|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2021 20:36:59 GMT -5
ESPN loves their stories, so I’m kinda shocked they haven’t talked about Avery’s huge turnaround from last season. They ran that story into the ground in the Fall. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 20:37:13 GMT -5
Every Kentucky player hit over .300 Washington barely hit .200 It wasn’t the refs. Last year Texas v. Louisville Sweet 16- Texas hit .320 and Louisville hit .235. Well, we all know how that turned out, so, what, exactly, is your point? |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2021 20:38:15 GMT -5
Every Kentucky player hit over .300 Washington barely hit .200 It wasn’t the refs. Last year Texas v. Louisville Sweet 16- Texas hit .320 and Louisville hit .235. Well, we all know how that turned out, so, what, exactly, is your point? Relying on an outlier? :/ |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Apr 22, 2021 20:38:38 GMT -5
ESPN loves their stories, so I’m kinda shocked they haven’t talked about Avery’s huge turnaround from last season. They ran that story into the ground in the Fall. Haha so true, but not on the national level like this!! Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 22, 2021 20:38:40 GMT -5
Just from the 1st replay used by UW and the touch/no touch call, it was insanely blurry. No, actually that call was 100% obvious. The problem is that refs should understand they need to watch the replays in slow-mo but *also* at speed. You could see clear as anything at partial speed that the ball was deflected. But when they tried to freeze-frame it and see the touch, it was really ambiguous. But that shouldn't matter! When you can see the ball deflect off the touch, it doesn't matter whether you can see the touch in still frame or not. |
|
|
|
Post by NebraskaVBfan93 on Apr 22, 2021 20:39:01 GMT -5
Not quibbling about the result but this game is the prime evidence for why the challenge rules need to be changed. Absolutely!! I am not a Washington fan and really like this Kentucky team. That said, this match could have had a different outcome had Wash not been out of challenges on that crucial missed net call. The rule needs to change so that you don't lose a challenge when you're correct. |
|
|
|
Post by VB48 on Apr 22, 2021 20:41:23 GMT -5
FIVB allows the ref to 'challenge' themselves. I highly doubt we'd see that in NCAA. Refs would be bullied into it. Yeah, but NCAA refs are way too arrogant to ever do that... |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 20:42:12 GMT -5
I know that the challenge is somewhat a story and if I was a huge Washington fan I would be miffed too but honestly that match was not decided on that single call Washington lost 2 other sets decidedly and Cook was being a little too gutsy using so many early on. He knows the rules. I think the rule should be changed that you do get 3 and keep the last one as long as you get it right but truthfully Washington really executed their plan. They served amazingly and really ran their attack so successfully on the right and blocked and defended well. This sounds so arbitrarily stupid. I agree that Washington didn't play well in sets 1 and 4 and Kentucky dominated those sets. But VB is a best of 5, not a best of 2, and Washington won in set 2, and should have been up 23-20 in set 3 but for a bad reffing call.....I don't see how anyone can dispute that. Had they won set 3 (which would have been much easier up 23-20 and the hot Kentucky server off the line) who knows what set 5 would look like (especially given UW's 5 set record this season). I don't disagree with you, Washington knows the challenge rules. But these teams also rely on the refs to make the right calls so these challenges wouldn't have to be made. If it was a micro touch that he couldn't challenge or whatever, I'd say you have a point, but this was a crazy miss, and it was OBVIOUS....even the commentators saw it in rally. I would have been pissed if Cook had to even use a challenge to challenge that net. It was the most obvious call of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by clob on Apr 22, 2021 20:42:26 GMT -5
Not sure what the solution to the replay problem is. Obviously, if you challenge and are correct, you shouldn't lose a challenge, it's like tennis.
That said, maybe the number of challenges should be lowered so coaches don't use them as time outs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 20:42:48 GMT -5
As I've said before, I'm at peace with the loss, and I agree that a bad call shouldn't have rattled them, but that doesn't excuse the call, and it also doesn't change that UW would have been up 3 with Kentucky's hot server off the line. In a close set at the margins, these things matter....... most other ppl on VT can see that. My opinion on whether or not the tournament should or should not have happened doesn't change the fact that the matched was played and the refs were bad, and I can opine on that. Doesn't excuse the call. Coaches shouldn't lose correct challenges in the first place. I agree. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,219 
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 22, 2021 20:43:45 GMT -5
FIVB allows the ref to 'challenge' themselves. I highly doubt we'd see that in NCAA. Refs would be bullied into it. Yeah, but NCAA refs are way too arrogant to ever do that... I remember in 2011 USC/Illinois Semifinal 5th set there was a play where the linesman called a touch and Bateman went over to talk to the UP official and you could hear him say to her on ESPN 'there was CLEARLY no touch on that ball'. And when they ran the replay, sure enough, clear touch on the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by bruinsgold on Apr 22, 2021 20:44:18 GMT -5
I want the names and employee ID numbers of every official in this match. I have an email to compose.  Strongly worded, I hope. A L W A Y S.  |
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Apr 22, 2021 20:44:30 GMT -5
Isn't it literally the refs job to make the right call? I mean yes they are humans and they make mistakes, but if there is an obvious call to be made and they don't make it like girl, what are you even being paid for lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Apr 22, 2021 20:45:30 GMT -5
Just from the 1st replay used by UW and the touch/no touch call, it was insanely blurry. No, actually that call was 100% obvious. The problem is that refs should understand they need to watch the replays in slow-mo but *also* at speed. You could see clear as anything at partial speed that the ball was deflected. But when they tried to freeze-frame it and see the touch, it was really ambiguous. But that shouldn't matter! When you can see the ball deflect off the touch, it doesn't matter whether you can see the touch in still frame or not. completely agree with it being 100% obvious. That said, it was blurry, but despite that, it was clear that the ball had zero rotation off the setter to backspin after the middle touched it. But my point is that it was blurry, as are all line in/out calls. Thus, I think we completely agree that a fundamental change in the way challenges work needs to happen. Personally, I'm for win it/keep it. But with that said, as long as we have blurry cameras, teams should also get 3 per set. |
|
|
|
Post by Thrill of the 'ville on Apr 22, 2021 20:46:06 GMT -5
Although I was rooting for Kentucky and know that Washington had ample time to still stay in the match, replay/challenges does need to be adjusted somehow. Different sports also have limited challenges but they have added on tules to allow taking a second look at crucial moments (under two minutes, scoring plays, etc.) They just have to figure out a unique way to review so that we get the accurate calls. It’s a difficult thing and a lot of the strategies I’ve seen negatively impact things such as momentum but with some good conversations amongst knowledgeable people in the sport, they should be able to find something better than what is currently in place.
|
|
