|
|
Post by jojonito on Sept 4, 2021 15:05:23 GMT -5
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. I've noticed that also. Georgia played Nebraska last nite and played very well. Took 1 set from Nebraska and almost took another. The hitting, blocking and passing was quite good by Georgia. A high quality match. I was wondering, where did Georgia come from? Also, this was at Nebraska in front of 8,000+! |
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Sept 4, 2021 15:37:50 GMT -5
I was unable to watch the match live but enjoyed watching the progress of this team. I'm not sure I would agree with Travelor as far as the serve receive. It seemed to me that at times the serve receive was good, but at other times was average to poor. The connections between Gabby and the hitters also seemed to be sometimes erratic. I thought that Pritchard hit better this match. Not as many attacks going long. As Travelor mentioned, Jonni seemed to have a better connection with Hord than Gabby did. Granted, it's hard to base that on so few sets by Jonni, but still. It seemed that PSU had trouble reading the Oregon St hitters. It took at least 1 1/2 sets for PSU to start getting a decent number of soft blocks. They finally were able to start reading the hitters and start getting blocks and soft blocks in the 2nd half of the match. They never did get a handle on Lindsay Schell. She had 14 kills on only 21 attacks with no errors, hitting .667. Fortunately she is a middle, cuz if she was an OH, no telling how many kills she'd have. One question I have for you posters. Is the PSU serve that good or is the receiving that poor for the teams PSU has played this year? Just about every team has that PSU has played has had trouble receiving the PSU serve. And I'm not just talking about aces. The serve receive for most opposing teams seems to be spraying the ball all over the place a goodly part of the matches. This might be the best serving PSU team in a while, (of course it's pre-season and a small sample size). Cassie, Pritchard, Jonni, Gabby, Jenna and Allie (I was forgetting Allie), have all had multiple aces in various matches (I think, off the top of my head). Adanna seems a little tentative. A lot of her serves have been fairly high off the net. But I think she has the potential to has a dangerous serve. Definitely seeing progress even tho it's slowly than I would like. Isn't that always the case? Will be an interesting season. I'm wondering what the matches against Stanford and Oregon will be like. In a way I'm dreading Stanford. They are a good team this year. (I know, that's a big surprise.) It feels like they have the best recruiting class every year. They've only won 3 of the last 5 NCAA championships. Course they do have a ways to go to win 6 of 8.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2021 17:11:23 GMT -5
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." OK, I finally saw it. On the replay, it looked like, after the 3rd contact by OR St., the ball bounced over the net and hit a PSU player then came back on the side of OR St. |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 4, 2021 19:01:41 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.
@westender -- this appears to be an informed explanation. Oh, and I hope revref comes back and posts again! |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Sept 4, 2021 21:43:57 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??? This occurred vs. IA and UCF too. Looks like a "modified" modified 6/2 system (only when Jonni is serving). Jonni can set-she can do everything, but until now she has not been unleashed as a setter. We will see if this approach continues. |
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Sept 4, 2021 23:10:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 1:30:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revref on Sept 5, 2021 23:34:02 GMT -5
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.
@westender -- this appears to be an informed explanation. Oh, and I hope revref comes back and posts again! Sure, I hope to stick around and chime in every so often, especially when there is discussion around officiating topics, which is sorta my thing... |
|
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. 
