|
|
Post by WI FIB on Dec 17, 2021 13:39:39 GMT -5
Gotcha. I got the sets of those plays mixed up. As for the net and under... the R2 called net, the challenge was on that ruling. The under was not called and to my knowledge cannot be reviewed because that was not the rule that was called. However, being under in NCAA you have to impact a players ability on the other side. This under did not and was probably why that part wasn't called. I thought the refs got this call reversal correct. During the regular season, it was my understanding that 'the entire play' could be reviewed. But for tournament, the officials went back to the old "three challenges, win or lose" challenge rules, so whether "entire play" review was in effect last night or not, I don't know. That has never been the case. In every review, a specific instance that is covered under the reviewable faults must be referred to by the coach when challenging. A coach can't just say "I'm challenging a net happened during this minute long rally, now go find it." And center line faults cannot be challenged. Period. It has nothing to do with what the ruling was. It's not in the allowable list of faults that can be challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Dec 17, 2021 13:47:43 GMT -5
Congratulations to both teams on a great match (an instant classic, some would say). Good luck to Wisconsin in the finals, 80% of the country is probably rooting for you so that we have a new champion. Can't wait to see how Louisville improves next year with even more experience!
|
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Dec 17, 2021 14:08:51 GMT -5
During the regular season, it was my understanding that 'the entire play' could be reviewed. But for tournament, the officials went back to the old "three challenges, win or lose" challenge rules, so whether "entire play" review was in effect last night or not, I don't know. That has never been the case. In every review, a specific instance that is covered under the reviewable faults must be referred to by the coach when challenging. A coach can't just say "I'm challenging a net happened during this minute long rally, now go find it." And center line faults cannot be challenged. Period. It has nothing to do with what the ruling was. It's not in the allowable list of faults that can be challenged. Well, there was a point during the tournament, Wisconsin vs UCLA, third set, tied at 14, when UCLA won the point. Wisconsin challenged, the down ref reviewed for "in the net" and came out to say point remains with UCLA. By that time they had shown replays on the video board, where it was completely obvious that a UCLA player had stumbled while coming forward to bump the ball, fell to the floor with her behind fully on the center line and her hand on the floor on the Wisconsin side. Wisconsin coach Sheffield then had a conversation with the down ref, which I imagine included something like "how could you not see her under the net? It was entirely obvious!" The down ref went back to look again, and then awarded the point to Wisconsin. The people on TV - Karch Kiraly - speculated that Wisconsin might have actually used two challenges, though I'm not at all sure that is correct. But whether it is or not, Wisconsin was awarded the point on the UCLA player falling onto and over the center line. So... Adding: Fleck serving at the 1:06:50 mark of the video. |
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Dec 17, 2021 14:32:16 GMT -5
That has never been the case. In every review, a specific instance that is covered under the reviewable faults must be referred to by the coach when challenging. A coach can't just say "I'm challenging a net happened during this minute long rally, now go find it." And center line faults cannot be challenged. Period. It has nothing to do with what the ruling was. It's not in the allowable list of faults that can be challenged. Well, there was a point during the tournament, Wisconsin vs UCLA, third set, tied at 14, when UCLA won the point. Wisconsin challenged, the down ref reviewed for "in the net" and came out to say point remains with UCLA. By that time they had shown replays on the video board, where it was completely obvious that a UCLA player had stumbled while coming forward to bump the ball, fell to the floor with her behind fully on the center line and her hand on the floor on the Wisconsin side. Wisconsin coach Sheffield then had a conversation with the down ref, which I imagine included something like "how could you not see her under the net? It was entirely obvious!" The down ref went back to look again, and then awarded the point to Wisconsin. The people on TV - Karch Kiraly - speculated that Wisconsin might have actually used two challenges, though I'm not at all sure that is correct. But whether it is or not, Wisconsin was awarded the point on the UCLA player falling onto and over the center line. So... My understanding from people at the score table was another angle that was not previously available during the commercial break became available. It was a continuation of the previous challenge and had nothing to do with a Center line call. Karch was wrong, which isn’t surprising since he knows college rules only slightly better than Paul. So…statement stands. You can’t review an entire rally searching for a fault, and a center line fault isn’t something that can be challenged by rule. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Dec 17, 2021 14:35:41 GMT -5
Well, there was a point during the tournament, Wisconsin vs UCLA, third set, tied at 14, when UCLA won the point. Wisconsin challenged, the down ref reviewed for "in the net" and came out to say point remains with UCLA. By that time they had shown replays on the video board, where it was completely obvious that a UCLA player had stumbled while coming forward to bump the ball, fell to the floor with her behind fully on the center line and her hand on the floor on the Wisconsin side. Wisconsin coach Sheffield then had a conversation with the down ref, which I imagine included something like "how could you not see her under the net? It was entirely obvious!" The down ref went back to look again, and then awarded the point to Wisconsin. The people on TV - Karch Kiraly - speculated that Wisconsin might have actually used two challenges, though I'm not at all sure that is correct. But whether it is or not, Wisconsin was awarded the point on the UCLA player falling onto and over the center line. So... My understanding from people at the score table was another angle that was not previously available during the commercial break became available. It was a continuation of the previous challenge and had nothing to do with a Center line call. Karch was wrong, which isn’t surprising since he knows college rules only slightly better than Paul. So…statement stands. You can’t review an entire rally searching for a fault, and a center line fault isn’t something that can be challenged by rule. I just posted a link to the video - letters crossing in the mail, maybe - but I don't see anywhere in there when anyone is anywhere close to touching the net; only the player falling under. Can you see if you see a "touch' of the net, and describe where during the play? |
|
|
|
Post by badgersinsix on Dec 17, 2021 15:04:10 GMT -5
My understanding from people at the score table was another angle that was not previously available during the commercial break became available. It was a continuation of the previous challenge and had nothing to do with a Center line call. Karch was wrong, which isn’t surprising since he knows college rules only slightly better than Paul. So…statement stands. You can’t review an entire rally searching for a fault, and a center line fault isn’t something that can be challenged by rule. I just posted a link to the video - letters crossing in the mail, maybe - but I don't see anywhere in there when anyone is anywhere close to touching the net; only the player falling under. Can you see if you see a "touch' of the net, and describe where during the play? I agree, I did not see UCLA touch the net anywhere in that video. However, I did see this critical piece: The down ref signaled net violation when they eventually overturned the call and awarded the point to Wisconsin. They did not signal over the centerline. So if the challenge was overturned due to UCLA being over the centerline (which I don't believe it was since I trust the down ref's signal), that would mean the down ref made two errors: 1. allowing over the centerline to be challenged 2. wrong signal |
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Dec 17, 2021 15:30:15 GMT -5
I just posted a link to the video - letters crossing in the mail, maybe - but I don't see anywhere in there when anyone is anywhere close to touching the net; only the player falling under. Can you see if you see a "touch' of the net, and describe where during the play? I agree, I did not see UCLA touch the net anywhere in that video. However, I did see this critical piece: The down ref signaled net violation when they eventually overturned the call and awarded the point to Wisconsin. They did not signal over the centerline. So if the challenge was overturned due to UCLA being over the centerline (which I don't believe it was since I trust the down ref's signal), that would mean the down ref made two errors: 1. allowing over the centerline to be challenged 2. wrong signal I didn't see the net either, but what she was reviewing after the return from the timeout was not the same as what was being shown to the audience, so without seeing a full screen version of what she was looking at on the monitor, I can't comment on what may or may not have been visible. Also of note, there was quite a bit of discussion between the R2 and the R1, and I can assure you without any reservation that the R1 in this match would *never* have allowed a center line call there. |
|
|
|
Post by vbdiva2 on Dec 17, 2021 16:02:00 GMT -5
Wisconsin did not play that great! Louisville is good! But missing 16 serves and Orzol giving you 14 points on her tips helps keep any team close. Dana was ok, definitely not her average match. Orzol was just plain bad — Kelly is too afraid to sub her out!! MVP Hilley and Smrek!!
Barnes late in the match 😍😍😍😍😍
|
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 17, 2021 16:04:10 GMT -5
Wisconsin did not play that great! Louisville is good! But missing 16 serves and Orzol giving you 14 points on her tips helps any team close. Dana was ok, def not her average match. Orzol was just plain bad — Kelly is too afraid to sub her out!! MVP Holley and Smrek!! Barnes late in the match 😍😍😍😍😍 We've been over this. Who would you sub out Orzol for? This is like backup quarterback is most popular player on the team. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Dec 17, 2021 16:27:42 GMT -5
Wisconsin did not play that great! Louisville is good! But missing 16 serves and Orzol giving you 14 points on her tips helps keep any team close. Dana was ok, definitely not her average match. Orzol was just plain bad — Kelly is too afraid to sub her out!! MVP Hilley and Smrek!! Barnes late in the match 😍😍😍😍😍 Orzol was 9 kills, 3 errors on 31 swings, .194 percent. (Can somebody remind me how to block or ignore, etc another poster? - EDIT: Found it, she's blocked.) |
|
|
|
Post by vbdiva2 on Dec 17, 2021 18:44:58 GMT -5
Wisconsin did not play that great! Louisville is good! But missing 16 serves and Orzol giving you 14 points on her tips helps any team close. Dana was ok, def not her average match. Orzol was just plain bad — Kelly is too afraid to sub her out!! MVP Holley and Smrek!! Barnes late in the match 😍😍😍😍😍 We've been over this. Who would you sub out Orzol for? This is like backup quarterback is most popular player on the team. Anyone. Especially back row when she’s having horrible passing bouts. Jardine would be a good test. She just gets in her head and the opponents capitalize on her for 4,5,6 points a set. Plus all the missed serves! |
|
|
|
Post by ndodge on Dec 17, 2021 20:50:42 GMT -5
Did someone post passing stats somewhere ? I saw it asked, maybe in this thread, but didn’t see an answer. I’d be interested to see Orzol’s stats. I am watching replay, currently in the fourth and while there were some rough stretches there were some good passing stretches too
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Dec 17, 2021 20:57:40 GMT -5
Debeer had a career high 20 kills
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Dec 18, 2021 8:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Dec 18, 2021 8:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
