Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 22:45:51 GMT -5
Man, they could have played a set in the time that replay took. That was ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Nov 8, 2017 23:08:20 GMT -5
I don't know what he's complaining about, or whether he's right or not, but this is the worst example of delay of game, and the worst performance by officials, I've ever seen in vball. Messing up the score in a National Championship? Maybe a tie? right in front of the up-ref, Iowa grabbed the antenna. Up ref never saw? Really! |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Nov 9, 2017 10:59:04 GMT -5
A nice win and overall a nice broadcast. I particularly liked the spot shadow on Kendall White and Tortorello pointing out how she gives instructions to the hitters. Interesting that Haleigh Washington was not employed as much though likely that was because Lee was so successful in the first two sets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:36:47 GMT -5
A nice win and overall a nice broadcast. I particularly liked the spot shadow on Kendall White and Tortorello pointing out how she gives instructions to the hitters. Interesting that Haleigh Washington was not employed as much though likely that was because Lee was so successful in the first two sets. I agree with you Elliot. I think it was a nice broadcast. Another reason to like Tortorello-Nelson. |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Nov 9, 2017 16:43:47 GMT -5
Rose challenges play near antenna. Rose wins! 4-2 PSU There are appeals? So our intrepid announcers explained that, while the down ref can review the entire rally, the challenge must be specifically stated and the decision made on the basis of what the challenging coach has complained about. (Does anyone know if that is accurate?) So if Tortorello correctly explained the challenge rule, it is possible that this delay was occasioned by the specific challenge lodged as opposed to what we could clearly see on the replays. For example, if Coach challenged whether the ball hit the antenna at all, and the replay showed that the ball did hit the antenna albeit after the Iowa player hit the antenna (is that the same as a net touch?), then I suppose getting the call right would be pretty difficult. Note that I am a little biased in favor of officials. As a volunteer swim referee, I know how difficult it can be to do the right thing. One would hope that professional officials at the NCAA level know the rules and have experience applying them. So I am inclined to think that there was something unusual about the play and the challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 10, 2017 13:04:23 GMT -5
Rose challenges play near antenna. Rose wins! 4-2 PSU There are appeals? So our intrepid announcers explained that, while the down ref can review the entire rally, the challenge must be specifically stated and the decision made on the basis of what the challenging coach has complained about. (Does anyone know if that is accurate?) So if Tortorello correctly explained the challenge rule, it is possible that this delay was occasioned by the specific challenge lodged as opposed to what we could clearly see on the replays. For example, if Coach challenged whether the ball hit the antenna at all, and the replay showed that the ball did hit the antenna albeit after the Iowa player hit the antenna (is that the same as a net touch?), then I suppose getting the call right would be pretty difficult. Note that I am a little biased in favor of officials. As a volunteer swim referee, I know how difficult it can be to do the right thing. One would hope that professional officials at the NCAA level know the rules and have experience applying them. So I am inclined to think that there was something unusual about the play and the challenge. From VT thread: |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Nov 10, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -5
So our intrepid announcers explained that, while the down ref can review the entire rally, the challenge must be specifically stated and the decision made on the basis of what the challenging coach has complained about. (Does anyone know if that is accurate?) So if Tortorello correctly explained the challenge rule, it is possible that this delay was occasioned by the specific challenge lodged as opposed to what we could clearly see on the replays. For example, if Coach challenged whether the ball hit the antenna at all, and the replay showed that the ball did hit the antenna albeit after the Iowa player hit the antenna (is that the same as a net touch?), then I suppose getting the call right would be pretty difficult. Note that I am a little biased in favor of officials. As a volunteer swim referee, I know how difficult it can be to do the right thing. One would hope that professional officials at the NCAA level know the rules and have experience applying them. So I am inclined to think that there was something unusual about the play and the challenge. From VT thread: I think you're very close, but a more accurate explanation is this: Original call: Penn State attacked the ball into the antenna. Penn State challenged that their player did not hit the ball into the antenna. Upon review, R2 concluded that the ball never actually hit the antenna (it was the blocker's hand). The R2 ruled (and signaled) that, because of the net touch, the point went to Penn State. Bond argued and filed a protest over that decision (hence the delay). After much discussion, the officials decided that Bond was correct, that they were not allowed to call the net violation as a result of the challenge, and that a replay was required for an inadvertent whistle. Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/71316/replay-kidding-me-over-minutes?page=4#ixzz4y3M7FAxUThanks so much for the info. That makes sense of a sort, and certainly explains the long delay. But I of course remain a bit confused. I thought a net touch was one of the reviewable violations? Perhaps a net touch challenge is only permitted at the International level? |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 10, 2017 16:24:07 GMT -5
Thanks so much for the info. That makes sense of a sort, and certainly explains the long delay. But I of course remain a bit confused. I thought a net touch was one of the reviewable violations? Perhaps a net touch challenge is only permitted at the International level? I don't think it's that a net touch couldn't be challenged, but that Penn State hadn't made that challenge. In other words, Penn State's challenge had to specify precisely how they thought the call was wrong -- not merely that the wrong call was made. Which I find ironic, because the whole point of the review process is, ostensibly, to make sure the right call is made. Apparently, at the international level in at least some leagues, if the challenge is for one thing, but on review the officials see something else that would require the call to be reversed, they'll change the call -- even if the basis for the challenge was something different. So the NCAA isn't entirely focused on correcting officiating errors -- form prevails over substance. |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Nov 11, 2017 0:35:41 GMT -5
I don't think it's that a net touch couldn't be challenged, but that Penn State hadn't made that challenge. In other words, Penn State's challenge had to specify precisely how they thought the call was wrong -- not merely that the wrong call was made. Which I find ironic, because the whole point of the review process is, ostensibly, to make sure the right call is made. Apparently, at the international level in at least some leagues, if the challenge is for one thing, but on review the officials see something else that would require the call to be reversed, they'll change the call -- even if the basis for the challenge was something different. So the NCAA isn't entirely focused on correcting officiating errors -- form prevails over substance. Sounds like each team needs a lawyer on the bench for each match. We could give em a scholarship. |
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 11, 2017 1:11:48 GMT -5
I don't think it's that a net touch couldn't be challenged, but that Penn State hadn't made that challenge. In other words, Penn State's challenge had to specify precisely how they thought the call was wrong -- not merely that the wrong call was made. Which I find ironic, because the whole point of the review process is, ostensibly, to make sure the right call is made. Apparently, at the international level in at least some leagues, if the challenge is for one thing, but on review the officials see something else that would require the call to be reversed, they'll change the call -- even if the basis for the challenge was something different. So the NCAA isn't entirely focused on correcting officiating errors -- form prevails over substance. I agree. The whole reason for a challenge/review system is to get the call right. Not be penalized on a technicality! |
|
