|
Post by austintatious on Mar 9, 2024 20:33:03 GMT -5
This is weird, given that much of the rationale for the rule change on second contact doubles was to have less judgment calls and complaints about officiating. Doesn't this just invite a bunch of disputes on whether contact was simultaneous etc Shouldn't change a thing as far as what is and what isn't simultaneous.tef has best few. Don't find that difficult. A joust indicates 2 players attacking, so that should be illegal for setter. Simultaneous when attempting to set hitter is what is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on Mar 9, 2024 20:35:10 GMT -5
USAV made this change at the beginning of the club season, but it wasn't highly "advertised". I'm guessing 2 things have been happening in the last couple of months: 1. Officials aren't calling it 2. They are calling it and the coaches are arguing. USAV just sent out a reminder email to officials (because I am one) reminding us about the new modification. Thanks very much
|
|
set10
Sophomore
Posts: 158
|
Post by set10 on Mar 9, 2024 20:43:17 GMT -5
The comments on this thread are frightening…
This is when a back row setter who would be called for a back row attack when accidentally setting the ball into the plane has their attacker and the blocker simultaneously contact the ball. It is impossible to tell if the blocker or attacker touched it a nanosecond earlier than the other so it is a play on.
This could also be used if a libero handsets in the front zone into the plane and the ball is simultaneously contacted again by blocker and attacker
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 9, 2024 20:59:30 GMT -5
This is when a back row setter who would be called for a back row attack when accidentally setting the ball into the plane has their attacker and the blocker simultaneously contact the ball. It is impossible to tell if the blocker or attacker touched it a nanosecond earlier than the other so it is a play on. That makes a great deal more sense than the scenario people are talking about. And far less controversial.
|
|
|
Post by wonkaman on Mar 9, 2024 21:06:03 GMT -5
When watching a men's game last night I noticed how a number of passes went very near the net. The setters were still able to jump and set their teammates. I wonder if this would be more applicable in the men's game where they seem to play much higher above the net than in the woman's game. There are a lot more opportunities for a blocker to stop the setter from making a set.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Mar 9, 2024 21:13:10 GMT -5
This is when a back row setter who would be called for a back row attack when accidentally setting the ball into the plane has their attacker and the blocker simultaneously contact the ball. It is impossible to tell if the blocker or attacker touched it a nanosecond earlier than the other so it is a play on. That makes a great deal more sense than the scenario people are talking about. And far less controversial. It might be easier to understand, but it's not true. The scenario above is not illegal now and it never has been. An attacker & a blocker jousting is a non-event, nothing to see here, there's nothing to modify. The new modification is specifically in regards to a back row player simultaneously contacting the ball in the plane of the net, above the height of the net, with an opposing player.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 9, 2024 22:38:24 GMT -5
That makes a great deal more sense than the scenario people are talking about. And far less controversial. It might be easier to understand, but it's not true. The scenario above is not illegal now and it never has been. An attacker & a blocker jousting is a non-event, nothing to see here, there's nothing to modify. The new modification is specifically in regards to a back row player simultaneously contacting the ball in the plane of the net, above the height of the net, with an opposing player. This seems wholly inaccurate. usavolleyball.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024RulesInterp2FINAL.pdf
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 9, 2024 22:41:44 GMT -5
It might be easier to understand, but it's not true. The scenario above is not illegal now and it never has been. An attacker & a blocker jousting is a non-event, nothing to see here, there's nothing to modify. The new modification is specifically in regards to a back row player simultaneously contacting the ball in the plane of the net, above the height of the net, with an opposing player. This seems wholly inaccurate. usavolleyball.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024RulesInterp2FINAL.pdfI now just question what other rules OP is interpreting (and officiating) badly.
|
|
|
Post by VBQ on Mar 9, 2024 23:07:27 GMT -5
"In the near future, players will serve from the front row, they can jump and hit the ball, and it's up to the opposing team to block it or it is an ace."
More and more...people come up with just unnecessary changes to the rules. It is ridiculous!
|
|
bborr
Sophomore
Posts: 225
|
Post by bborr on Mar 9, 2024 23:27:28 GMT -5
I now just question what other rules OP is interpreting (and officiating) badly. if this is the rule the OP is referring to, what a wasted discussion. If folks are going to discuss a rule or interpretation change, please quote the language instead of just saying what it is about.
|
|
set10
Sophomore
Posts: 158
|
Post by set10 on Mar 10, 2024 1:43:19 GMT -5
That makes a great deal more sense than the scenario people are talking about. And far less controversial. It might be easier to understand, but it's not true. The scenario above is not illegal now and it never has been. An attacker & a blocker jousting is a non-event, nothing to see here, there's nothing to modify. The new modification is specifically in regards to a back row player simultaneously contacting the ball in the plane of the net, above the height of the net, with an opposing player. You are not correct
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Mar 10, 2024 7:12:12 GMT -5
Am I right in believing the previous rule was - if a backrow setter sets a ball that is ~ simultaneously touched by a blocker on the opposing team - then there is automatically a 'foul' and the play ends.
Either; 1) the blocker contacted a ball over the net and point to the back row setter team, 2) more often called - back row attack violation from the setter.
This rule would allow a 3rd choice - play continue.
On two occasions at Triple Crown this year - there was a 'major' controversy over this scenario happening. In both cases, the official allowed play to continue when both the back row setter and blocker touched the ball at the same time. The coach of the blocker's team was furious - and one of the arguments lasted over 10 minutes with the tournament director being called in to the court. At least - this was my guess as to the argument...
Anyway - If this is what this rule change involves - I am good with this. And then I may have the current and proposed rule on this completely wrong?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 10, 2024 8:25:50 GMT -5
Am I right in believing the previous rule was - if a backrow setter sets a ball that is ~ simultaneously touched by a blocker on the opposing team - then there is automatically a 'foul' and the play ends. Either; 1) the blocker contacted a ball over the net and point to the back row setter team, 2) more often called - back row attack violation from the setter. This rule would allow a 3rd choice - play continue. On two occasions at Triple Crown this year - there was a 'major' controversy over this scenario happening. In both cases, the official allowed play to continue when both the back row setter and blocker touched the ball at the same time. The coach of the blocker's team was furious - and one of the arguments lasted over 10 minutes with the tournament director being called in to the court. At least - this was my guess as to the argument... Anyway - If this is what this rule change involves - I am good with this. And then I may have the current and proposed rule on this completely wrong? The OP badly misinterpreted the rule change. You are correct that the play must be ended in that scenario and either a back row block must be called or a fault on the block for encroaching into the opponents’ space to play the ball. This is the REAL rule change: Previously, blockers couldn’t touch the ball beyond the plane of the net until AFTER the ball had been attacked. Now, they can touch the ball at the same time as the attacker (but still not before). The rules interpretation that I linked a couple of posts ago lists a few scenarios that are now ruled differently from before.
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Mar 10, 2024 10:08:19 GMT -5
This is clearly a" back row block" on the setter as the ball has broken the plane, the defensive team is trying to block it and is interfered with by a back row player who is playing the ball above the height of the net.
|
|
|
Post by haterade on Mar 10, 2024 11:01:05 GMT -5
But this won’t apply to NCAA this fall, correct? Their rules committee would need to implement the same.
|
|