|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 5, 2021 23:43:21 GMT -5
If there was ever a need for an exception, this is it. While it won't happen, I really want to see Utah's "protest" for this match. Just for %*$#s and giggles. What do you even do? Ask to speak to the ref's supervisor? Ask for the NCAA corporate number? If that doesn't work, inform people you've hired an attorney?
Coach Karen, is that you? |
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Nov 6, 2021 0:55:35 GMT -5
So Drews and Robinson both hit > .375 and Utah still lost? Oof. Not sure what that means... Didn't see the match, but I'll guess that it takes more than two good hitters to win a match. Big loss too, two points apart in five games! |
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Nov 6, 2021 0:58:39 GMT -5
If the footage we watched was the same as the footage the refs watched to make their decision for the challenge, Utah should have 100% won this match.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Nov 6, 2021 4:28:01 GMT -5
We don't always see the same footage that the refs see. Just wish we could get the same camera ability as they use internationally, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 6, 2021 5:38:12 GMT -5
That overturned call that took the match away from Utah is exactly what's wrong with the current replay system in NCAA D1 VB.
I'm not saying the ref who overturned the call was right or wrong. I'm suggesting the replay did not show clear evidence that the call should be overturned.
How often have we seen this on a touch review? The down ref goes to the video monitor - really no bigger than the monitor most of us are looking at right now - and scrolls and scrolls and look and looks. Maybe that one finger moved. Maybe the ball's trajectory changed. Wait, maybe that other player's finger moved. No, it was the other finger on the first player.
It's total f---ing horse hockey. Or at least it sure ain't conclusive.
And if it is conclusive, at some point the NCAA should start to share information. Let the broadcast crews see the same exact video that the ref is seeing. Be transparent.
It just seems like on some of these touch calls, they can't prove that there was a touch, and they can't prove there wasn't a touch. So they just keep looking and looking and looking and looking.
Maybe they should change the rule: "Rule 7a; Section B: If the official can not determine that there was a touch, just give the damn point to the coach who objects."
The Florida at Texas tournament match where the ball was clearly in but the refs missed it was the impetus that led us to replay. But I don't think this is what anyone wanted or intended. Now we've gone bats--t crazy in the opposite direction. We've got replay and by cracky we're gonna use it - even though the technology the NCAA is using can not give anyone a clear picture of these very close calls.
This was a very questionable call that took away a victory for Utah, but may also determine the PAC title and have a major impact on seeding for the tournament.
It's a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by rtael on Nov 6, 2021 5:49:30 GMT -5
That overturned call that took the match away from Utah is exactly what's wrong with the current replay system in NCAA D1 VB. I'm not saying the ref who overturned the call was right or wrong. I'm suggesting the replay did not show clear evidence that the call should be overturned. Uhm.....then you are saying the ref is wrong. They can't overturn the call on a review if the evidence isn't clear-cut the other way. I personally don't think they have adapted to this rule very well and many refs tend to make the call as they see it at the time on the replay rather than going with the original absent conclusive proof otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Nov 6, 2021 10:21:23 GMT -5
That overturned call that took the match away from Utah is exactly what's wrong with the current replay system in NCAA D1 VB. I'm not saying the ref who overturned the call was right or wrong. I'm suggesting the replay did not show clear evidence that the call should be overturned. How often have we seen this on a touch review? The down ref goes to the video monitor - really no bigger than the monitor most of us are looking at right now - and scrolls and scrolls and look and looks. Maybe that one finger moved. Maybe the ball's trajectory changed. Wait, maybe that other player's finger moved. No, it was the other finger on the first player. It's total f---ing horse hockey. Or at least it sure ain't conclusive. And if it is conclusive, at some point the NCAA should start to share information. Let the broadcast crews see the same exact video that the ref is seeing. Be transparent. It just seems like on some of these touch calls, they can't prove that there was a touch, and they can't prove there wasn't a touch. So they just keep looking and looking and looking and looking. Maybe they should change the rule: "Rule 7a; Section B: If the official can not determine that there was a touch, just give the damn point to the coach who objects." The Florida at Texas tournament match where the ball was clearly in but the refs missed it was the impetus that led us to replay. But I don't think this is what anyone wanted or intended. Now we've gone bats--t crazy in the opposite direction. We've got replay and by cracky we're gonna use it - even though the technology the NCAA is using can not give anyone a clear picture of these very close calls. This was a very questionable call that took away a victory for Utah, but may also determine the PAC title and have a major impact on seeding for the tournament. It's a shame. Soir grapes rant!! But i feel you |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 6, 2021 10:33:39 GMT -5
Luper not in starting line up. Jacobs is.. No Luper the entire match. UCLA is rounding into a possible FF ball club. They are very good. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 6, 2021 10:36:23 GMT -5
Just thinking back to when so many VT posters were upset that Utah was even in the pre-season coaches poll. They are proving y’all wrong this season. Ups and downs for sure but they are a great team with lots of fight. I love Utah. Dani Drews should be POY. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 6, 2021 13:58:48 GMT -5
That overturned call that took the match away from Utah is exactly what's wrong with the current replay system in NCAA D1 VB. I'm not saying the ref who overturned the call was right or wrong. I'm suggesting the replay did not show clear evidence that the call should be overturned. How often have we seen this on a touch review? The down ref goes to the video monitor - really no bigger than the monitor most of us are looking at right now - and scrolls and scrolls and look and looks. Maybe that one finger moved. Maybe the ball's trajectory changed. Wait, maybe that other player's finger moved. No, it was the other finger on the first player. It's total f---ing horse hockey. Or at least it sure ain't conclusive. And if it is conclusive, at some point the NCAA should start to share information. Let the broadcast crews see the same exact video that the ref is seeing. Be transparent. It just seems like on some of these touch calls, they can't prove that there was a touch, and they can't prove there wasn't a touch. So they just keep looking and looking and looking and looking. Maybe they should change the rule: "Rule 7a; Section B: If the official can not determine that there was a touch, just give the damn point to the coach who objects." The Florida at Texas tournament match where the ball was clearly in but the refs missed it was the impetus that led us to replay. But I don't think this is what anyone wanted or intended. Now we've gone bats--t crazy in the opposite direction. We've got replay and by cracky we're gonna use it - even though the technology the NCAA is using can not give anyone a clear picture of these very close calls. This was a very questionable call that took away a victory for Utah, but may also determine the PAC title and have a major impact on seeding for the tournament. It's a shame. Soir grapes rant!! But i feel you For the integrity of Pac-12 volleyball, interview the down-ref and ask her what she saw? Then, obtain the video of what she was looking at and obtain network footage if different. Try to verify via a panel of objective experts what the down-ref said she saw, i.e., the touch. The call was "out", so video should show something obvious. The Pac-12 can then issue a statement, which either says we have either verified, or ref was wrong. Maybe they can't change the outcome, but at least they can "own up". |
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Nov 6, 2021 14:45:28 GMT -5
Hard to hate this UCLA team. I love May and Fleck.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Nov 6, 2021 17:18:33 GMT -5
Soir grapes rant!! But i feel you For the integrity of Pac-12 volleyball, interview the down-ref and ask her what she saw? Then, obtain the video of what she was looking at and obtain network footage if different. Try to verify via a panel of objective experts what the down-ref said she saw, i.e., the touch. The call was "out", so video should show something obvious. The Pac-12 can then issue a statement, which either says we have either verified, or ref was wrong. Maybe they can't change the outcome, but at least they can "own up". I dont normally respond this way but really thats the worse idea i have heard: hold court on a call?? NFW. i hope you are kidding |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 10:03:09 GMT -5
That overturned call that took the match away from Utah is exactly what's wrong with the current replay system in NCAA D1 VB. I'm not saying the ref who overturned the call was right or wrong. I'm suggesting the replay did not show clear evidence that the call should be overturned. How often have we seen this on a touch review? The down ref goes to the video monitor - really no bigger than the monitor most of us are looking at right now - and scrolls and scrolls and look and looks. Maybe that one finger moved. Maybe the ball's trajectory changed. Wait, maybe that other player's finger moved. No, it was the other finger on the first player. It's total f---ing horse hockey. Or at least it sure ain't conclusive. And if it is conclusive, at some point the NCAA should start to share information. Let the broadcast crews see the same exact video that the ref is seeing. Be transparent. It just seems like on some of these touch calls, they can't prove that there was a touch, and they can't prove there wasn't a touch. So they just keep looking and looking and looking and looking. Maybe they should change the rule: "Rule 7a; Section B: If the official can not determine that there was a touch, just give the damn point to the coach who objects." The Florida at Texas tournament match where the ball was clearly in but the refs missed it was the impetus that led us to replay. But I don't think this is what anyone wanted or intended. Now we've gone bats--t crazy in the opposite direction. We've got replay and by cracky we're gonna use it - even though the technology the NCAA is using can not give anyone a clear picture of these very close calls. This was a very questionable call that took away a victory for Utah, but may also determine the PAC title and have a major impact on seeding for the tournament. It's a shame. How many posts did you make about this? You're embarrassing yourself tomclen. There was a touch. The kid told the staff during the challenge. Stick to making memes. |
|
|
|
Post by dad64 on Nov 7, 2021 20:39:53 GMT -5
so when Luper is out, UCLA will always go 5? lol Anyone know why she misses these matches ? Seems random ? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 7, 2021 20:45:34 GMT -5
so when Luper is out, UCLA will always go 5? lol Anyone know why she misses these matches ? Seems random ? I don't know, but despite how good she obviously is, at some point you have to consider "player availability" as part of the equation for overall value added to the team. Hopefully it's no big deal. |
|
