|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 26, 2014 9:34:01 GMT -5
Oh sorry about constant posts, but did anyone notice the difference between the two during the match. Every time they flipped camera at bench rose had that serious game face on while it seemed Salima was always laughing and smiling. Ying and yang on the bench. Balance from there coached which seems to reflect on team
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Sept 26, 2014 9:39:42 GMT -5
Well presumably the selection committee won't make the mistake of putting Stanford and PSU into the same region again. I'm looking forward to a Stanford vs Penn State rematch and hope it is in Oklahoma instead of one of the regional sites.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 26, 2014 9:45:19 GMT -5
Well presumably the selection committee won't make the mistake of putting Stanford and PSU into the same region again. I'm looking forward to a Stanford vs Penn State rematch and hope it is in Oklahoma instead of one of the regional sites. I don't know to many years Stanford and psu have even been on same half of bracket let alone same region. Commitee payed for it last year as that match was probably best match of tourney in my opinion. Not taking anything away from Wisconsin but I think that Stanford match was the championship. So lesson learned, committee won't make same mistake again
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 26, 2014 9:45:44 GMT -5
Well presumably the selection committee won't make the mistake of putting Stanford and PSU into the same region again. I don't know to many years Stanford and psu have even been on same half of bracket let alone same region. Commitee payed for it last year as that match was probably best match of tourney in my opinion. Not taking anything away from Wisconsin but I think that Stanford match was the championship. So lesson learned, committee won't make same mistake again *too
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Sept 26, 2014 9:47:26 GMT -5
It was probably a bad call. The camera angle was pretty good. If the ball travels a straight path from where she hit it to where it ended up on the other side of the court, it would have been physically impossible for it to cross over or on the other side of the antenna. The only way it could have was if the ball was spinning and curving. No matter, it was still a great momentum play for PSU. It was two seniors (Dom and Hancock) and a junior (Courtney) going all-out and playing spectacularly. A play like that sets a tone for the freshmen about what you have to do to win at this level. It also showed Wisconsin how badly PSU wanted the match. PSU really did not want to let the Badgers back in. They were comfortably ahead but still fighting for every point. That's the statement that play made. Does anyone understand the outside the antenna call against Micha in the second set? She was at the 10 foot line by the stands and sends the ball across the court and it comes down 2 feet across the net. Watching it again, the ball crossed the net just past the middle of the court. The official was seated right by the antenna. There is no way he could have thought that ball went over his head for it to be outside the antenna. Regardless, it was another terrific play by Micha (and Megan for the up).
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Sept 26, 2014 9:54:09 GMT -5
She stepped on the concrete. Concrete is out of play.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 26, 2014 10:30:30 GMT -5
So that you know, the man knows VB, he actually played the game LOL If he's not interested to see how the season plays out, talk about PSU freshman development vis a vis Stanford, et al and who's better, I couldn't care less if he played on the national team. FYI, I've played as well.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 26, 2014 10:32:00 GMT -5
Good Thread. Two things: First, I love it when Team A beats Team B, then the fans of Team B keep whining and whining, making excuses, and explaining how team B is better than Team A. Sorry, fans of Team B, but Team A gets to be acknowledged as the better team until the next time they meet. Because the only real way to settle these disputes is for the teams to meet on the court.Second, my favorite part of volleyball is the setting. I'm pleased to see Bugg progressing and becoming one of the colleges best setters. However, Hancock and Carlini are clearly the two best. It is amazing how vastly different their respective games are. One part of Carlini's game that is clearly lacking is her dumps. Not only is her execution lacking, but her timing and decision-making on her dumps is not great either. Still, like Hancock, she is an amazing setter and a lot of fun to watch. It's not whining. It's called growth, at light speed. Nobody is disputing that Stanford won fair and square. Vs. Stanford, it was PSU's SECOND week of volleyball that all the freshmen had to be incorporated into the team. Now 5 weeks later, the evidence of the team's progress is loud and clear. So with that said, nobody should have a problem of this fact because it's so obvious. Unless, team A that won earlier matchup is running scared, which is understandable, given team A barely survived the first time vs. a team full of freshmen. And week after week , also team A's fanbase' confidence is eroding, which is understandable as well. So no, it's not whining. It's called looking forward to the next meeting. But according to some, we should stop talking about this. no please, shhhh
|
|
|
Post by stand on Sept 26, 2014 10:32:55 GMT -5
Well presumably the selection committee won't make the mistake of putting Stanford and PSU into the same region again. I don't know to many years Stanford and psu have even been on same half of bracket let alone same region. Commitee payed for it last year as that match was probably best match of tourney in my opinion. Not taking anything away from Wisconsin but I think that Stanford match was the championship. So lesson learned, committee won't make same mistake again I agree the PSU/Stanford and the USC/Washington regional finals were the best matches last year. I also really enjoyed the Penn State/Washington match, but for a different reason. I was curious how often Penn State and Stanford are put in the same region, and it hasn't happened in the last 10 years: 2004 - Stanford beat Minnesota in the final 2005 - Stanford lost to Santa Clara in the 2nd round 2006 - Stanford lost to Nebraska in the final 2007 - Stanford lost to PSU in the final 2008 - Stanford lost to PSU in the final 2009 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the 3rd round 2010 - Stanford lost to USC in the regional final 2011 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the 2nd round 2012 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the regional final 2013 - Stanford lost to PSU in the regional final Of course the fact that Penn State and Stanford often host regionals helps to keep them apart. I would think that Stanford would like the committee to keep both Penn State and Michigan out of their region! The last time they were in the same region was 1992 when Stanford won their first title, defeating Penn State, Illinois, Long Beach, and UCLA. How's that for a blast from the past?
|
|
|
Post by crosscourt3m on Sept 26, 2014 10:41:45 GMT -5
I don't know to many years Stanford and psu have even been on same half of bracket let alone same region. Commitee payed for it last year as that match was probably best match of tourney in my opinion. Not taking anything away from Wisconsin but I think that Stanford match was the championship. So lesson learned, committee won't make same mistake again I agree the PSU/Stanford and the USC/Washington regional finals were the best matches last year. I also really enjoyed the Penn State/Washington match, but for a different reason. I was curious how often Penn State and Stanford are put in the same region, and it hasn't happened in the last 10 years: 2004 - Stanford beat Minnesota in the final 2005 - Stanford lost to Santa Clara in the 2nd round 2006 - Stanford lost to Nebraska in the final 2007 - Stanford lost to PSU in the final 2008 - Stanford lost to PSU in the semi-final 2009 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the 3rd round 2010 - Stanford lost to USC in the regional final 2011 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the 2nd round 2012 - Stanford lost to Michigan in the regional final 2013 - Stanford lost to PSU in the regional final Of course the fact that Penn State and Stanford often host regionals helps to keep them apart. I would think that Stanford would like the committee to keep both Penn State and Michigan out of their region! The last time they were in the same region was 1992 when Stanford won their first title, defeating Penn State, Illinois, Long Beach, and UCLA. How's that for a blast from the past? The 2008 match was also the championship match not semi final. Stanford came back down 0-2 against Texas to win the semi final match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 11:05:41 GMT -5
She stepped on the concrete. Concrete is out of play. Is that rule written in concrete? I've sometimes wondered about players diving into the stands to get balls. They typically fail, but if they didn't, would the same rule apply (I assume it would)?
|
|
|
Post by stand on Sept 26, 2014 11:22:35 GMT -5
The 2008 match was also the championship match not semi final. Stanford came back down 0-2 against Texas to win the semi final match. Corrected. That was the year Penn State beat Nebraska and the terrible towel in 5 in Omaha, and then faced Stanford in what seemed like an anticlimactic final which featured a long delay to correct the score (which they still got wrong) while the players were doing rock/paper/scissors. At 23:00:
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 26, 2014 11:43:37 GMT -5
In my college dorm, there were two very pretty creole twin sisters with tiny waists and big hair. We called them Bouff and Fant. I think of them every time you post. I think of Michael J. Fox's BFF/love interest in the original Teen Wolf movie.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Sept 26, 2014 12:31:37 GMT -5
She stepped on the concrete. Concrete is out of play. Is that rule written in concrete? I've sometimes wondered about players diving into the stands to get balls. They typically fail, but if they didn't, would the same rule apply (I assume it would)? I did some checking on the rule book and it may fall on the rule that gives Referees the latitude to determine a location that is out of bounds for safety reasons and would have been discussed with both teams/coaches prior to the match. From what I saw, if the concrete was out of bounds then if Micha had hit ball with at least one foot/body part on court and then went out onto the concrete it would have been a good return. Only way to really find out is ask referee or coaches. 1.1.3 Nonplaying Areas Nonplaying areas are defined as: 1.1.3.1 Walls, bleachers or other spectator seating areas; 1.1.3.2 Team benches and any area behind them; 1.1.3.3 Area between the scorer’s table and team benches; and 1.1.3.4 Any other area outlined in the pre-match conference that is deemed by the first referee to be unsuitable or hazardous. (See Rule 1.4.2.) 1.4.4 Special Ground Rules Any special ground rules for a match must be specified in the pre-match conference by the first referee. Note: The event administration and officials should take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the participants 4.1.1 Playing Area The playing area includes the playing court and the free zone (Figure 1). Each team must play within its own playing area and space 4.1.2 Nonplaying Areas Players may play the ball over a nonplaying area if they have a body part in contact with the playing area at the time the ball is contacted, and may enter the nonplaying area after playing the ball Here is what normally is determined to be out of bounds: 16.2.2 Ball “Out” The ball is “out” when: 16.2.2.1 It strikes the floor and no part of the ball contacts either a boundary line or the area within the boundary lines; 16.2.2.2 It contacts a floor/wall obstruction outside the court, a wall or a person out of play (See Rule 4.2.4); 16.2.2.3 It contacts any object above a nonplaying area; 16.2.2.4 It contacts an antenna, the net outside an antenna, the net post, the referee’s stand, or any supporting apparatus for the net or net post; 16.2.2.5 It completely crosses the vertical plane of the net partly or totally outside the crossing space after a team’s second or third contact if Rule 15.1.1.1 is in effect; or 16.2.2.6 It completely crosses the vertical plane of the net partly or totally outside the crossing space after any team contact if Rule 15.1.1.1 is not in effect 2014-15 NCAA Women VB Rules
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Sept 26, 2014 13:41:15 GMT -5
ok that would explain it, thx. the B1G announcer said antenna. She stepped on the concrete. Concrete is out of play.
|
|