|
Post by knapplc on Apr 19, 2021 14:03:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Apr 19, 2021 14:04:10 GMT -5
If I was playing Washington I wouldn’t even feel comfortable up 24-16 they literally always come back. Good job that Pitt got out of that one Comment of the match
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Apr 19, 2021 14:04:54 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. I guarantee you the R1 and R2 talked to each other. That's what the headsets are for.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:05:18 GMT -5
Hambly is explaining that the way to advance and handle the pressure is to keep the teams loose. Like, give them a whiteboard and let them have fun with it!
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 19, 2021 14:05:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 19, 2021 14:06:00 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. It's rock-n-sockem! Slugger's chance.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 19, 2021 14:06:23 GMT -5
I was in meetings all morning so I couldn't watch live. Maybe a good thing because it was CRAYYYY. I can at least watch now without screaming every minute.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:07:22 GMT -5
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? Cook is not a big believer in timeouts in general. He uses them, but usually only very late. I don't think he would typically use a challenge for a timeout (although I assumed he was doing so on that last point).
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:10:03 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. 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. Yeah, but I didn't see the refs confer about what the ruling had been. How can the R2 decide that the call had been "no touch" without talking to the R1?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 19, 2021 14:10:35 GMT -5
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. I guarantee you the R1 and R2 talked to each other. That's what the headsets are for. It was the Right call. No question.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:12:28 GMT -5
I guarantee you the R1 and R2 talked to each other. That's what the headsets are for. Well, you know more about this than I do.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 19, 2021 14:12:38 GMT -5
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? Cook is not a big believer in timeouts in general. He uses them, but usually only very late. I don't think he would typically use a challenge for a timeout (although I assumed he was doing so on that last point). That net was so subtle. Did the players or the coaches noticeably point it out at the time? I'm curious whether they really saw it or got lucky. The eyes are usually turning away that late in the play. Catching the bottom tape with your hip is not exactly something you commonly look for.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2021 14:13:50 GMT -5
Cook is not a big believer in timeouts in general. He uses them, but usually only very late. I don't think he would typically use a challenge for a timeout (although I assumed he was doing so on that last point). That net was so subtle. Did the players or the coaches noticeably point it out at the time? I'm curious whether they really saw it or got lucky. The eyes are usually turning away that late in the play. Catching the bottom tape with your hip is not exactly something you commonly look for. Watch. Net. Like. Hawks.
|
|
|
Post by huskyvolley on Apr 19, 2021 14:15:46 GMT -5
Cook is not a big believer in timeouts in general. He uses them, but usually only very late. I don't think he would typically use a challenge for a timeout (although I assumed he was doing so on that last point). That net was so subtle. Did the players or the coaches noticeably point it out at the time? I'm curious whether they really saw it or got lucky. The eyes are usually turning away that late in the play. Catching the bottom tape with your hip is not exactly something you commonly look for. I believe Cook saw something. It's pretty common that he successfully challenged net-violation in the middle of the play. I am sure he pays attention to that.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 19, 2021 14:18:07 GMT -5
This is how the PAC felt all year. Even if it didn’t make sense, Somehow Washington just won This is God's team of course. (sarcasm, just so we are clear.....)
|
|