As a hand set, I would call foul. The balls movement was more to the right and back of the setters body. That would indicate one's hand was still touching the ball. If it was bump set, no foul.
Sooooo now we have to be candid on measuring what the setter intended to do. And Skylar is a bad example. He is so good, he can mask whether he intended to do it or not. Hahahaha
Right, but the point is that if the serving team had been there, that would have been a free point. If there were a blocker, then that set would have cost.
I would love to see situation where intent was faked or unclear :) can't imagine how it would be useful for the team. It is quite the same as bump overset
WTF I give up everywhere I played this is a fault because the set is not perpendicular. I give up on beach volleyball 2's, end up spending more time arguing the rules than actually playing the game
@@cultsulth The ref determined that he was trying to set his partner. If you're trying to set your partner and the ball goes over the net, there is no fault even if your shoulders are not perpendicular. I included a screenshot of that section of the rulebook in the video if you'd like to see the exact wording.
@@daneleblanc4636 Thank you for your answer! I understood the contrary, that if you are trying to set your partner and the ball goes over the net that's a fault. Nice that you clarified. I think the other way around would make more sens though
@@cultsulth It certainly would be a lot easier to ref for us casual players if it were that way! How am I supposed to know for sure what some player's "intention" was?
This exception is awesome and makes sense. Why it should be any different than bump overset? This would be the perfect set for the blocker most of the time, it extends the lenght of the rallies and creates more spectacular plays! For anyone crying for not able to judge intent let me tell you - referee judges intent in MANY situations: • During first hit of the team, when not using overhand finger action, how do you know if consecutive contact was incidental or INTENTIONAL (same action)? • During hard driven ball defence how do we know if defending players action was to play defensively without INTENT to go over on one? • For blocker actions close to the net, how do we know if INTENT was to intercept the ball and not to attack? (to know if his second contact would be legal if the ball says on his side) • When player touches the net how do we know if it happened during his INTENT to play the ball? • When player kick the ball with his foot how do we know if he was just INTENDING to playing the ball, or was it aggressive deliberate kick with INTENT to release his anger that should be sanctioned? Don't be confused there is not a single use of the word INTENT in the rules, but that doesn't mean we don't judge it to make decisions. Referee must be 100% sure the fault has been committed before they blow the whistle, if you are not able to judge intent when you need to then just KEEP THE BALL FLYING
if you dont know how to set with hand, dont do it. If you play professionally, you should be able to handset to your side of the net. If there is a heavy wind then I agree with this, but this one on this video, *vomit*. Dont ruin the game by allowing to make points by catching and throwing the ball, learn to hit it.
@@SimasSkilinskas ??? "dont teach" who are you talking to? I know the rules and I said I dont like that part. Did you know it can be also a LIFT. If you dont know the rules, dont teach others.
As referee I would always say FAULT. We have powerful comedians on the courts... You train a lot such stupidities and the beachvolley will be like Football... The rule is right though but I still don't feel good with it... The setter jumps at the net (the block is present)... He set to the real attack partner next to him... But... The ball crosses the net and... Point. There will be a very big bug in the rules.
Then you would be wrong most of the time. If you are not able to judge intent you should NEVER call this. Referee has to be 100% sure the fault has been committed before blowing the whistle. If you are not sure if the player was attempting to set his partner then just keep the ball flying. Its quite the same as bump set overset, it doesn't give advantage to the attacking team. Its the perfect set for opponents blocker
In 1997 penalty was removed for for attack-hit using overhand pass which has a trajectory not perpendicular to the line of their shoulders when player setting his or her team-mate.
Because its hard to judge shoulder position when referee didn't expect that it will go over the net, and it can be too late to judge perpendicular shoulders. Also allowing this allowes longer rallies and more spectacular plays. Also this doesn't give big advantage to the setting team so why not?
Fantastic video! 10/10 would watch again.
As a hand set, I would call foul. The balls movement was more to the right and back of the setters body. That would indicate one's hand was still touching the ball. If it was bump set, no foul.
It is an obvious attempt to pass though. The video even showed the rules.
Thank you mr Leblanc for this informational tutorial and 10/10 editing skills. I unsubscribed then subscribed again.👍
Sooooo now we have to be candid on measuring what the setter intended to do. And Skylar is a bad example. He is so good, he can mask whether he intended to do it or not. Hahahaha
Right, but the point is that if the serving team had been there, that would have been a free point. If there were a blocker, then that set would have cost.
I would love to see situation where intent was faked or unclear :) can't imagine how it would be useful for the team. It is quite the same as bump overset
Doesn't the rule exist as it does to factor wind, or earthquake for that matter which would put an otherwise legal set off it's mark?
WTF I give up everywhere I played this is a fault because the set is not perpendicular. I give up on beach volleyball 2's, end up spending more time arguing the rules than actually playing the game
No need to argue. Just queue up my videos and it'll be settled, AND you'll be the coolest guy at the tournament.
@@daneleblanc4636 Just did that. The ball is not perpendicular to the shoulders, so it should be a fault. No? Please explain
@@cultsulth The ref determined that he was trying to set his partner. If you're trying to set your partner and the ball goes over the net, there is no fault even if your shoulders are not perpendicular. I included a screenshot of that section of the rulebook in the video if you'd like to see the exact wording.
@@daneleblanc4636 Thank you for your answer! I understood the contrary, that if you are trying to set your partner and the ball goes over the net that's a fault. Nice that you clarified. I think the other way around would make more sens though
@@cultsulth It certainly would be a lot easier to ref for us casual players if it were that way! How am I supposed to know for sure what some player's "intention" was?
This exception is awesome and makes sense. Why it should be any different than bump overset? This would be the perfect set for the blocker most of the time, it extends the lenght of the rallies and creates more spectacular plays! For anyone crying for not able to judge intent let me tell you - referee judges intent in MANY situations:
• During first hit of the team, when not using overhand finger action, how do you know if consecutive contact was incidental or INTENTIONAL (same action)?
• During hard driven ball defence how do we know if defending players action was to play defensively without INTENT to go over on one?
• For blocker actions close to the net, how do we know if INTENT was to intercept the ball and not to attack? (to know if his second contact would be legal if the ball says on his side)
• When player touches the net how do we know if it happened during his INTENT to play the ball?
• When player kick the ball with his foot how do we know if he was just INTENDING to playing the ball, or was it aggressive deliberate kick with INTENT to release his anger that should be sanctioned?
Don't be confused there is not a single use of the word INTENT in the rules, but that doesn't mean we don't judge it to make decisions.
Referee must be 100% sure the fault has been committed before they blow the whistle, if you are not able to judge intent when you need to then just KEEP THE BALL FLYING
if you dont know how to set with hand, dont do it. If you play professionally, you should be able to handset to your side of the net. If there is a heavy wind then I agree with this, but this one on this video, *vomit*. Dont ruin the game by allowing to make points by catching and throwing the ball, learn to hit it.
@@Jutsuss bumpset can be inacurate, overhand finger action set can be inacurate too while also beeing LEGAL.
@@SimasSkilinskas ??? "dont teach" who are you talking to? I know the rules and I said I dont like that part. Did you know it can be also a LIFT. If you dont know the rules, dont teach others.
As referee I would always say FAULT. We have powerful comedians on the courts... You train a lot such stupidities and the beachvolley will be like Football... The rule is right though but I still don't feel good with it... The setter jumps at the net (the block is present)... He set to the real attack partner next to him... But... The ball crosses the net and... Point. There will be a very big bug in the rules.
No need to. An accidental set over is an easy kill for the blocker. Why was nobody at the net?
Then you would be wrong most of the time. If you are not able to judge intent you should NEVER call this. Referee has to be 100% sure the fault has been committed before blowing the whistle. If you are not sure if the player was attempting to set his partner then just keep the ball flying. Its quite the same as bump set overset, it doesn't give advantage to the attacking team. Its the perfect set for opponents blocker
@@SimasSkilinskas I only open my eyes and analyse by pausing : image by image and I m right all the time and not the international referees.
Why don't they change the rules? Setting a hitter exception is dumb
In 1997 penalty was removed for for attack-hit using overhand pass which has a trajectory not perpendicular to the line of their shoulders when player setting his or her team-mate.
Because its hard to judge shoulder position when referee didn't expect that it will go over the net, and it can be too late to judge perpendicular shoulders. Also allowing this allowes longer rallies and more spectacular plays. Also this doesn't give big advantage to the setting team so why not?