USA v. China

[Scrapper1]

Just finished watching the USA vs. China match. In set 4 of the match, the USA was called for playing the ball across the net. The replay certainly looked as though the ball was directly over the net.

I thought that either team could play a ball directly over the net. Was this a missed call? Is the rule different in international play? Did I see the replay incorrectly?

I use NCAA-W rules. Anybody set me straight?

[OmniSpiker]

didn't see that one, but Women's Beach Walsh/May-Treanor

There's was an overreach call.

Was a good call. I would've pointed out the ref on that.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Just finished watching the USA vs. China match. In set 4 of the match, the USA was called for playing the ball across the net. The replay certainly looked as though the ball was directly over the net.

I thought that either team could play a ball directly over the net. Was this a missed call? Is the rule different in international play? Did I see the replay incorrectly?

I use NCAA-W rules. Anybody set me straight?

In international rules, a player must play the ball within their own playing space, except for a legal block. It's where their hands are when the ball is played that determines if it's a legal play. The position of the ball with regard to a team contact isn't the criteria for legal vs. illegal, unlike NFHS or NCAA.

It was the proper call.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by FMadera

It was the proper call.

Felix - thanks for the rule reference.

I also saw the same play as Scrapper and wondered about it myself as both the live action and the replay showed the ball still above the net.

[MCBear]

As Felix said, this is a major difference between NFHS/NCAA and FIVB/USAV. As was written, a player cannot play the ball by reaching hands across the net to contact the ball above the opponent's court. There are only two legal instances - as Felix mentioned: a legal block; and the other is on a legal follow-through on a attack hit. The essence of this rule is that there is no longer a set save allowed - by that I mean the ball is overpassed and enters the plane of the net. In NFHS and NCAA, the back-row setter can go up and attempt to play the ball back to her side of the net - in those rule codes, it is perfectly legal to do so. FIVB and USAV, however have eliminated that option. If anyone reaches across the net to play the ball back to their own side while the ball is still in the plane, the whistle is blown because the individual is guilty of a reach-over foul.

[Retrozetti]

Originally Posted by FMadera

In international rules, a player must play the ball within their own playing space, except for a legal block. It's where their hands are when the ball is played that determines if it's a legal play. The position of the ball with regard to a team contact isn't the criteria for legal vs. illegal, unlike NFHS or NCAA.

It was the proper call.

I watched another match, I believe it was Italy vs Venezuela (not important to the story), and the received ball was badly passed to the front-row setter who subsequently reached over the net and slightly into the opponent's court to one-hand set the ball back onto their side. Point of emphasis: the ball was clearly "partially" within the plane of the net, so the ball had not yet completely crossed the plane of the net. This action is illegal because of the location of the setters contact with the ball, in the opponent's court, and the R1 whistled the fault. The official was correct.

However, the sports commentator (I'm almost positive it wasn't Karch, I think it was Chris, but even "that" surprises me)... he started verbalizing his frustration with the calls. This commentator said (paraphrased) "the referee blew that call, that ball was clearly still within the plane of the net, the setter has every right to save that ball... See, look where the ball is, part of it is still in the plane of the net. The referee just got that call wrong. They have been calling it like this consistently throughout the whole Olympics, but they can't make that call, it's not illegal. Maybe the FIVB asked the Olympic officials to call this, but they can't, there's nothing illegal about it, but they have definitely been consistent with this call the whole time." What the commentator saw, in slow-motion, was the setter reaching into the opponent's court to bring the ball back onto their side. That is illegal, the official got the call absolutely correct, and slow-motion proved it... the sports commentator is apparently unaware of the rule change "from a few years ago." But kudos to all of the Olympic officials... as the commentator said, all the officials have been calling this "consistently throughout the whole Olympics"... good, they're calling consistently correct matches... while knocking the officials, the commentator unintentionally threw a huge compliment to them. Hurray, side-out on commentator, one point officials.

[MCBear]

This is the problem when they hire former players to do broadcasting. They have been out of the game and have not kept up with the changes that have taken place within the game.

In this instance, it doesn't matter if it is Chris or Karch - on telecasts that I have seen, they have both been guilty of giving rules opinions that are totally screwed up based on their former experience as players. The problem is that both of them have a tendency to think that the game is still being played exactly the same way that it was when they were on the court as players. The instance that you cite is a perfect example. The rule changed two years ago that the ball could only be played over your own court and that no one was allowed to play the ball over the opponent's court. The most obvious result - no more "save set" by the setter attempting to pull an overpass back to their own side of the net from within the vertical plane of the net. ANYTIME this happens in FIVB (which is also Olympic VB) or USAV, the first referee will be blowing the whistle and signaling a reach-over on the player who tried to play the ball back from the plane of the net.

You would never see or hear John Madden (NFL) or Marty Brenneman (Cincinnati Red's Broadcaster) get caught not knowing what happened during a play and being able to give the correct information concerning it. But, these yo-yo's doing NCAA and Olympic volleyball think that they can do the job without being conversant with the current rules.

'Nuf said...it is time for me to get off the soapbox and allow another fine citizen the opportunity to participate in an eloquent rant.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MCBear

This is the problem when they hire former players to do broadcasting. They have been out of the game and have not kept up with the changes that have taken place within the game...


...'Nuf said...it is time for me to get off the soapbox and allow another fine citizen the opportunity to participate in an eloquent rant.

I don't know that I qualify as a "fine citizen", but welcome to the world of televised sports.

It's not that these former players have not kept up with changes to the game, they have not kept up with changes to the rules of the game. Of course that's making a big assumption that they were more than just vaguley familiar with the rules in the first place.

VB is not a mainstream sport that has a lot of television exposure. Check out the football, baseball, and basketball boards while their seasons are in full swing. I can almost guarantee that you will find at least one post a week commenting about how a talking head has no clue about the rules, yet is ripping into a game official for a perfectly correct call.

I also love the comment about consistency...What's one of the top things we all hear....."Hey, be consistent with those calls!"

In the Olympics, you have a talking head saying that the entire staff was consistent.....and still ripping them!

[Retrozetti]

Originally Posted by MCBear

In this instance, it doesn't matter if it is Chris or Karch - on telecasts that I have seen, they have both been guilty of giving rules opinions that are totally screwed up based on their former experience as players. The problem is that both of them have a tendency to think that the game is still being played exactly the same way that it was when they were on the court as players. The instance that you cite is a perfect example.

Hmm... new requirement, maybe? Coaches, officials, and sports commentators required to attend an annual Rules Interp class and pass the annual exam?

I can see their expressions right now...