8-6 in a matter of plays. The replay at 7-6 in the 5th was whether Dev Robinson touched the net with her elbow or her hair - it was her hair, not a violation. What the refs missed on that one was that Robinson's foot came down entirely across the centerline. I think that meant the point should have gone to Louisville, but I'm certainly not an expert on the rules, whether it needs to "affect play", or whether that can be reviewed, etc etc. To be clear, the point was played at 6-6. Had Louisville gotten the point, they'd have gone up 7-6. Instead a "let" was played, Wisconsin (Robinson, specifically) got the point and went up 7-6. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 11:22:36 GMT -5
I could have sworn this was in set 5? Going from Louisville being up 7-6 to down 8-6 in a matter of plays. The replay at 7-6 in the 5th was whether Dev Robinson touched the net with her elbow or her hair - it was her hair, not a violation. What the refs missed on that one was that Robinson's foot came down entirely across the centerline. I think that meant the point should have gone to Louisville, but I'm certainly not an expert on the rules, whether it needs to "affect play", or whether that can be reviewed, etc etc. Gotcha. I got the sets of those plays mixed up. As for the net and under... the R2 called net, the challenge was on that ruling. The under was not called and to my knowledge cannot be reviewed because that was not the rule that was called. However, being under in NCAA you have to impact a players ability on the other side. This under did not and was probably why that part wasn't called. I thought the refs got this call reversal correct. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Dec 17, 2021 11:23:51 GMT -5
The correct call should be made, whether or not it's "close" or not. Doesn't matter what the call may be. If it needs to be called, you call it. I thought the over was the correct call in real time and even yelled out over as she reached for the ball. The camera angle on the net in the replay did not give a good idea of the ball had crossed the plane, but the players attacking hand was well over into the other side. I think it was the correct call. All the Louisville player had to do is wait just a little longer. But her aggressiveness cost her in that instance. The overhead view, clearly showed it was above the plane. Bad call and WAY too close to call at that point. I must have missed the overhead view... from what I could tell it was hard to judge if the ball had even crossed... and the players hand being completely over the net??? That was an easy call to make. |
|
I could have sworn this was in set 5? Going from Louisville being up 7-6 to down 8-6 in a matter of plays.
