The CardBoard
WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford (/thread-22332.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - johnbar - 09-26-2021

Oglivie did come out of the locker room at the start of the third set.  I saw her standing with the team.  But then she was gone again.

I talked to another fan after the match. He was sitting closer to the team bench, and he thought she looked a little woozy (I think that was his term) before she left again.  If so, not a a good sign.

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - Goose - 09-26-2021

(09-26-2021, 07:51 PM)paloalto Wrote:  FWIW, one of the demands of Hodson's original lawsuit was that all volleyballs used by NCAA institutions have a warning getting hit in the head by a volleyball can cause a concussion.  That demand was dismissed by the court.
I am pretty glad it was dismissed by the court. There are so many rules and warnings in today's world that just state the obvious. This causes people's eyes to glaze over and they don't read warnings for things that aren't so obvious. Let's reserve the printed labels for things that a reasonable person wouldn't already know.

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - teejers1 - 09-26-2021

(09-26-2021, 06:04 PM)paloalto Wrote:  I checked on Hayley Hodson's civil case against Stanford.  She filed it in March 2018.  A trial is finally suppose to be scheduled later this year.  Probably won't happen until next year for one reason or another.  Looking at the dozens and dozens of court proceedings/documents filed I would guest both sides have blown through $100,000 plus in attorney fees.  Based on some articles Stanford does not want to settle this; they want to prevail in court.

You're one "0" short in your fee estimate.

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - treetop11 - 09-26-2021

What is keeping this team from being very special (i.e. undefeated or 1 loss even with the tough schedule) are two things:


- poor serving
- poor back row/defensive performance

The first is obvious; the second is not just shanks or inability to effectively receive, but our back row players even if they can get the dig, generally pass it poorly and we wate opportunities for kills.

I appreciate Hentz now even more than before.

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - BobK - 09-27-2021

Serving is a funny stat. Hambly’s goal is serve hard and get 90% in. Yesterday was 88%. Of course those serve errors when we could have won in three were killers.
Not having Oglivie for weeks will really hurt. So agree back row now a brobdingnagian weakness
On the plus side Vicini was outstanding

RE: WVB: #18 UCLA @ #12 Stanford - BostonCard - 09-27-2021

(09-27-2021, 06:18 AM)BobK Wrote:  Serving is a funny stat.  Hambly’s goal is serve hard and get 90% in.  Yesterday was 88%.    Of course those serve errors when we could have won in three were killers. 
Not having Oglivie for weeks will really hurt.    So agree back row now a of immense proportions weakness
On the plus side Vicini was outstanding

I had the same thought; we had back-to-back service errors late in the third set, which hurt a lot.  However, I am wondering whether, down a couple points, we were deliberately trying to be more aggressive on the serve late in the game.  When you are ahead, trading sideouts is fine; when you are behind, you need to generate points on serve, and the best way to do that is to get the opponent out of system on serve receive.  The risk of that strategy is, of course, a service error and sideout, but when behind it generally makes sense to adopt a riskier strategy.

BC