|
Post by huskyvolley on Apr 19, 2021 18:15:00 GMT -5
I'd assume this FF appearance puts UW back in the picture for top 10-20 recruits in the near future? If Baylor can do it, UW can once again. I really hope so.
|
|
|
Post by coconutcandles on Apr 19, 2021 18:20:17 GMT -5
I'd assume this FF appearance puts UW back in the picture for top 10-20 recruits in the near future? If Baylor can do it, UW can once again. with cook coaching the youth national team and making the FF, let’s bring in the 2023s!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 19, 2021 18:31:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jagdpanther on Apr 19, 2021 20:03:33 GMT -5
Thank god. The last thing we needed was for this championship to lose even more credibility with a Pitt Final Four appearance. Post of the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on Apr 19, 2021 20:08:35 GMT -5
Alright rooting for the Dawgs to take it all! Bring it home to the PAC!!
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Apr 21, 2021 9:29:52 GMT -5
I'm confused. Wasn't the challenge for a net violation? No, we're talking about the play where the Husky middle (Sanders?) reached over and touched the ball on the Pitt side, just before the Pitt setter went into the net. The call was a net call. Whether she was over the net or not is *not* a reviewable call. Whether it should be or not, it is not. I suppose that if the call was that "she was over the net but she didn't touch the ball" then it is reviewable. But was that the call? R2 never talked to R1, so she doesn't know what R1 called. She accepted the review anyway, and ruled on what is supposed to be a judgment call. That's abuse of the replay rule by the ref to overrule a mistaken judgment call. You don't know that they didn't talk about the call. They were wearing headsets, so I absolutely guarantee they discussed the call, even if it wasn't at the ref stand.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 21, 2021 9:58:52 GMT -5
Whether she was over the net or not is *not* a reviewable call. Whether it should be or not, it is not. That wasn't the challenge. It was that she "touched" the ball and, thus, interfered with the setter's right to set a ball that was clearly on her side of the net. The original call was a "no call". I'm not seeing the controversy - it was the right call.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 21, 2021 11:05:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 21, 2021 11:23:36 GMT -5
I'd assume this FF appearance puts UW back in the picture for top 10-20 recruits in the near future? If Baylor can do it, UW can once again. Do people really think occasional appearances in a final four makes or break a recruits commitment? I mean, a number of programs almost never touch the final four and they get top 25 recruits regularly. Florida leads that pack.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 21, 2021 11:28:20 GMT -5
I'd assume this FF appearance puts UW back in the picture for top 10-20 recruits in the near future? If Baylor can do it, UW can once again. Do people really think occasional appearances in a final four makes or break a recruits commitment? I mean, a number of programs almost never touch the final four and they get top 25 recruits regularly. Florida leads that pack. I'm thinking that for a lot of recruits from places in the East or South, Seattle might as well be on Mars, or at least in Alaska. Just too far away.
|
|