|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 14:05:23 GMT -5
Simple, you didn't get an answer because in that moment they realized they don't know what was actually supposed to be called (a lift), or they instantly realized they were wrong and went on a power trip of just carding you to get out of the situation. I'm pretty sure donneyp knew this already, but was just trying to make the point that the ref automatically called the double based on spin, even though it couldn't possibly have been an actual double contact. Despite every version of the rules I've ever seen warning that refs should not call doubles based on spin, some of them definitely call doubles based on spin. You can't legally double on a 3rd contact either, right? 3rd contacts that go over the net typically have the most extreme spin in volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 14:25:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure donneyp knew this already, but was just trying to make the point that the ref automatically called the double based on spin, even though it couldn't possibly have been an actual double contact. Despite every version of the rules I've ever seen warning that refs should not call doubles based on spin, some of them definitely call doubles based on spin. You can't legally double on a 3rd contact either, right? 3rd contacts that go over the net typically have the most extreme spin in volleyball. Well, if it was a double on the third contact, then it would be four contacts, which is also against the rules. I personally think they need to just clean up the rulebook and say that non-simultaneous contact with the ball is acceptable as long as it is part of one attempt to play the ball. We allow serves and hits to go over the net while spinning, right? Here's what I think should be a double: 1) player plays the ball, then plays it again 2) either before or after the player plays the ball, the ball hits the player in a sequence that is not part of the player's attempt to play the ball #2 would be something like: "Ball hits the player and pops into the air. Nobody else can get to it, so player passes it." Or: "Player digs the ball up, but it falls back down and then touches the player again." But not: "Player attempts to set the ball and one hand contacts before the other." Or not: "Player digs the ball which bounces from the forearm to the chest of the player."
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 11, 2022 14:45:20 GMT -5
You can't legally double on a 3rd contact either, right? 3rd contacts that go over the net typically have the most extreme spin in volleyball. Well, if it was a double on the third contact, then it would be four contacts, which is also against the rules. I personally think they need to just clean up the rulebook and say that non-simultaneous contact with the ball is acceptable as long as it is part of one attempt to play the ball. We allow serves and hits to go over the net while spinning, right? Here's what I think should be a double: 1) player plays the ball, then plays it again 2) either before or after the player plays the ball, the ball hits the player in a sequence that is not part of the player's attempt to play the ball #2 would be something like: "Ball hits the player and pops into the air. Nobody else can get to it, so player passes it." Or: "Player digs the ball up, but it falls back down and then touches the player again." But not: "Player attempts to set the ball and one hand contacts before the other." Or not: "Player digs the ball which bounces from the forearm to the chest of the player." I'd add that it is illegal to attack the ball with two hands if the ball is completely above the height of the net. No judgment involved, but I don't think we want two-handed spikes.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 14:49:39 GMT -5
Well, if it was a double on the third contact, then it would be four contacts, which is also against the rules. I personally think they need to just clean up the rulebook and say that non-simultaneous contact with the ball is acceptable as long as it is part of one attempt to play the ball. We allow serves and hits to go over the net while spinning, right? Here's what I think should be a double: 1) player plays the ball, then plays it again 2) either before or after the player plays the ball, the ball hits the player in a sequence that is not part of the player's attempt to play the ball #2 would be something like: "Ball hits the player and pops into the air. Nobody else can get to it, so player passes it." Or: "Player digs the ball up, but it falls back down and then touches the player again." But not: "Player attempts to set the ball and one hand contacts before the other." Or not: "Player digs the ball which bounces from the forearm to the chest of the player." I'd add that it is illegal to attack the ball with two hands if the ball is completely above the height of the net. No judgment involved, but I don't think we want two-handed spikes. Hmm. That would mostly prevent that play where a setter sets the ball to an open spot on the opponent's court. I'm OK if that is collateral damage in preventing two-handed spikes, although I don't have a problem with the set-to-space play.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 15:05:07 GMT -5
Well, if it was a double on the third contact, then it would be four contacts, which is also against the rules. I personally think they need to just clean up the rulebook and say that non-simultaneous contact with the ball is acceptable as long as it is part of one attempt to play the ball. We allow serves and hits to go over the net while spinning, right? Here's what I think should be a double: 1) player plays the ball, then plays it again 2) either before or after the player plays the ball, the ball hits the player in a sequence that is not part of the player's attempt to play the ball #2 would be something like: "Ball hits the player and pops into the air. Nobody else can get to it, so player passes it." Or: "Player digs the ball up, but it falls back down and then touches the player again." But not: "Player attempts to set the ball and one hand contacts before the other." Or not: "Player digs the ball which bounces from the forearm to the chest of the player." I'd add that it is illegal to attack the ball with two hands if the ball is completely above the height of the net. No judgment involved, but I don't think we want two-handed spikes. Yet that is no longer true, and it drives me crazy. Front-row setters attack the ball with two hands above the net all the time now, and I don't see them ever called for a double. Apparently the second contact now by a setter can have the same motion as a block, and I do not understand that interpretation at all. As to a double on a 3rd contact, it is not 4 contacts if a double is not called, and if a double IS called the fault is the double, not 4 contacts. I was, of course, referring to a hard topspin attack and pointing out that nobody questions whether that is a double when comparing to something like the single finger double referenced above.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 11, 2022 15:08:46 GMT -5
I guess I'll add that I've seen backrow setters make that "set to empty space" play while making sure they do it from below the height of the net. I would be OK if that was how that play always had to be made.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 11, 2022 15:29:42 GMT -5
I guess I'll add that I've seen backrow setters make that "set to empty space" play while making sure they do it from below the height of the net. I would be OK if that was how that play always had to be made. So… should blocking the ball with both arms/hands also become verboten?
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 11, 2022 15:39:04 GMT -5
I'd add that it is illegal to attack the ball with two hands if the ball is completely above the height of the net. No judgment involved, but I don't think we want two-handed spikes. Yet that is no longer true, and it drives me crazy. Front-row setters attack the ball with two hands above the net all the time now, and I don't see them ever called for a double. Apparently the second contact now by a setter can have the same motion as a block, and I do not understand that interpretation at all. As to a double on a 3rd contact, it is not 4 contacts if a double is not called, and if a double IS called the fault is the double, not 4 contacts. I was, of course, referring to a hard topspin attack and pointing out that nobody questions whether that is a double when comparing to something like the single finger double referenced above. Are you speaking about a d-block, or when they are setting squared to a pin and dump it over their shoulder to the well or a corner? Either way I don't have an issue with either of these plays, this is where you get a lot of refs either don't know the rule or are stuck in a "back in my day" mentality like when they call hand passed serves/first contacts lifts because they still think first contact should be super clean and don't like that it can come out sloppy.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 11, 2022 15:45:54 GMT -5
I'd add that it is illegal to attack the ball with two hands if the ball is completely above the height of the net. No judgment involved, but I don't think we want two-handed spikes. Hmm. That would mostly prevent that play where a setter sets the ball to an open spot on the opponent's court. I'm OK if that is collateral damage in preventing two-handed spikes, although I don't have a problem with the set-to-space play. You see this play pretty frequently from back row setters. So they've become pretty good at executing this skill without the entire ball being above the height of the net.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 11, 2022 15:46:58 GMT -5
I guess I'll add that I've seen backrow setters make that "set to empty space" play while making sure they do it from below the height of the net. I would be OK if that was how that play always had to be made. So… should blocking the ball with both arms/hands also become verboten? Blocking is not attacking. They are very different things in the rule book and officials are used to separating the two. Most notably, an attack counts as the first team contact while a block doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 15:58:36 GMT -5
Yet that is no longer true, and it drives me crazy. Front-row setters attack the ball with two hands above the net all the time now, and I don't see them ever called for a double. Apparently the second contact now by a setter can have the same motion as a block, and I do not understand that interpretation at all. As to a double on a 3rd contact, it is not 4 contacts if a double is not called, and if a double IS called the fault is the double, not 4 contacts. I was, of course, referring to a hard topspin attack and pointing out that nobody questions whether that is a double when comparing to something like the single finger double referenced above. Are you speaking about a d-block, or when they are setting squared to a pin and dump it over their shoulder to the well or a corner? Either way I don't have an issue with either of these plays, this is where you get a lot of refs either don't know the rule or are stuck in a "back in my day" mentality like when they call hand passed serves/first contacts lifts because they still think first contact should be super clean and don't like that it can come out sloppy. I'm talking about faking a jump set and turning and slamming the ball with two hands. Clearly not a legal set, not clear why it is legal at all, but there must be guidance to allow it. Absolutely I am old and crusty and am not a fan of the constant tinkering with the rules. "Back in my day" taking a serve overhead would be (correctly) viewed as an attempted set and most every time would be a violation. You probably don't think there should be such a thing as a bad set, so for you there would be no change. I was told that the original intent of allowing the first contact to be taken overhead with no penalty was to aid the defense to extend rallies, and was not meant to make it easier for huge front row players with limited backrow skills to more easily pass and make to make it even easier to side out and makes the average rally even shorter (especially for men). I'm also not a fan of eliminating calls like double contacts because the refs suck. We don't do that in other sports, why do we accept it in volleyball? In any case, that's what all the kids are talking about down at my old folks home.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 16:04:19 GMT -5
So… should blocking the ball with both arms/hands also become verboten? Blocking is not attacking. They are very different things in the rule book and officials are used to separating the two. Most notably, an attack counts as the first team contact while a block doesn't. Volleyball Magazine just did an interview with Shaw, Haley and Pettit. Haley recalled that back in his day he used to play middle back as the setter, because the block counted as the first contact and the middle back had the best chance of getting to the second contact off the block and attempting a set.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 11, 2022 16:19:20 GMT -5
Are you speaking about a d-block, or when they are setting squared to a pin and dump it over their shoulder to the well or a corner? Either way I don't have an issue with either of these plays, this is where you get a lot of refs either don't know the rule or are stuck in a "back in my day" mentality like when they call hand passed serves/first contacts lifts because they still think first contact should be super clean and don't like that it can come out sloppy. I'm talking about faking a jump set and turning and slamming the ball with two hands. Clearly not a legal set, not clear why it is legal at all, but there must be guidance to allow it. Absolutely I am old and crusty and am not a fan of the constant tinkering with the rules. "Back in my day" taking a serve overhead would be (correctly) viewed as an attempted set and most every time would be a violation. You probably don't think there should be such a thing as a bad set, so for you there would be no change. I was told that the original intent of allowing the first contact to be taken overhead with no penalty was to aid the defense to extend rallies, and was not meant to make it easier for huge front row players with limited backrow skills to more easily pass and make to make it even easier to side out and makes the average rally even shorter (especially for men). I'm also not a fan of eliminating calls like double contacts because the refs suck. We don't do that in other sports, why do we accept it in volleyball? In any case, that's what all the kids are talking about down at my old folks home. Yea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the fake jump set leading to a two handed dump, if the setter is front row it is your responsibility to make sure you have a player who could be considered another attacker covered. As long as they don't move the ball through two body axis planes, at which point it would be a lift/throw, then it is a legal play. I played when you couldn't hand pass the first contact without it being clean, and I played when you could be falling backwards and slap at the ball to keep it alive as long as you didn't lift it and I am in favor of the current set of rules. It makes for a better game - as the game evolved with more aggressive serves (hi velo tops/jump floaters) the game has sped up and part of adapting to the advancement of the serving skillsets is also the skillsets you can use in general, including first contact. Just like I commented in here before, if they decide to eliminate doubles it does not mean all of a sudden everyone will magically find hands, just like huge front row players all of a sudden weren't just able to take first contacts with hands because they were worse with arm passing or had poor back rows. Skillsets still have to be developed, and as the game changes the rules and skillsets needed to play at a high level must adapt as well. Rules change not only because the game advances, but because people are desperate for officials and in some states it is an open book test so that sh*tty soccer/football/basketball ref can come inside and make some extra money during high school or club season by doing volleyball because they watched it on tv or played it once in middle school gym class and be sh*tty at that as well - if we can't control the quality of officials across the board then why not eliminate a subjective rule that nit picky power trip officials want to have an opinion on? Could you even imagine if we still had side out scoring, volleyball would be tanking in popularity as we would have 4-5 hour matches that absolutely no one would want to watch or play when kids learning can't even serve over the net.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jan 11, 2022 16:22:23 GMT -5
Blocking is not attacking. They are very different things in the rule book and officials are used to separating the two. Most notably, an attack counts as the first team contact while a block doesn't. Volleyball Magazine just did an interview with Shaw, Haley and Pettit. Haley recalled that back in his day he used to play middle back as the setter, because the block counted as the first contact and the middle back had the best chance of getting to the second contact off the block and attempting a set. This comment by Haley should be all the reason you need to understand why it is imperative that strategy and rules advance to make our game better, could you even imagine if a coach still installed this type of system or strategy today?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jan 11, 2022 17:13:27 GMT -5
Volleyball Magazine just did an interview with Shaw, Haley and Pettit. Haley recalled that back in his day he used to play middle back as the setter, because the block counted as the first contact and the middle back had the best chance of getting to the second contact off the block and attempting a set. This comment by Haley should be all the reason you need to understand why it is imperative that strategy and rules advance to make our game better, could you even imagine if a coach still installed this type of system or strategy today? Not all changes make the game better. Many rules over the years have backfired. Some were changed, some weren't. A lot of tinkering having to do with chasing TV dollars rather than making the sport better. People playing or coaching "now" tend to think the rules "now" are the best, whenever "now" happens to be. In 30 years, when you don't recognize your game, you will probably think the same thing. Not a lot of sports have tinkered as much as volleyball over the years.
|
|