Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 19:06:48 GMT -5
OK. From the blog: Horner-Capezio-Bigbee-Knuth-Nolan-Berta is opening service order. Either this is wrong, or they serve out of order. Horner serves, Tech scores 0-1, ISU sides out 1-1 Capezio serves (Vondrak for Berta), Tech scores 1-2, then serves to 1-3 NOLAN then serves at 2-3 (Conaway in?), Tech sides out 2-4 Goetz serves for Bigbee at 3-4, Tech sides out 3-5, 3-6 ISU timeout Vondrak serves at 4-6, Tech sides out 4-7, then 4-8 and side switch Blog says "out of rotation at the moment with Goetz in the back row" Timeout ISU Ball handling error on Tech 5-8, Kuhrt to serve for Conaway Then confusion and 4-9, Tech serves This makes no sense. ISU has to have the wrong players on the court at 4-8. I have to go. Maybe someone else can figure this out. Horner and Bigbee always are opposite as are Nolan and Knuth. OK, so blog was wrong. Service order was Horner-Capezio-Nolan (for ?)-Bigbee/Goetz, Berta/Vondrak, Kuhrt/Conaway. This means, when Tech served at 8-4, ISU had Horner-Capezio-Conaway across the front row (L-R). I think you are right. They must have missed Conaway entering the game when Nolan served for whoever she served for (Knuth, I assume). Who hits outside besides Capezio? Vondrak? She's listed as a middle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 19:19:53 GMT -5
Or Conaway wasn't in the game to start and just went in when Nolan served for Knuth? It sure looks like the libero serving for a middle is what screwed them all up.
GT has Conaway in the opening lineup for g5, however. So she shouldn't have to sub in.
Sure seems like they just hosed up ISU's lineup -- and then penalized them for it.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 26, 2014 19:43:47 GMT -5
Seriously, can anyone imagine a situation described above where a team would lose a point and another be awarded a point? This can't be an accurate description, right? Sure, just that is simple. Team A serves five points. They then discover that Team A server is wrong. Team A is penalized back to the start of the servers rotation (five points) and then ruled out of rotation, resulting in a point for Team B. Not that that happened in this case, but you wanted a situation where a team could lose points...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 19:46:37 GMT -5
Seriously, can anyone imagine a situation described above where a team would lose a point and another be awarded a point? This can't be an accurate description, right? Sure, just that is simple. Team A serves five points. They then discover that Team A server is wrong. Team A is penalized back to the start of the servers rotation (five points) and then ruled out of rotation, resulting in a point for Team B. Not that that happened in this case, but you wanted a situation where a team could lose points... You dropped the important part: Conaway coming out would be that sub. That's when they realized they didn't have her in the game.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 19:52:35 GMT -5
Horner and Bigbee always are opposite as are Nolan and Knuth. OK, so blog was wrong. Service order was Horner-Capezio-Nolan (for ?)-Bigbee/Goetz, Berta/Vondrak, Kuhrt/Conaway. This means, when Tech served at 8-4, ISU had Horner-Capezio-Conaway across the front row (L-R). I think you are right. They must have missed Conaway entering the game when Nolan served for whoever she served for (Knuth, I assume). Who hits outside besides Capezio? Vondrak? She's listed as a middle. of the other names listed, Kuhrt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 19:53:55 GMT -5
Yes, but she was going to serve for Conaway, so she wasn't at OH that game.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2014 20:18:37 GMT -5
Ultimately, I don't think any points were removed. That only happens under very certain circumstances. It was essentially a mind change on the rally that started with the score 8-4. Instead of a Ball-Handling Violation vs TTU, it was an out of rotation violation against ISU. It just took a while for that mind change to occur.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Nov 26, 2014 20:43:44 GMT -5
Still confused, but I'm loving all the scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by cyclonesbigfan on Nov 26, 2014 21:10:42 GMT -5
ISU sweeps Texas Tech tonight. 15 20 22
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 21:18:37 GMT -5
Ultimately, I don't think any points were removed. That only happens under very certain circumstances. It was essentially a mind change on the rally that started with the score 8-4. Instead of a Ball-Handling Violation vs TTU, it was an out of rotation violation against ISU. It just took a while for that mind change to occur. It took a while because they didn't decide to do it until Conaway tried to sub out.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 26, 2014 21:38:00 GMT -5
OK, so blog was wrong. Service order was Horner-Capezio-Nolan (for ?)-Bigbee/Goetz, Berta/Vondrak, Kuhrt/Conaway. This means, when Tech served at 8-4, ISU had Horner-Capezio-Conaway across the front row (L-R). I think you are right. They must have missed Conaway entering the game when Nolan served for whoever she served for (Knuth, I assume). Who hits outside besides Capezio? Vondrak? She's listed as a middle. of the other names listed, Kuhrt. Vondrak was the other OH in front row this match. I think Khurt just played in backrow some. And i think that oh1 and oh2 switched rotation spots for set 5 only, based on what i saw on GT earlier. Don't recall if matching DS's switched also. Either way it probably added to the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by cyclnz on Nov 26, 2014 21:43:24 GMT -5
OK,here is what occurred from a better than reliable source. ISU protested the match believing there was a rule misinterpretation that lead to a loss of point. The head official said it wasnt something that could be protested. After the match and teams were gone. Tech AD contacted Big 12 head of officials who immediately ruled it was. The AD's and league decided to rule the match a ""no-contest unless it meant something in conference standings. It was actually a couple of other league teams who wanted the match played as they felt if ISU doesnt have the loss, they could possibly bump their teams from getting a seed or some similar disadvantage to them. The league then ruled it had to be played under the conditions that we are all aware of, at ISU but with no crowd. So in summary, ISU did protest the match, league and both schools agreed to no-contest, other teams didnt like how that could possibly impact them, and pushed the league to make them complete the match. Tech may have wanted the game replayed to help their RPI if they are on the bubble. Once the loss was ruled No Contest, there is little advantage for Iowa State to replay the match. ISU would have more to lose than gain at that point. Tech had more to gain and little to lose.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 21:43:29 GMT -5
Ultimately, I don't think any points were removed. That only happens under very certain circumstances. It was essentially a mind change on the rally that started with the score 8-4. Instead of a Ball-Handling Violation vs TTU, it was an out of rotation violation against ISU. It just took a while for that mind change to occur. It took a while because they didn't decide to do it until Conaway tried to sub out. I don't quite know how many stats/scorekeepers there are and how their duties are split up - Conaway had the last two errors before the timeout where all the kerfuffle happened. Shouldn't it have been noticed on those points or does the person tracking that not also track subs/rotation?
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 21:44:57 GMT -5
OK,here is what occurred from a better than reliable source. ISU protested the match believing there was a rule misinterpretation that lead to a loss of point. The head official said it wasnt something that could be protested. After the match and teams were gone. Tech AD contacted Big 12 head of officials who immediately ruled it was. The AD's and league decided to rule the match a ""no-contest unless it meant something in conference standings. It was actually a couple of other league teams who wanted the match played as they felt if ISU doesnt have the loss, they could possibly bump their teams from getting a seed or some similar disadvantage to them. The league then ruled it had to be played under the conditions that we are all aware of, at ISU but with no crowd. So in summary, ISU did protest the match, league and both schools agreed to no-contest, other teams didnt like how that could possibly impact them, and pushed the league to make them complete the match. Tech may have wanted the game replayed to help their RPI if they are on the bubble. Once the loss was ruled No Contest, there is little advantage for Iowa State to replay the match. ISU would have more to lose than gain at that point. Tech had more to gain and little to lose. that's exactly what I was thinking. The risk/reward for ISU would have leaned heavily toward taking the no contest and running with it. But if somebody like OK/KS was looking for a seed; they had a lot to gain by pushing the replay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 21:46:54 GMT -5
Scorekeepers have nothing to do with stats and wouldn't even be near the statkeepers necessarily.
A good scorekeeper does pay attention to who is in the game -- and there's no way the libero tracker should have missed this, if that's where the confusion was.
|
|