|
|
Post by nyline on Oct 15, 2018 11:16:39 GMT -5
On a different note, I thought the Cook's challenged were a bit obnoxious. Yeah, they're legal, but using up all your challenges just because you can is a bit much. Maybe he's thinking that maybe he'll luck out. It seemed to me that a couple of them were pretty unlikely to be overturned. Given the current rule on challenges -- there's no penalty for losing a challenge, so it's like a free timeout -- I think Cook's challenges were perfectly fine. As a fan, I didn't like them because they slowed down the game and Penn State's momentum. But that was most likely the point (at least for the final one). So I don't have a problem with Cook taking advantage of the rule -- but I do have a problem with the rule. What should happen is if you win a challenge, you keep that challenge, and if you lose a challenge you lose a timeout. And if you are out of timeouts, you can't use your challenge (or something else bad happens if you have no timeouts and you lose a challenge -- lose an extra point? That seems draconian, but I can't think of anything else). |
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Oct 15, 2018 11:18:57 GMT -5
Who'da thunk that we'd win set 4 hitting .023? Who'da thunk we lost set 3 hitting .415 with 18 kills ONE error Isn't that the truth!! |
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Oct 15, 2018 11:25:34 GMT -5
On a different note, I thought the Cook's challenged were a bit obnoxious. Yeah, they're legal, but using up all your challenges just because you can is a bit much. Maybe he's thinking that maybe he'll luck out. It seemed to me that a couple of them were pretty unlikely to be overturned. Given the current rule on challenges -- there's no penalty for losing a challenge, so it's like a free timeout -- I think Cook's challenges were perfectly fine. As a fan, I didn't like them because they slowed down the game and Penn State's momentum. But that was most likely the point (at least for the final one). So I don't have a problem with Cook taking advantage of the rule -- but I do have a problem with the rule. What should happen is if you win a challenge, you keep that challenge, and if you lose a challenge you lose a timeout. And if you are out of timeouts, you can't use your challenge (or something else bad happens if you have no timeouts and you lose a challenge -- lose an extra point? That seems draconian, but I can't think of anything else). You've got a point. Only 2 challenges would be better with keeping a challenge when correct. I really like eliminating challenges after a team is out of timeouts. I guess I dislike using the challenges the way they are from a 'class' point of view, but, like you say, there is nothing to stop someone from using challenges however they like. I didn't consider that he was using them to slow down PSU. I'm sure that's what he was doing. So why not? If the rules give you a way to use the challenges to your advantage they're going to get used that way. |
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Oct 15, 2018 11:35:47 GMT -5
And this match took almost 3 hours!! How much time did the challenges take up? (rhetorical question:) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 11:46:09 GMT -5
And this match took almost 3 hours!! How much time did the challenges take up? (rhetorical question:) ) I don't know how much time the challenges consumed, but three-hour matches play hell with DVR-ing the match. Not that my opinion matters, but seems that two time outs/set and two challenges/match (keep them as long as you win the challenge) might work best. I think three challenges is excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Oct 15, 2018 14:25:29 GMT -5
On a different note, I thought the Cook's challenged were a bit obnoxious. Yeah, they're legal, but using up all your challenges just because you can is a bit much. Maybe he's thinking that maybe he'll luck out. It seemed to me that a couple of them were pretty unlikely to be overturned. Given the current rule on challenges -- there's no penalty for losing a challenge, so it's like a free timeout -- I think Cook's challenges were perfectly fine. As a fan, I didn't like them because they slowed down the game and Penn State's momentum. But that was most likely the point (at least for the final one). So I don't have a problem with Cook taking advantage of the rule -- but I do have a problem with the rule. What should happen is if you win a challenge, you keep that challenge, and if you lose a challenge you lose a timeout. And if you are out of timeouts, you can't use your challenge (or something else bad happens if you have no timeouts and you lose a challenge -- lose an extra point? That seems draconian, but I can't think of anything else).
I would agree with keeping your challenge if you win a challenge. I wouldn't penalize a team for not getting a challenge correct, but rather limit challenges to 2 per match (and 1 bonus for the 5th set). This should keep coaches in check; try it for a year and see how it goes.
Timeouts are important and they have a time limit  , unlike challenges; I wouldn't want a team to lose any for a bad challenge.
The real problem with challenges, IMO, is the quality of the cameras. We need higher resolution and higher frame rates.
That should help in getting decisions made faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Oct 15, 2018 14:39:59 GMT -5
Given the current rule on challenges -- there's no penalty for losing a challenge, so it's like a free timeout -- I think Cook's challenges were perfectly fine. As a fan, I didn't like them because they slowed down the game and Penn State's momentum. But that was most likely the point (at least for the final one). So I don't have a problem with Cook taking advantage of the rule -- but I do have a problem with the rule. What should happen is if you win a challenge, you keep that challenge, and if you lose a challenge you lose a timeout. And if you are out of timeouts, you can't use your challenge (or something else bad happens if you have no timeouts and you lose a challenge -- lose an extra point? That seems draconian, but I can't think of anything else).
I would agree with keeping your challenge if you win a challenge. I wouldn't penalize a team for not getting a challenge correct, but rather limit challenges to 2 per match (and 1 bonus for the 5th set). This should keep coaches in check; try it for a year and see how it goes.
Timeouts are important and they have a time limit , unlike challenges; I wouldn't want a team to lose any for a bad challenge.
The real problem with challenges, IMO, is the quality of the cameras. We need higher resolution and higher frame rates.
That should help in getting decisions made faster.
How about they lose a timeout, but they get a Certificate of Participation and a tiny trophy engraved with the date of the match and the statement "You can't win them all"? |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Oct 15, 2018 17:12:47 GMT -5
Some venues don't have the equipment for any challenges, and others do have cameras, but not of the quality found elsewhere. So I agree with Millenium's point entirely.
The other problem is how obviously difficult it is to get the calls right. Often, I can't tell if a touch occurred or the ball is on the line or over the line, even in slow motion. So it is not surprising how many calls are overturned.
Finally, some officiating errors are clearly wrong. Having the capacity to correct obvious mistakes is a positive. I am thinking for example of the Purdue match where coach was willing to give Purdue a point b/c the ref missed an obvious block touch. Purdue had to waste a challenge on a call that everyone knew was wrong.
The current system tries to take the above issues into account. I am not opposed to changes, but worry that limiting the number of challenges would have adverse and unfair consequences.
|
|
, unlike challenges; I wouldn't want a team to lose any for a bad challenge.