|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 11:16:29 GMT -5
P.s. we won that set twice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2021 11:49:07 GMT -5
Wasn't able to watch the entire game, but seems like a good win. I guess any sweep is a good win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2021 11:50:55 GMT -5
I think the officials need a refresher course in the meaning of "incontrovertible evidence" needed to overturn a call. To me, if you can't tell if the call was right, you don't replay the point, you let the call stand. There are no ties. I think that was terrible officiating. Open to being educated on this issue. Which call or point? I'll make sure to pay extra attention when I see the whole match tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 12:07:42 GMT -5
I think the officials need a refresher course in the meaning of "incontrovertible evidence" needed to overturn a call. To me, if you can't tell if the call was right, you don't replay the point, you let the call stand. There are no ties. I think that was terrible officiating. Open to being educated on this issue. Which call or point? I'll make sure to pay extra attention when I see the whole match tonight. 2nd set: I think the score was Penn State leading 28-27, and a point for Penn State was challenged by Oregon State. If I recall, the question was whether a Penn State player touched the ball before it went out. Looked inconclusive to me, and apparently to the officials as well, but instead of saying "inconclusive, so call stands" they called for a replay. Unless they thought an inadvertent whistle had stopped play, I don't get that call. Here's the rule, as stated in the webpage of PAVO (the Professional Association of Volleyball Officials - pavo.org/Rules-and-Tools/Challenge-Review-System-CRS ): The NCAA Women’s Volleyball Rules Committee approved rules allowing for video review of certain officials’ decisions. As the process has progressed, the rules and various documents have been developed to provide guidance for all participants. "The challenge review system (CRS) is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse, or replay specific decisions made by the officiating team. The second referee may reverse a ruling only if the video review reveals by indisputable evidence that the official’s ruling was incorrect. If the second referee determines that the video review is inconclusive, the original decisions stands." |
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Sept 4, 2021 12:19:57 GMT -5
Here's my question (a happier one): late in the 3rd, Coach took Blossom out, subbed in AK (male in the booth said it was Starck but it was not). Had Holland and AK at the right pin. Meanwhile, in what would become the 20th PSU pt in the set, Parker sets Holland. And it's one of those sets where timing is absolutely everything. It's quickly lobbed a yard or so over to Holland, just above the net and Holland slams it down. So the question is, how is the communication and the execution of such a play possible when we are always talking about needing years of communication between a setter and a middle? Or weeks or months even? Unless Parker is taking A LOT of secret reps, this ability is such an outlyer. ?Maybe it's an Ohio thing???
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 12:27:25 GMT -5
Here's my question (a happier one): late in the 3rd, Coach took Blossom out, subbed in AK (male in the booth said it was Staarck but it was not). Had Holland and AK at the right pin. Meanwhile, in what would become the 20th PSU pt in the set, Parker sets Holland. And it's one of those sets where timing is absolutely everything. It's quickly lobbed a yard or so over to Holland, just above the net and Holland slams it down. So the question is, how is the communication and the execution of such a play possible when we are always talking about needing years of communication between a setter and a middle? Or weeks or months even? Unless Parker is taking A LOT of secret reps, this ability is such an outlyer. ?Maybe it's an Ohio thing??? Secret Ohio Setter Reps. No question 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 12:34:34 GMT -5
One other question. At some point in the 2nd set (I think) something fell onto the floor on the Oregon State side. The officials stopped play -- as they should; an object on the floor could lead to a player getting injured. But here's my other question: we don't know where the object came from, but assuming it fell off of/out of the pocket of an Oregon State player (as the announcers speculated) why isn't there a rule that they would be penalized by losing the point? Sure, it's an "accident" -- but so is virtually every error I'm a volleyball match. No player ever "tries" to hit out, or serve out, or block out.
|
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Sept 4, 2021 12:57:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Sept 4, 2021 13:03:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Sept 4, 2021 13:46:36 GMT -5
P.s. we won that set twice. Here's my take on what was in the ref's mind: premature whistle. It looked like from the replays as if the ball was not yet down (but was darn close) when the whistle blew. I've seen that call when a pancake was not recognized and the only remedy was replay the point. But...there was no one else who could reasonably have stopped it from hitting the floor at that point. So, if that was the reasoning, it seems extreme to apply it here. Don't know the rules well enough to judge whether the ref had any latitude here. |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 13:53:29 GMT -5
P.s. we won that set twice. Here's my take on what was in the ref's mind: premature whistle. It looked like from the replays as if the ball was not yet down (but was darn close) when the whistle blew. I've seen that call when a pancake was not recognized and the only remedy was replay the point. But...there was no one else who could reasonably have stopped it from hitting the floor at that point. So, if that was the reasoning, it seems extreme to apply it here. Don't know the rules well enough to judge whether the ref had any latitude here. That may be what happened. It also occurred to me that maybe what Oregon State challenged was a call that 1) is reviewable, 2) occurred before what the announcers and I (we're really tight  thought was the challenged call; and 3) wasn't called. Maybe they decided that was a valid challenge, so the point had to be replayed. |
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Sept 4, 2021 13:59:52 GMT -5
Couple things that jumped out for me: Hampton going full-layout a couple times in successful pursuit of the ball. Blossom getting better passes from everywhere. Blossom moving to get not such good passes with ease; she's moving around the floor very smoothly, efficiently. She's got her hitters ready for her sets from anywhere on the floor. And in general, I'm finding even lesser-ranked teams are much better than, say, 10 years ago in retrieving balls that don't go into the stands. Balls that get tipped out of camera frame suddenly are being hit back. Saw a lot of it last week and this. That is why I'm liking our hitters looking a little more terminal this year. A lot of hits landing just in front of the opposition's feet or elsewhere on the floor ending the point with little muss or fuss. Yay to those. |
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Sept 4, 2021 14:36:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revref on Sept 4, 2021 14:44:32 GMT -5
Here's my take on what was in the ref's mind: premature whistle. It looked like from the replays as if the ball was not yet down (but was darn close) when the whistle blew. I've seen that call when a pancake was not recognized and the only remedy was replay the point. But...there was no one else who could reasonably have stopped it from hitting the floor at that point. So, if that was the reasoning, it seems extreme to apply it here. Don't know the rules well enough to judge whether the ref had any latitude here. That may be what happened. It also occurred to me that maybe what Oregon State challenged was a call that 1) is reviewable, 2) occurred before what the announcers and I (we're really tight thought was the challenged call; and 3) wasn't called. Maybe they decided that was a valid challenge, so the point had to be replayed. Here's what happened. The officials blew the play dead and called four contacts on Oregon State, based on two quick initial contacts, the high bump set, and the attack. However, Oregon State challenged that the Penn State blocker actually touched the ball before the Oregon State attacker, thereby negating the four contact violation. The challenge review confirmed that Oregon State was correct. Because the blown whistle killed the play that should have continued, a replay is the correct call.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 14:58:06 GMT -5
That may be what happened. It also occurred to me that maybe what Oregon State challenged was a call that 1) is reviewable, 2) occurred before what the announcers and I (we're really tight thought was the challenged call; and 3) wasn't called. Maybe they decided that was a valid challenge, so the point had to be replayed. Here's what happened. The officials blew the play dead and called four contacts on Oregon State, based on two quick initial contacts, the high bump set, and the attack. However, Oregon State challenged that the Penn State blocker actually touched the ball before the Oregon State attacker, thereby negating the four contact violation. The challenge review confirmed that Oregon State was correct. Because the blown whistle killed the play that should have continued, a replay is the correct call.
Thanks for educating me! This is a never-ending need, by the way. |
|
thought was the challenged call; and 3) wasn't called. Maybe they decided that was a valid challenge, so the point had to be replayed. 