|
Post by oldman on Dec 14, 2018 10:09:25 GMT -5
Was there ever a camera view from the side that showed the finger being pushed back by the force of the ball? That is always the view that seems to be the most conclusive. The views from the front and back show some slight movement to the side, but a person can move their pinky sideways. They cannot move it backwards - that would take something pushing it . . . Like a volleyball. I can move my pinky backwards
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 14, 2018 10:13:36 GMT -5
The replay in tv showed 10 fingers on one hand, demonstrating the poor video quality there.
These matches don't come down to one play but that was unfortunate timing.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Dec 14, 2018 10:15:39 GMT -5
I’m saying because they didn’t protest the call, someone touched it. If they were positive they hadn’t touched it, there would have been some outward display of emotion, some argument. that doesn't change the fact that there was not enough evidence on the replay to conclusively overturn the call in that situation Assuming the video you saw was all the refs had.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanred on Dec 14, 2018 10:35:50 GMT -5
THE CASE OF THE MOVING PINKY! DID YOUR EYES BLINKY? When I saw the the pinky move; I told my wife; "they're going to reverse it;" and they did! Besides It is water over the bridge; the game is over and done! GO HUSKERS
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Dec 14, 2018 10:35:58 GMT -5
That's volleyball, not just the Big10. Yeah no. That wasnt the case in the Stanford/BYU match and I seriously doubt anyone believed differently. So, because one match is lopsided that didn't involve the Big10, only the Big10 can have competitive come from behind victories? Got it.
|
|
|
Post by braque on Dec 14, 2018 10:49:23 GMT -5
Yeah no. That wasnt the case in the Stanford/BYU match and I seriously doubt anyone believed differently. So, because one match is lopsided that didn't involve the Big10, only the Big10 can have competitive come from behind victories? Got it. Soon we will see how the Big 10 representative fares against the Pac-12 representative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2018 10:54:40 GMT -5
That game was exhausting and I didn't even play lol
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Dec 14, 2018 10:55:15 GMT -5
The way we were passing early, there's no way Hames could've set the middles more. It would've made the first two sets even worse.[/quote]
Not off serve receive. But she did have opportunities in transition to set the middle and right side and chose to go outside.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Dec 14, 2018 10:57:13 GMT -5
That was painful. I thought things could get dicey for IL if Neb won the third set, but I still thought they'd win. They certainly had chances in both the third and the fourth sets, but ended those sets tepidly. Great season though.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Dec 14, 2018 10:59:35 GMT -5
So, because one match is lopsided that didn't involve the Big10, only the Big10 can have competitive come from behind victories? Got it. Soon we will see how the Big 10 representative fares against the Pac-12 representative. Stanford would be at or near the top of the B1G this and many years. That is not the point
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Dec 14, 2018 11:04:24 GMT -5
Not off serve receive. But she did have opportunities in transition to set the middle and right side and chose to go outside. Hames is a baller and she might be one of the best defensive setters I've ever seen, but she definitely makes some odd choices at times. Tied late in the 5th and she's setting Schwartzenbach who was struggling the whole match. Match point and she sets Sweet who can't put it down. It was actually Stivrins who set Foeke for the final point, not Hames. You've got to put the ball up to your best hitter in that situation. If Foeke gets blocked or makes an error, at least your best player took the shot. I think that's Hames' inexperience was showing through. You saw it multiple times through the first 2 sets as well, which is why Cook was saying he wanted to wring her neck during the first 2 sets.
|
|
|
Post by gobigred on Dec 14, 2018 11:13:37 GMT -5
Hames is a baller and she might be one of the best defensive setters I've ever seen, but she definitely makes some odd choices at times. Tied late in the 5th and she's setting Schwartzenbach who was struggling the whole match. Match point and she sets Sweet who can't put it down. It was actually Stivrins who set Foeke for the final point, not Hames. You've got to put the ball up to your best hitter in that situation. If Foeke gets blocked or makes an error, at least your best player took the shot. I think that's Hames' inexperience was showing through. You saw it multiple times through the first 2 sets as well, which is why Cook was saying he wanted to wring her neck during the first 2 sets. I agree with this generally speaking, although you might not be doing your team any favors by becoming predictable and always setting the same player. However, in this case, I thought it was crazy how we weren't getting the ball to Foecke as much as we could have. She is the senior leader of this team who performs at the highest level on the biggest stages playing in what could've been her last collegiate game. Don't deny her the opportunity to put the team on her shoulders just for the sake of the normal desire to be a good setter by spreading the ball around.
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Dec 14, 2018 11:20:59 GMT -5
you might not be doing your team any favors by becoming predictable and always setting the same player. I agree with this, but it's situational. Tied late in the 5th set of the national semifinals, predictable is okay if it's going to Foeke. Schwarzenbach has had a great season but she looked scared out there. She'll become a star, but she's not right now and you can't set her in that situation. I promise you if the same situation occurs this weekend, Stanford is setting Plummer, predictable or not.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Dec 14, 2018 11:21:18 GMT -5
Not off serve receive. But she did have opportunities in transition to set the middle and right side and chose to go outside. Hames is a baller and she might be one of the best defensive setters I've ever seen, but she definitely makes some odd choices at times. Tied late in the 5th and she's setting Schwartzenbach who was struggling the whole match. Match point and she sets Sweet who can't put it down. It was actually Stivrins who set Foeke for the final point, not Hames. You've got to put the ball up to your best hitter in that situation. If Foeke gets blocked or makes an error, at least your best player took the shot. I think that's Hames' inexperience was showing through. You saw it multiple times through the first 2 sets as well, which is why Cook was saying he wanted to wring her neck during the first 2 sets. Hames didn't set Jazz on match point. Maloney did. Hames dug the line shot.
|
|
|
Post by gobigred on Dec 14, 2018 11:42:17 GMT -5
I just re-watched that point. Maloney was facing Jazz when she bump-set her. It would've been a challenging backwards bump-set to get it to Foecke. I can see why Maloney did that. Thank goodness Stivrins knew what to do.
|
|