|
|
Post by bobhorticulture on Nov 22, 2024 15:04:47 GMT -5
from the MN WI game thread I decided to chart the fifth set. took me 40 hours to get to it. not sure why. Score 18-18 "The penultimate point was rather epic with WI scrambling to keep the point alive and MN applying a lot of pressure. Color me confounded that Keegan failed to challenge Orzol for either a net fault or violation under the net just before the Crawford block. Even if her plays were clean, I believe the coach owed his team a closer look at the play. The net was wobbled when Orzol saved the MN block into the net, but it looked to me like the wobble didn't didn't dampen. Looks to me like Ozol's knee was on the Taraflex on Minnesota's side of the court. It was probably the longest point of the match, certainly of set 5, and the match was B1G volleyball at its best." Comments? Was the MN coaching staff not on the ball...or just appreciative of the heart demonstrated on the court and not wanting to interrupt the flow? I noticed this live and briefly wondered why there was no call/challenge, because she was fairly clearly over. My guess is that it was a "affecting the play" type call, since I think the ball was already in the MN back court at that point/hitters had transitioned so she wasn't interfering with anything on the other side. Again, just my speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by sptimes2 on Nov 22, 2024 15:38:19 GMT -5
from the MN WI game thread I decided to chart the fifth set. took me 40 hours to get to it. not sure why. Score 18-18 "The penultimate point was rather epic with WI scrambling to keep the point alive and MN applying a lot of pressure. Color me confounded that Keegan failed to challenge Orzol for either a net fault or violation under the net just before the Crawford block. Even if her plays were clean, I believe the coach owed his team a closer look at the play. The net was wobbled when Orzol saved the MN block into the net, but it looked to me like the wobble didn't didn't dampen. Looks to me like Ozol's knee was on the Taraflex on Minnesota's side of the court. It was probably the longest point of the match, certainly of set 5, and the match was B1G volleyball at its best." Comments? Was the MN coaching staff not on the ball...or just appreciative of the heart demonstrated on the court and not wanting to interrupt the flow? I noticed this live and briefly wondered why there was no call/challenge, because she was fairly clearly over. My guess is that it was a "affecting the play" type call, since I think the ball was already in the MN back court at that point/hitters had transitioned so she wasn't interfering with anything on the other side. Again, just my speculation. I noticed this and wondered about it. What does the rule say - if it doesn't affect play, is it allowed? I officiate HS volleyball, and there it is called regardless. However, I've seen this in other college matches and it wasn't called, so I'm wondering about the wording of the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by letsbeclear on Nov 22, 2024 20:20:28 GMT -5
Maybe this means something, maybe it doesn't. But in the Gophers' nine 5-set matches, they are 1-4 in matches where it's been a two-point difference in the 5th set, and 3-1 where the margin in the 5th set has been more than two points, the closest being 15-10.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Nov 23, 2024 9:04:26 GMT -5
Volleyball has progressed to being more objective, and you're suggesting a change is regressively subjective. Judging if a ball at least clearly changes spin, let alone clearly changes trajectory, is far more objective than the hours of life people have wasted since replay started waiting for refs to try judging to tell if a finger(nail) wiggled a little bit or not (but didn't change the spin or path of the ball in the slightest .... what a crock). Objective my a$$ |
|
|
|
Post by zero-rotation outside hitter on Nov 23, 2024 9:27:38 GMT -5
Volleyball has progressed to being more objective, and you're suggesting a change is regressively subjective. Judging if a ball at least clearly changes spin, let alone clearly changes trajectory, is far more objective than the hours of life people have wasted since replay started waiting for refs to try judging to tell if a finger(nail) wiggled a little bit or not (but didn't change the spin or path of the ball in the slightest .... what a crock). Objective my a$$ You're incorrectly conflating something being objective with something being fast. You think identifying a touch with slow-motion video is less objective than "if a ball clearly changes spin" in real time? Again, another enormous leap of an analogy at which I suspect most people reading this will simply shake their heads and think "nope, not the same." I am fully in support of making changes to the challenge system to make it faster. Having a time limit? Getting a max of one view per camera angle (and if it's not obvious need to move on)? Getting 1-2 challenges and you lose them regardless if right or wrong? I don't know the best answer, but I want it to go quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Nov 23, 2024 9:29:02 GMT -5
You think identifying a touch with slow-motion video is less objective than "if a ball clearly changes spin" in real time? Is a volleyball larger than a finger(nail)? Is it easier to tell if a larger thing moved than a smaller thing?
The word clearly just makes it easier and faster to make a decision. It allows judges to err on the side of no block touch, as should be correct.
Allowing hitters to aim high with the hopes of nicking a fingernail, is an awful rule that takes away from the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero-rotation outside hitter on Nov 23, 2024 9:34:33 GMT -5
You think identifying a touch with slow-motion video is less objective than "if a ball clearly changes spin" in real time? Is a volleyball larger than a finger(nail)? Is it easier to tell if a larger thing moved than a smaller thing? The word clearly just makes it easier and faster to make a decision. It allows judges to err on the side of no block touch, as should be correct. Allowing hitters to aim high with the hopes of nicking a fingernail, is an awful rule that takes away from the game.
d In answer to your question: not necessarily. If Mount Everest moved a centimeter and a fingernail moved a centimeter, I'd probably be able to see the fingernail move in real time. Think harder and longer, please. You're digging yourself deeper into a rabbit hole of weak rationale for your original suggestion of having officials have to judge "clear" spin on a ball, and then judging whether or not said spin affected the play. |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 23, 2024 11:00:42 GMT -5
from the MN WI game thread I decided to chart the fifth set. took me 40 hours to get to it. not sure why. Score 18-18 "The penultimate point was rather epic with WI scrambling to keep the point alive and MN applying a lot of pressure. Color me confounded that Keegan failed to challenge Orzol for either a net fault or violation under the net just before the Crawford block. Even if her plays were clean, I believe the coach owed his team a closer look at the play. The net was wobbled when Orzol saved the MN block into the net, but it looked to me like the wobble didn't didn't dampen. Looks to me like Ozol's knee was on the Taraflex on Minnesota's side of the court. It was probably the longest point of the match, certainly of set 5, and the match was B1G volleyball at its best." Comments? Was the MN coaching staff not on the ball...or just appreciative of the heart demonstrated on the court and not wanting to interrupt the flow? I didn’t notice the fault but thought he would have challenged something in that 5th set at the end. There were so many long rallies that ended in a WI point that maybe they could have found something. If for no other reason than to give the team a breather. Did we have a timeout available too? |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Nov 23, 2024 14:56:38 GMT -5
If Mount Everest moved a centimeter and a fingernail moved a centimeter, I'd probably be able to see the fingernail move in real time. This exactly proves my point correct. A ball that is hit and completely, totally unaffected by a tiny little touch, can still cause a finger to wiggle. It takes much more substantial contact to actually alter the trajectory of the ball in a meaningful way. If that doesn't happen, then it should be a block touch. That simple. Very easy and clear to see and judge. |
|
|
|
Post by mcmike on Nov 23, 2024 15:00:41 GMT -5
Another sell out
And we will see a few dozen empty chairback seats
1. It cannot be too hard to inventory these seats which are sold but go unused game after game
2. Employ students who work for scholarship $ to call the primary contact
3. If seats are donated back to the U the season ticket holder gets a donation credit for their taxes
4. When the seats are sold on Seat Geek the funds go to Dinkytown Athletes to support NIL
5. This kind of program could be administered by just a few folks and becomes a win win for all concerned
It seems like such a waste to have the best seats sitting empty
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Nov 23, 2024 15:13:42 GMT -5
Airlines make you check in before a flight, opens up 24hrs in advance. Put a check in on the Gopher ticket app. If you don't "check in" by 12hrs before match time, your tickets can be resold.
Probably wouldn't fly, but what the heck
|
|
|
|
Post by letsbeclear on Nov 23, 2024 15:53:19 GMT -5
Airlines make you check in before a flight, opens up 24hrs in advance. Put a check in on the Gopher ticket app. If you don't "check in" by 12hrs before match time, your tickets can be resold.
Probably wouldn't fly, but what the heck
People would check in and still not attend. With modern technology, I'm sure we could determine if the trajectory of the season-ticket holder clearly moved significantly toward the Pav by a certain time, and if not, resell the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 23, 2024 17:15:36 GMT -5
Judging if a ball at least clearly changes spin, let alone clearly changes trajectory, is far more objective than the hours of life people have wasted since replay started waiting for refs to try judging to tell if a finger(nail) wiggled a little bit or not (but didn't change the spin or path of the ball in the slightest .... what a crock). Objective my a$$ You're incorrectly conflating something being objective with something being fast. You think identifying a touch with slow-motion video is less objective than "if a ball clearly changes spin" in real time? Again, another enormous leap of an analogy at which I suspect most people reading this will simply shake their heads and think "nope, not the same." I am fully in support of making changes to the challenge system to make it faster. Having a time limit? Getting a max of one view per camera angle (and if it's not obvious need to move on)? Getting 1-2 challenges and you lose them regardless if right or wrong? I don't know the best answer, but I want it to go quicker. I say put a time limit on it, BUT if the call stands (is inconclusive), you don't lose your challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by mr. samwich on Nov 23, 2024 23:07:41 GMT -5
Hope everything turns out well for the Cook family <3
|
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Nov 23, 2024 23:30:06 GMT -5
Hope everything turns out well for the Cook family <3 Does anyone know what the situation is? |
|
