The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Volleyball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 24, 2009, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Janesville, WI
Posts: 764
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Not only was it discussed here, but you even participated in the thread.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 24, 2009, 12:16pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
I thought I remembered it. So the only difference is that safety concerns are not a factor if only the foot, hand(s) go over. If there is a safety concern, do we ignore it and play on? Or do we stop play and replay?

But if only a foot or hand goes over and creates a safety concern, then I would call interference anyway; since interference is contact or the apprehension of contact while playing the ball.

So I think that I will black out 15.2.4.1 after all.

(Additionally, it's kind of a silly rule if it tells officials to disregard a safety concern. That's never going to happen in a game I officiate.)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 24, 2009, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Janesville, WI
Posts: 764
Send a message via ICQ to FMadera Send a message via AIM to FMadera Send a message via Yahoo to FMadera
Um...no.

I'm not sure you were reading it right.

If the hand or foot go beyond the center line (but are still in contact), there is no foul even if there is a player right next to the penetrating body part. However, there would be a violation if there were intereference (if a player were tripped, for example).

If it were any other body part beyond the center line, it is not illegal if there is a safety concern (such as a nearby player). If so, then it would be illegal.

No one is disregarding any safety concerns. Not sure how you got that.
__________________
Felix A. Madera
USAV Indoor National / Beach Zonal Referee
FIVB Qualified International Scorer
PAVO National Referee / Certified Line Judge/Scorer
WIAA/IHSA Volleyball Referee
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 24, 2009, 01:03pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMadera View Post
If the hand or foot go beyond the center line (but are still in contact), there is no foul even if there is a player right next to the penetrating body part. However, there would be a violation if there were intereference (if a player were tripped, for example).
But the opponent does not actually have to get tripped for interference to occur. The rules state that it can be the "apprehension" of contact. IOW, if the opponent has to move around the foot to play the ball because she's worried about tripping, that is interference.

Quote:
No one is disregarding any safety concerns. Not sure how you got that.
Part of your reply in the other thread said:

Quote:
15.2.4.1: If the foot or hand go beyond the center line, if part of the hand or foot are above or on the center line, there is no violation if there is no interference. Whether or not there is a safety hazard makes no difference at all, so long as the hand or foot is on or above the line (again, so long as there is no interference).
Emphasis mine, obviously.

IMHO, 15.2.4.1 should simply be eliminated. That way, the rule would essentially be same for all situations: "It's ok for any body part to cross the line, as long as part of your body stays on or over the line. It's an immediate fault if interference or a safety concern occurs." There's no reason to differentiate the two scenarios.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 24, 2009, 06:12pm
Resident VB Rules Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Jose, CA - the Capital of Silicon Valley
Posts: 481
Send a message via AIM to MCBear Send a message via MSN to MCBear Send a message via Yahoo to MCBear Send a message via Skype™ to MCBear
Scrapper, I wouldn't be thick-headed enough to assume that I know more than the USAV and NCAA rules writers. Both codes are using the same language and interpretation. We have one rule when there is a safety issue and the other when there is not. I know that you only ref by NCAA rules so you don't have the challenge of reffing multiple rules codes during the same week...and sometimes during the same day.
__________________
Jan G. Filip - San Jose, CA
EBVOA Rules Interpreter Emeritus
NCS Volleyball Officials Coordinating Committee Recorder
CIF State Volleyball State Championships Referee (2005), Scorekeeper (2006-2007) & Libero Tracker (2010)
PAVO State Referee (2014) / PAVO Certified Scorekeeper (2014) / PAVO Certified Line Judge (2012)
USAV Junior National Referee (resigned 2013) / USAV National Scorekeeper (2014)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 25, 2009, 08:57am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCBear View Post
We have one rule when there is a safety issue and the other when there is not.
Yup. That seems superfluous to me. Especially since, as Felix pointed out, we're not actually going to ignore a safety concern. If there's a safety concern, you're not going to ignore it simply because only the player's foot is across the line. So why bother with Section 1 of the rule? Snip, snip.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 25, 2009, 12:45pm
Resident VB Rules Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Jose, CA - the Capital of Silicon Valley
Posts: 481
Send a message via AIM to MCBear Send a message via MSN to MCBear Send a message via Yahoo to MCBear Send a message via Skype™ to MCBear
Talking

Both 15.2.4.1 and 15.2.4.2 have been in the NCAA Rules Book since the 2003 season. I am sure that if the PTB had felt that 15.2.4.1 was superfluous, they would have removed it. For now, just accept it as it is, Grasshopper .
__________________
Jan G. Filip - San Jose, CA
EBVOA Rules Interpreter Emeritus
NCS Volleyball Officials Coordinating Committee Recorder
CIF State Volleyball State Championships Referee (2005), Scorekeeper (2006-2007) & Libero Tracker (2010)
PAVO State Referee (2014) / PAVO Certified Scorekeeper (2014) / PAVO Certified Line Judge (2012)
USAV Junior National Referee (resigned 2013) / USAV National Scorekeeper (2014)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should Center Pause at Division Line? Freddy Basketball 6 Sun Nov 30, 2008 02:07pm
foot on center line... violation? dvtaylor Volleyball 8 Fri Sep 14, 2007 03:41pm
on line rules book muxbule Basketball 3 Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:59pm
Rules on hitter center? Dirk Football 49 Tue Oct 19, 2004 02:40am
ASA Rules on-line IRISHMAFIA Softball 9 Mon Jul 08, 2002 09:20pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1