Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 13:55:56 GMT -5
Unfortunately, Pitt just doesn't have the depth to compete this late in the tournament. That wasn't competing??? Washington needed two consecutive challenges (both absolutely correct) to save the 4th. How many coaches would even have 2 challenges left at 23-all in the 4th? If Cook only has one left, they might have lost. Pitt looked gassed in the 4th and 5th. Those were some good challenges, although, NCAA challenges are dicey with the bad camera resolutions and angles, so you can't bank on them.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Apr 19, 2021 13:57:28 GMT -5
Ohio State somehow passed that stupid five-set torch to Washington Washington played a lot of 5-setters this season too. It's kinda their MO. Maybe that helped them with the 5-setters in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by huskervolleyball on Apr 19, 2021 13:57:30 GMT -5
Or 2006? Looool. Jokes aside, I want good matches in the FF. Give us 2008 or 2017 kind of matches! this team will have a hard time with UK/PU With the way they are playing, yes. If they're gonna wait to get it going then that's gonna be a problem for them.
|
|
|
Post by 91red91 on Apr 19, 2021 13:57:33 GMT -5
Somewhere at Pitt Immediately after the final serve did not clear the net ... I don't think his technique is very sound.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 19, 2021 13:58:23 GMT -5
I just hope he's been taking his blood pressure medicine.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 19, 2021 13:58:45 GMT -5
The match turned on Cook's challenge at the end of set 4. Seemed a crazy challenge at the time. Yeah, he definitely saw something I didn't see. Those coaches watch the net like hawks sitting on a light pole. The slightest movement, and out comes the green card. It doesn't matter what you see if you don't have a challenge in your pocket. How many coaches would still have 2 in their pocket at 23-23 in the 4th game? So many coaches would have burned them already as timeouts. Can you imagine if Cook had used another challenge or two and did not have them both available?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 13:59:18 GMT -5
No, that's the whole point. It wasn't legally challenged. Whether the ball was over the net or not is not a challengeable call. I actually would prefer if it was a challengeable call, but it's not. It's considered a real-time judgement call, just like a double touch. 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.
|
|
|
Post by vballvball on Apr 19, 2021 13:59:32 GMT -5
Semuhfinals
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 19, 2021 13:59:51 GMT -5
I'm DEAD!
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 19, 2021 14:00:19 GMT -5
I was in meetings all morning so I couldn't watch live.
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Apr 19, 2021 14:00:31 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't like the rule. It was legally challenged and rightfully overturned. If the reverse happened to UW, if you hate the rule, I guess you'd be consistent. No, that's the whole point. It wasn't legally challenged. Whether the ball was over the net or not is not a challengeable call. I actually would prefer if it was a challengeable call, but it's not. It's considered a real-time judgement call, just like a double touch. It is a challengeable call under 18.1.4.4: "A decision on an illegal attack, illegal block or contact over the opponent’s court that is dependent on whether there was contact by the player potentially at fault. The position and/or height of the ball or player is not challengeable." If the referees had ruled that player was reaching across the net but had not contacted the ball, the question of contact can be challenged. The challenge was about whether the ball was contacted or not (from R2's signal at initiation of challenge.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:01:05 GMT -5
Would it not also be frustrating for some if a team made a FF because they caught a team on a bad night? That happens ALL THE TIME. These teams are all good, but almost all of them can have "an off night" or a bad matchup. That's how single-elim tournaments work.
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Apr 19, 2021 14:02:02 GMT -5
I was in meetings all morning so I couldn't watch live. Maybe a good thing because it was CRAYYYY.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:02:05 GMT -5
And to think that the Huskies weren't gonna go far after Dayton's match... but damn, these girls must love playing 5 sets. Maybe Dayton was good?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:03:07 GMT -5
Back-to-back-to-back sweeps is better. But a win is a win. Survive and advance. Nothing else really matters. I'm dating myself, but I'm picturing Jim Valvano and NC State in 1983. I was in high school in 1983. I don't consider that "dating yourself".
|
|