|
Post by gocalbears on Oct 20, 2019 18:03:34 GMT -5
The Buffs deserved that win. The team that won more sets, points and hit nearly 60 points higher deserved the win. They did.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 18:04:56 GMT -5
In my above post, I added references to the PAVO (officials association) Challenge Review System document. It specifies that anything having to do with an illegal attack due to the libero setting the ball is NOT challengeable. That's unfortunate. Cal kind of got away with that win -- lots of crying throughout the match from the coach and some of the players. Oh well. Can't do anything about it now....and it was a Colorado violation...even if the refs got it wrong and Cal shouldn't have been able to challenge it. The refs were bad all day. Called a number of balls Cal's way after some players and coaches cried...that were way wrong. We could use your posts on this issue as an illustration of the "five stages of grief": You seemed to skip over the "bargaining" stage, but you definitely went through denial, anger, depression, and acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 20, 2019 18:05:22 GMT -5
The Buffs deserved that win. The team that won more sets, points and hit nearly 60 points higher deserved the win. They did. Also worth noting that while the challenge should not have been accepted, it WAS a blown call. Maybe this is the one instance where two wrongs DO make a right?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2019 18:07:40 GMT -5
The team that won more sets, points and hit nearly 60 points higher deserved the win. They did. Also worth noting that while the challenge should not have been accepted, it WAS a blown call. Maybe this is the one instance where two wrongs DO make a right? No, because unless every team gets the same treatment, it's unfair. However, it looks like maybe they should change the challenge rule. It seems clear that they deliberately did not want "ball above the height of the net" to be reviewable, but not including the libero-setting foot position may have been an oversight.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 18:09:15 GMT -5
The Buffs deserved that win. The team that won more sets, points and hit nearly 60 points higher deserved the win. They did. That doesn't tell the whole story. CU hit fearless and Cal played safe. Cal didn't have the passing that Colorado did today (which is a huge surprise since Colorado was the worst PAC passing team before today....but...Katie Lougeay made a HUGE difference coming in for the first time this weekend). She was supposed to start all season and was injured until now. Cal was out of system a lot and played it smart. Colorado was leading most of each set, and that's why I believe they deserved to win...away from home at sea-level...and with new faces on the floor that have barely played any college ball. Buffs deserved the win because of these things. As I said, Cal was clutch at the end of each set (even the 2 sets they lost), and barely was the better team...and I do mean barely.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 18:09:39 GMT -5
That's unfortunate. Cal kind of got away with that win -- lots of crying throughout the match from the coach and some of the players. Oh well. Can't do anything about it now....and it was a Colorado violation...even if the refs got it wrong and Cal shouldn't have been able to challenge it. The refs were bad all day. Called a number of balls Cal's way after some players and coaches cried...that were way wrong. We could use your posts on this issue as an illustration of the "five stages of grief": You seemed to skip over the "bargaining" stage, but you definitely went through denial, anger, depression, and acceptance. Yep. True that.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 18:18:58 GMT -5
That's unfortunate. Cal kind of got away with that win -- lots of crying throughout the match from the coach and some of the players. Oh well. Can't do anything about it now....and it was a Colorado violation...even if the refs got it wrong and Cal shouldn't have been able to challenge it. The refs were bad all day. Called a number of balls Cal's way after some players and coaches cried...that were way wrong. We could use your posts on this issue as an illustration of the "five stages of grief": You seemed to skip over the "bargaining" stage, but you definitely went through denial, anger, depression, and acceptance. Although I do think I added a stage of positive notes for both teams. Colorado improving so much today, the 4 CU Freshmen doing so well on the floor today, and getting some original starters in that we needed for many weeks (Price and Lougeay). Colorado still had one regular starter out (Schneggenburger), but I believe freshman, Elyssa Alcantara (19 kills and hit almost .300) is probably a better hitter anyway. Also giving Cal credit for their smart playing and being clutch at the end of each set. Colorado has let a number of sets get away from them this season when they were winning (a lot of sets), and Cal has found ways to win when it matters most.
|
|
|
Post by vollypopaz on Oct 20, 2019 18:25:32 GMT -5
I watched the entire rally. Still can not believe Colorado was called a back-row attack, and don't understand how? Was it a different violation and the announcer is wrong? The refs were calling things Cal's way over and over today, and the replays showed over and over again that they were way wrong. Luck-of-the-draw on reffing and it was corrected most of the time, but the Cal players and coach did cry a lot and put a lot of pressure on the refs. I was reading the lips of Crosson and the ref and I think he was calling an overhand set by the libero in front of the 10 foot line and that might have been it. I’m just guessing and can’t go back and watch it to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 20, 2019 18:29:31 GMT -5
I watched the entire rally. Still can not believe Colorado was called a back-row attack, and don't understand how? Was it a different violation and the announcer is wrong? The refs were calling things Cal's way over and over today, and the replays showed over and over again that they were way wrong. Luck-of-the-draw on reffing and it was corrected most of the time, but the Cal players and coach did cry a lot and put a lot of pressure on the refs. I was reading the lips of Crosson and the ref and I think he was calling an overhand set by the libero in front of the 10 foot line and that might have been it. I’m just guessing and can’t go back and watch it to make sure. Yes, I think we covered that the Colorado libero (Whipple) DID barely "set" in front of the 10 foot line (you can tell that she didn't mean to set it. She just reacted on a quick point to get the ball up). Anyway, because the Colorado setter (Ewert) tried to dump it and not set it...it was a violation. HOWEVER, the big issue everyone is discussing is that this violation of the libero over the line is NOT challengeable and should have been Colorado's point.
|
|
|
Post by vollypopaz on Oct 20, 2019 21:06:08 GMT -5
I was reading the lips of Crosson and the ref and I think he was calling an overhand set by the libero in front of the 10 foot line and that might have been it. I’m just guessing and can’t go back and watch it to make sure. Yes, I think we covered that the Colorado libero (Whipple) DID barely "set" in front of the 10 foot line (you can tell that she didn't mean to set it. She just reacted on a quick point to get the ball up). Anyway, because the Colorado setter (Ewert) tried to dump it and not set it...it was a violation. HOWEVER, the big issue everyone is discussing is that this violation of the libero over the line is NOT challengeable and should have been Colorado's point. I realized I missed all the discussion because I had failed to refresh before posting. My apologies for being late. I do think the refs were not so good (but the line judges were pretty good). However, if we turn the discussion around and the challenge for back row violation was not allowed and/or overturned. You might have had a team win due to a blatant fault being missed. I don’t think that would be more fair.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Oct 21, 2019 16:02:25 GMT -5
I had no idea Colorado was 0-8 in conference. Yikes. That's a quality team that may miss out on the tourney due to record.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 22, 2019 1:15:20 GMT -5
I had no idea Colorado was 0-8 in conference. Yikes. That's a quality team that may miss out on the tourney due to record. There's not really any "may" about it, at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 22, 2019 3:01:44 GMT -5
I was reading the lips of Crosson and the ref and I think he was calling an overhand set by the libero in front of the 10 foot line and that might have been it. I’m just guessing and can’t go back and watch it to make sure. Yes, I think we covered that the Colorado libero (Whipple) DID barely "set" in front of the 10 foot line (you can tell that she didn't mean to set it. She just reacted on a quick point to get the ball up). Anyway, because the Colorado setter (Ewert) tried to dump it and not set it...it was a violation. HOWEVER, the big issue everyone is discussing is that this violation of the libero over the line is NOT challengeable and should have been Colorado's point. Wow. The libero was clearly over the line, clearly in violation, yet you feel it should have been Colorado's point. You never cease to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Oct 22, 2019 4:05:43 GMT -5
Yes, I think we covered that the Colorado libero (Whipple) DID barely "set" in front of the 10 foot line (you can tell that she didn't mean to set it. She just reacted on a quick point to get the ball up). Anyway, because the Colorado setter (Ewert) tried to dump it and not set it...it was a violation. HOWEVER, the big issue everyone is discussing is that this violation of the libero over the line is NOT challengeable and should have been Colorado's point. Wow. The libero was clearly over the line, clearly in violation, yet you feel it should have been Colorado's point. You never cease to amaze me. You should spend less time trolling particular people and more time enjoying life in more sustainable ways, but I'll take the troll as a form of flattery since you have nothing better to do. I already stated that Colorado had a violation, but you want to stomp through like a troll-baby with a double statement to me that it was a violation; something no one else has directed toward me. Funny how I simply couldn't care less what you comment on and only respond to your trolls to me (and also choose to ignore your trolls to others). I'm also always happy to amaze, and looking forward to amazing you more. It is not what I "feel". It is what should have been. The point should have been Colorado's only because of the officiating rules (not challengeable)...which has been discussed and agreed on by many others in this forum on a separate thread (not just me); with many pages of comments on why this is fact (and why it should be or shouldn't be changed). It has nothing to do with the missed call on a violation --which occurs in matches all the time. Additionally, it has been said that the officiating body is aware of their mistake for allowing Cal to challenge something that shouldnt have been allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 22, 2019 4:47:29 GMT -5
Wow. The libero was clearly over the line, clearly in violation, yet you feel it should have been Colorado's point. You never cease to amaze me. You should spend less time trolling particular people and more time enjoying life in more sustainable ways, but I'll take the troll as a form of flattery since you have nothing better to do. I already stated that Colorado had a violation, but you want to stomp through like a troll-baby with a double statement to me that it was a violation; something no one else has directed toward me. Funny how I simply couldn't care less what you comment on and only respond to your trolls to me (and also choose to ignore your trolls to others). I'm also always happy to amaze, and looking forward to amazing you more. It is not what I "feel". It is what should have been. The point should have been Colorado's only because of the officiating rules (not challengeable)...which has been discussed and agreed on by many others in this forum on a separate thread (not just me); with many pages of comments on why this is fact (and why it should be or shouldn't be changed). It has nothing to do with the missed call on a violation --which occurs in matches all the time. Additionally, it has been said that the officiating body is aware of their mistake for allowing Cal to challenge something that shouldnt have been allowed. Yes, the refs effed it up. They need to work on their game. Regardless of the refs blunders: Colorado player was in violation. If a Colorado player had hit the ball out, or foot-faulted a serve, or netted, or committed some other violation, would you still feel that Colorado deserved the point, as long as the refs messed up somehow? Or is it just this particular libero rules violation that you don't care about? Do you feel that liberos should be able to hand-set inside the 3-meter line? All of the refs blunders occurred after the violation. If the correct call were made right away, it would have been Cal's point. I find it sad that you are so upset that the refs didn't let Colorado get away with a violation. And I'm glad that you don't care at all about my comments. LOL [Edit] I'm currently at work. Calling you out on your silly posts is actually more enjoyable then the other work that I'm doing.
|
|