you need to be more clear about which is team A and which is team B. very confusing with the videos, the commentary, and constantly changing angles and also why do you mirror-image the video so much?
“Team A” and “B” verbiage is just what’s used in the casebook rulings, and doesn’t really relate to the video clips, which are just samples he found in various places mostly. The official casebooks do have some videos though, so some of them might be those.
Very useful tool for teaching how to officiate. I think I heard you mentioned in the Libero action in the frontrow that, "However, if the Libero protects the body/face instead of setting, it should be an illegal play.". I even turned on the caption to confirm it. It should be "LEGAL" as what the casebook says. Thanks!
Great video! Very informative and the plays were well chosen. Probably took a lot of time to reseach and make this video happen. Thank you! Would love more like this one when you're able :))
Thanks for the video. But I doubt about the blocking explanation 10:36. The definition of the blocking is not only about the contact point of the blocker is higher than the net or not, but also depends on the opposing side - is it an attack or not? For example, if that's just an overpass, the blocker contacts the ball above the top of net, it should be counted as first touch, no matter he/she can hit the ball back to the opposite side or not. If she/he hit the ball into the net and dig it by herself/himself, like the video, it should be called double touch.
@@craighoward4531 it's correct . Just checked with some refs, they would call it depends on the trajectory of the ball and the action of the "blocker". If that's a swing, not a "block" for the contacting of the overpass, it may be considered as a first touch.
If i just have to end up with my hands above the net for my action to be accounted as Block, wouldn´t a lower receive that i transfer into a jump (in one smooth action) be one as well? Seems like one can use the ruling in 10:35 quite arbitrary!
Amazing video. Can you make a video about double contact. Im having a confusion on setting the ball with spins. Sometimes its called by the ref a double contact and sometimes its not.
Ball rotation is not a parameter that can precisely determine an error. If a referee relies solely on that, then they are a bad referee. There's either a double touch or a ball lift rotation doesn't come into play here. You can apply a strong rotation to the ball without making an error. I'll try to capture something on this topic.
The problem with ball handling calls is that it is down to the referee's judgement, rather than something subjective. In some cases it is obvious, but most of the time it's quite subjective. The general trend from the FIVB is to generally be more permissive towards handling errors, provided they don't disrupt play.
@TheBestSideofVolleyball to exemplify that rotation does not equate double touch, you could mention top sin serve / attack. Everyone knows the ball can rotate heavily in those situations, and it is legal to do so.
14:20 libero action within 3 meter, it sounds like you said that one case is fault, second case is an illegal play? I believe you meant that the second case was legal?
14:12...."if A, then it's a fault. If not A, then it should be considered an illegal play." What? No, if the libero plays the ball in the front zone with fingers and the next touch is an attack above the net, then it's a fault. not sure what you were trying to differentiate there....
I definitely know that it used to be ruled differently, but they changed it to make it more consistent. At least since 2020 it is not a fault anymore. Also it might be ruled differently in lower leagues around the world.
if the libero protects the body or face instead of setting it should be an illegal play. I assume u mean legal here? 14:09 if so that's interesting didn't know about that one
Very interesting video, sometimes hard to follow for non native speakers. More pauses in speech to devide the content, perhaps less or shorter videos… could help me to easier understand. Nevertheless a very good job. Thank you very much for your time!
Assuming the setter's team has a contact remaining, if the ball is completely on the opponent's side of the net when you make contact, the point goes to your opponent.
If you're in the play, like blocking or on defense, but you don't touch the ball, you still can't mess with the net. But if the ball's flown way out toward the stands and you're hanging by the net, then, yeah, you can give it a little touch ))
14:21 - don't you mean "instead it should be a legal play"? Since you give the instead and before that you consider it a fault if the ball is played in a setting motion? Also I don't fully get the image of the first blocking example at 10:15. Was the blocked ball on the side of the white team and crossed the space below the net into the black team? Then I understand, that the black team wins - of course. But if the ball repelled from the block sideways and passed in front of the net on the side of the black team, why should the black team [you should really make it clearer which one you call Team A and B] get the point? Weird example to include here - this one is obious. And also, you don't need to mirror the images. This is for educational purpose and falls under fair use so there should not be any copyright strikes against you.
11:30 blocking definition is wrong. It is not counted as an attack hit. It counts as a block if the ball is travelling from Team A to Team B and person from Team B touches the ball while a bodypart is above the net. As long as that is the case it is always counted as a block. So yes, the referee was right to continue the play.
Hi there! Thanks for sharing your opinion, it's highly valued! This episode, along with its description, is taken directly from the official FIVB document. So, it seems a bit odd to challenge something that's clearly stated in the rules and their supplementary literature)
You can learn even more interesting volleyball rules here - ruclips.net/video/8qzXv_kHh8k/видео.html
I’m stunned by how you could compile the specific video examples in each case. Great video!!
you need to be more clear about which is team A and which is team B. very confusing with the videos, the commentary, and constantly changing angles and also why do you mirror-image the video so much?
Mirror image is probably to protect from copyright violations, as many automated systems don't detect the mirror image as being the same video.
“Team A” and “B” verbiage is just what’s used in the casebook rulings, and doesn’t really relate to the video clips, which are just samples he found in various places mostly. The official casebooks do have some videos though, so some of them might be those.
Great job as always Nick, you deserve a lot more recognition from the volleyball lovers community. Pt. 2 absolutely needed 🙏🙏
Thank you so much for your support; it means a lot to me! I'll try to translate all my videos about the rules into English soon ;)
Very useful tool for teaching how to officiate. I think I heard you mentioned in the Libero action in the frontrow that, "However, if
the Libero protects the body/face instead of setting,
it should be an illegal play.". I even turned on the caption to confirm it. It should be "LEGAL" as what the casebook says. Thanks!
Great video! Very informative and the plays were well chosen.
Probably took a lot of time to reseach and make this video happen. Thank you! Would love more like this one when you're able :))
Great video.
I have to ref a game tomorrow and in case some weird stuff happens I am now prepared!!!
Your channel is unique. Keep doing it!
Great video, nice to know the insides of this plays... it would be nice to make the same video with less plays but diving deeper into them
great video! i'd love to see more like this!
No interference if a hole Body lays between my two blockers at 6:00 ? I doubt it.
Depends on how the refs rule it
Thanks for the video.
But I doubt about the blocking explanation 10:36. The definition of the blocking is not only about the contact point of the blocker is higher than the net or not, but also depends on the opposing side - is it an attack or not? For example, if that's just an overpass, the blocker contacts the ball above the top of net, it should be counted as first touch, no matter he/she can hit the ball back to the opposite side or not.
If she/he hit the ball into the net and dig it by herself/himself, like the video, it should be called double touch.
Perhaps you should read the definition of an attack as well.
An overpass fits the definition of an attack hit.
@@craighoward4531 it's correct .
Just checked with some refs, they would call it depends on the trajectory of the ball and the action of the "blocker". If that's a swing, not a "block" for the contacting of the overpass, it may be considered as a first touch.
@@rallystarsvc6283 That's right. Check cases 3.51 and 3.54 in the FIVB Casebook (2020 Edition, the latest currently available).
6:40 the attacking side touched then net not the blocker. The rule cited is correct.
If i just have to end up with my hands above the net for my action to be accounted as Block, wouldn´t a lower receive that i transfer into a jump (in one smooth action) be one as well? Seems like one can use the ruling in 10:35 quite arbitrary!
This is a good video. I learnt a lot and im a coach
More of this please.
Amazing video. Can you make a video about double contact. Im having a confusion on setting the ball with spins. Sometimes its called by the ref a double contact and sometimes its not.
Ball rotation is not a parameter that can precisely determine an error. If a referee relies solely on that, then they are a bad referee.
There's either a double touch or a ball lift rotation doesn't come into play here. You can apply a strong rotation to the ball without making an error. I'll try to capture something on this topic.
The problem with ball handling calls is that it is down to the referee's judgement, rather than something subjective. In some cases it is obvious, but most of the time it's quite subjective. The general trend from the FIVB is to generally be more permissive towards handling errors, provided they don't disrupt play.
@TheBestSideofVolleyball to exemplify that rotation does not equate double touch, you could mention top sin serve / attack. Everyone knows the ball can rotate heavily in those situations, and it is legal to do so.
Amazing video ❤
14:20 libero action within 3 meter, it sounds like you said that one case is fault, second case is an illegal play? I believe you meant that the second case was legal?
14:12...."if A, then it's a fault. If not A, then it should be considered an illegal play." What? No, if the libero plays the ball in the front zone with fingers and the next touch is an attack above the net, then it's a fault. not sure what you were trying to differentiate there....
He mixed up 'legal' and 'illegal' in the last part of the sentence, slip of tongue.
13:31 it's well before the rally finished on the video!
dude who turned with the ref chair had some quick thinking
Only the play where the ball hit the opponent's hair on the way out surprised me.
I definitely know that it used to be ruled differently, but they changed it to make it more consistent. At least since 2020 it is not a fault anymore. Also it might be ruled differently in lower leagues around the world.
if the libero protects the body or face instead of setting it should be an illegal play. I assume u mean legal here? 14:09 if so that's interesting didn't know about that one
Yes, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, there was a slip of the tongue here(
I could be wrong, but I think pulling the official off the stand might be some sort of violation!
This is great!
Very interesting video, sometimes hard to follow for non native speakers. More pauses in speech to devide the content, perhaps less or shorter videos… could help me to easier understand. Nevertheless a very good job. Thank you very much for your time!
12:00
What if the opponent setter tries two cross the ball with one hand and i penetrate my hands over the net and block it. Whose point it will be
Assuming the setter's team has a contact remaining, if the ball is completely on the opponent's side of the net when you make contact, the point goes to your opponent.
So you CAN touche the net if you're not playing the ball and your action doesn't impact the game ??????????
If you're in the play, like blocking or on defense, but you don't touch the ball, you still can't mess with the net. But if the ball's flown way out toward the stands and you're hanging by the net, then, yeah, you can give it a little touch ))
14:43 is js wild 😭
14:21 - don't you mean "instead it should be a legal play"? Since you give the instead and before that you consider it a fault if the ball is played in a setting motion?
Also I don't fully get the image of the first blocking example at 10:15. Was the blocked ball on the side of the white team and crossed the space below the net into the black team? Then I understand, that the black team wins - of course. But if the ball repelled from the block sideways and passed in front of the net on the side of the black team, why should the black team [you should really make it clearer which one you call Team A and B] get the point? Weird example to include here - this one is obious.
And also, you don't need to mirror the images. This is for educational purpose and falls under fair use so there should not be any copyright strikes against you.
11:30 blocking definition is wrong. It is not counted as an attack hit. It counts as a block if the ball is travelling from Team A to Team B and person from Team B touches the ball while a bodypart is above the net. As long as that is the case it is always counted as a block. So yes, the referee was right to continue the play.
lol at 12:30 you literally describe the correct definition of a block, but then fail to use ur own knowledge at 11:30? :D interesting mate haha
Hi there! Thanks for sharing your opinion, it's highly valued!
This episode, along with its description, is taken directly from the official FIVB document. So, it seems a bit odd to challenge something that's clearly stated in the rules and their supplementary literature)
Where in the casebook does it explain the ruling on the situation explained at 11:00 ?
@@TheBestSideofVolleyball
@@meepy1820 3.54
@@ojsprite9768
Check out cases 3.51 and 3.54 of the FIVB Casebook (2020 Edition, latest currently available).
I dont like the new rules about stepping over the middle line...
Especially on amateur level it can make dangerous situation.
great video but you sometime mistake legal and illegal as a word
Thats AI voice right?
wrong