pivops.xyz

Fans are criticizing the controversy over the agreement between the clubs that prevented veteran libero Oh Ji-young (35), who transferred from GS Caltex to Pepper Savings Bank in women’s professional volleyball, from playing against her parents’ team.

However, there are also opinions that it would be better for the trade to be activated even with the clause banning the participation of the parent team.

Some volleyball fans who have encountered the Oh Ji-young controversy are criticizing the two clubs, saying that the ‘prohibition against playing against the parent team’, which was put in during the trade, deprived the player of the opportunity to play.

In other sports other than volleyball, agreements between clubs are prohibited, so criticism is being raised that the volleyball world should also break the convention.

However, there is also an opinion within the volleyball world that most of the candidates who are not elite players want to get a trade opportunity even if they have a clause banning them from playing against their parent team. 스포츠토토

The same goes for Oh Ji-young, who is at the center of this controversy. Oh Ji-young is a veteran libero from the national team, but she was pushed out of competition with her juniors Ha Ha-hye and Han Su-jin at GS Caltex, and has hardly been given a chance to play since mid-November last year. For Oh Ji-young, it was better to find another team through trade and continue her career.

In this situation, Pepper Savings Bank proposed a trade, and in the negotiation process, the ban against the parent team acted as a catalyst. For GS Caltex, handing over Oh Ji-young after receiving only the first-round nomination for the 2024-2025 season was virtually a poor business. For this reason, GS Caltex explained that it balanced the deal by adding a clause prohibiting participation against the parent team.

It is interpreted that GS Caltex tried to lower the probability of being hit by the lowest-ranking Pepper Savings Bank, which Oh Ji-young joined, by including a clause prohibiting participation against his own team.

Other clubs are also paying attention to the situation. In volleyball clubs, there are voices that trade during the season can be drastically reduced if the insertion of a ban against the parent team is prohibited due to this incident.

If a candidate-level player is traded to another team and then becomes a key player and destroys the parent team, the original team will suffer a big blow. As a club where one win is precious in the 36 regular league games system, there is no choice but to be wary of other clubs’ improvement in power.

In particular, in the current V-League, where there are only 7 teams in the league, 6 games must be played with 1 team until the 6th round. If you hastily send a player to a trade, you can face a difficult situation in 6 games, which is equivalent to 1/6. The results of the 6 matches are directly related to advancing to the ‘Spring Volleyball’.

It is a heavy burden for the club if it is knocked out of the championship match or playoffs due to a blow from a player sent out by trade.

For this reason, the prohibition clause against the parent team can play a role in reducing the burden on the existing club during trade during the season. At least, it is because they can escape from the theory of responsibility due to trade.

Even from the point of view of a candidate-level player who is in urgent need of a trade because he is in a hurry to play immediately, this provision is necessary.

If a club refuses a trade offer because it is burdensome to deal with its player as an enemy, the candidate player will have to suffer without getting a chance to play. A player who is not moderated on the team is at a disadvantage in salary negotiations for the next season. Veteran players who have become candidates are driven to retirement due to lack of opportunities to compete.

For this reason, there are voices that the Korean Volleyball Federation, which announced the improvement of the system, should not simply ban the insertion of a ban against the parent team. It is said that not only the provision, but also measures to promote trade can be considered to give candidates-level players a chance.