QUESTIONS needed answers at the end of La Salle’s gutsy five-set triumph over National U, one that allowed the Lady Spikers to complete the 14-game elimination round sweep in UAAP Season 88.
READ: La Salle trumps NU anew for outright finals entry
In a dramatic standstill at 14-13 with La Salle ahead, the Lady Spikers initially challenged a four touches infraction on Angel Canino, one that would’ve tied the fifth set at 14-all.
Upon review, there was no block touch - and that in itself could’ve awarded the point to the Lady Bulldogs.
But as explained by UAAP volleyball commissioner Mike Verano, because there was another possible infraction spotted during the video review, first referee Jay Deriquito used his discretionary challenge to spot an apparent net touch on NU’s Arah Panique.
“Upon review of our video challenge, there was no block touch. However, there was a net touch infraction,” he explained to reporters, as discourse was already on fire on-site and online at the conclusion of the contest.
“He conveyed that to the first referee, that block touch, (it was) challenge unsuccessful. But there is another net touch infraction on NU.”
And in that succeeding referee’s challenge, Panique was found to indeed have made contact with the net just split seconds since Canino fired the ball at the tape of the net, causing it to move.
Verano dismissed the potential assumption that the net touch and four touches infractions happened concurrently.
His assertion was that Panique touched the net while the ball was still alive, which means that there was still a live play.
Hence, the final ruling was that the Panique net touch happened before the ball landed on the floor, making the four touches infraction moot in the first place.
That ended up being La Salle’s 15th and final point of the fifth set.
Can that even happen?
While the block touch challenge was, in effect, the vehicle to spot the net touch infraction, Verano says this is acceptable due to the principle of precedence.
As per the league commissioner, when a possible violation is spotted before the initially challenged infraction takes place, the referee can note that and verify it through their own challenge.
Another contention in that sequence was that the net moved as a result of Canino’s hit, directly leading to Panique touching the net.
That argument has merit under FIVB rules, and could’ve even spared NU from a net touch violation altogether.
Under Section 11.3.3 of the FIVB’s updated sporting regulations for 2025 to 2028, “when the ball is driven into the net, causing it to touch an opponent, no fault is committed.”
But upon their subsequent review, Verano did not adjudge this to be the case in that sequence.
“Our interpretation is nag-net fault talaga siya. It wasn’t the net moving,” he said.
“If you look at the net, if the ball hits the net, it will go this way, but it didn’t. ‘Yung unang motion na gumalaw, based on the video challenge, hindi naman tumama sa kamay ni Panique.
“Nu’ng nag-bounce na ‘yung bola, du’n tumama ‘yung kamay ni Panique.”
Get more of the latest sports news & updates on SPIN.ph
NOTICE ON UNAUTHORIZED AND UNLAWFUL USE, PUBLICATION, AND/OR DISSEMINATION OF SPIN.PH CONTENT: Please be notified that any unauthorized and unlawful use, publication, and/or dissemination of Spin.ph’s content and/or materials is a direct violation of its legal and exclusive rights to the same, and shall be subject to appropriate legal action/s.
