Zain/Yanni

[El-Jefe]

A procedure is a process for doing something. Throw ball to fielder covering base before batter reaches base to record an out. This is the procedure for the players.

If fielder covering first base is on the base and in possession of the ball prior to batter reaching the base the batter is out and an out for the batting team is recorded, else the batter is safe and no out for the batting team is recorded. This is the procedure for the umpire and it is objective. The information was all right there for the ump to make the correct "yes or no" objective decision and he called it incorrectly therefore giving the other team an additional at bat. His incorrect call screwed up the procedural process of that game.

The Yanni/Zain decision (at the match) was a judgment call on whether or not the scoring sequence was a continous action. The judgment by the officials involved was "yes" it was and therefore reviewable. What I get from the arbitrator is in his view the continous action matters less than the 5 second window. However, if that is the case and procedure is followed the ruling should have been Yanni win.
A do over ruling is hardly procedural. This ruling stepped outside of the procedural process.

Anyhow. At the end of this silly back and forth and following a series of yes no questions and following my own procedural process I have objectively as I can, concluded you are full of baloney.

Koll has already appealed this ruling.

 

[js8793]

A procedure is a process for doing something. Throw ball to fielder covering base before batter reaches base to record an out. This is the procedure for the players.

If fielder covering first base is on the base and in possession of the ball prior to batter reaching the base the batter is out and an out for the batting team is recorded, else the batter is safe and no out for the batting team is recorded. This is the procedure for the umpire and it is objective. The information was all right there for the ump to make the correct "yes or no" objective decision and he called it incorrectly therefore giving the other team an additional at bat. His incorrect call screwed up the procedural process of that game.

The Yanni/Zain decision (at the match) was a judgment call on whether or not the scoring sequence was a continous action. The judgment by the officials involved was "yes" it was and therefore reviewable. What I get from the arbitrator is in his view the continous action matters less than the 5 second window. However, if that is the case and procedure is followed the ruling should have been Yanni win.
A do over ruling is hardly procedural. This ruling stepped outside of the procedural process.

Anyhow. At the end of this silly back and forth and following a series of yes no questions and following my own procedural process I have objectively as I can, concluded you are full of baloney.

1. "for the players" You hit on the distinction better than I was able to. The distinction is that a procedure for the officials was not followed. It has nothing to do with the action of the players.

2. No, that's subjective. The umpire has to decide whether the batter steps on the base before the fielder catches the ball. It's not a matter of counting or following a series of steps laid out in the rule book outside the actual game play. If you can't distinguish between a bang-bang play at first and whether a team should get an extra challenge after the game is over, that's on you.

3. No, the continuous action thing was a talking point on here and an excuse by Tucci after the fact, but the rule is clear, and that's why this was overturned. Listen to the Koll interview on flo. They were expecting a tougher case, but the USA wrestling expert witness ended up backing up their entire case (presumably against the expectation of USA wrestling who were representing Zain). The brick must be thrown 5 seconds after points go on the board. The sequence continues and after it ends they go back and review the situation, but not unless the brick was thrown on time during the situation. As soon as the points went on the board, the coaches were on the clock, and that clock expired 9 times over. That is a failure to follow the correct procedures of review, not a judgement call on the mat (like the actual sequence being reviewed).

4. No, it certainly did not step outside of the process. Cornell followed an established USOC procedure for protesting a result through arbitration. Despite what many of the posters on here are acting like, this has happened before across many sports, and has happened multiple times in our own sport. This was by the book.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

Randolph AFB.

Yikes, sorry. Got my Air Force bases confused. Travis is in Cali.

 

[tomsc]

If there were procedures in place to litigate these things, then, yes, litigation could have been pursued. But there isn't/wasn't, as opposed to this situation in which there was a specifically designated appeals process. A process specified by the USOC.

Perhaps you remember the George Brett pine tar incident? You know, when the final parts of a baseball game was replayed because an incorrect decision was made on the field?

I was watching that "pine tar bat" game as it happened and when the umpire called Brett out, I thought Brett's eyes were going to explode out of his face! Not a stoical look!

 

[nitlion6]

1. "for the players" You hit on the distinction better than I was able to. The distinction is that a procedure for the officials was not followed. It has nothing to do with the action of the players.

2. No, that's subjective. The umpire has to decide whether the batter steps on the base before the fielder catches the ball. It's not a matter of counting or following a series of steps laid out in the rule book outside the actual game play. If you can't distinguish between a bang-bang play at first and whether a team should get an extra challenge after the game is over, that's on you.

3. No, the continuous action thing was a talking point on here and an excuse by Tucci after the fact, but the rule is clear, and that's why this was overturned. Listen to the Koll interview on flo. They were expecting a tougher case, but the USA wrestling expert witness ended up backing up their entire case (presumably against the expectation of USA wrestling who were representing Zain). The brick must be thrown 5 seconds after points go on the board. The sequence continues and after it ends they go back and review the situation, but not unless the brick was thrown on time during the situation. As soon as the points went on the board, the coaches were on the clock, and that clock expired 9 times over. That is a failure to follow the correct procedures of review, not a judgement call on the mat (like the actual sequence being reviewed).

4. No, it certainly did not step outside of the process. Cornell followed an established USOC procedure for protesting a result through arbitration. Despite what many of the posters on here are acting like, this has happened before across many sports, and has happened multiple times in our own sport. This was by the book.

You spend way too many words saying the same thing incorrectly. Whether a base runner is safe or out is objective. Just because the umpire rules incorrectly makes no difference as far whether or not the definition is objective. It is the same thing as conducting an experiment. Just because data is recorded incorrectly does not make the data any less objective.

The ruling does step outside the procedural process. As soon as an arbitrator decided the site officials were incorrect and Zain should not have been given earned points because of the 5 second window then Yanni should have been declared the winner of the second match. Doing an either or was going to be hardassed. Either the review is allowed and Zain wins, or the review is disallowed and the guy (Zain) who scored more points loses. By ruling a do over they stepped outside the "by the book".

I am glad you chose to not deny the full of baloney claim.

 

[tikk10]

You spend way too many words saying the same thing incorrectly. Whether a base runner is safe or out is objective. Just because the umpire rules incorrectly makes no difference as far whether or not the definition is objective. It is the same thing as conducting an experiment. Just because data is recorded incorrectly does not make the data any less objective.

The ruling does step outside the procedural process. As soon as an arbitrator decided the site officials were incorrect and Zain should not have been given earned points because of the 5 second window then Yanni should have been declared the winner of the second match. Doing an either or was going to be hardassed. Either the review is allowed and Zain wins, or the review is disallowed and the guy (Zain) who scored more points loses. By ruling a do over they stepped outside the "by the book".

I am glad you chose to not deny the full of baloney claim.

I think the arbitrator should've let the match stand, but I disagree that any option could have included changing the result of the match to give Yianni the win because if ref awards Yianni the challenge the match wasn't over, and Zain could have still won, at least theoretically.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Actually the pine tar decision by the umpire was technically correct. The pine tar on the bat exceeded the the amount allowed by rule. The ump's decision was correct, Brett's bat was illegal and therefore the out call.

Baseball basically decided the pine tar on the bat had no effect on the ball struck for the HR and over turned a correct enforcement of the rules.

I think another factor might of been that Billy Martin knew going into the game that Brett used too much pine tar but waited until he hit the homer to bring it to the ump's attention.

I was watching that "pine tar bat" game as it happened and when the umpire called Brett out, I thought Brett's eyes were going to explode out of his face! Not a stoical look!

 

[tomsc]

I think another factor might of been that Billy Martin knew going into the game that Brett used too much pine tar but waited until he hit the homer to bring it to the ump's attention.

Yeah, that's the look! Not exactly Zain's reponse to an unwanted ruling!!

 

[PSU Mike]

Yikes, sorry. Got my Air Force bases confused. Travis is in Cali.

I thought Travis may have been in the transfer portal ...

 

[PSUbluTX]

I think the arbitrator should've let the match stand, but I disagree that any option could have included changing the result of the match to give Yianni the win because if ref awards Yianni the challenge the match wasn't over, and Zain could have still won, at least theoretically.

Haven’t read the arbitrator’s report (is it public?), but the outcome has the hallmarks of a judicial punt — give each side something to be relatively happy about. Undo the match result (giving Yianni another shot) but award the bout to neither (giving Zain a chance to prove he deserved the W for bout #2). We see judges do this frequently. By splitting the baby, the judge minimizes the chance either party will pursue an appeal and allows people to move on. Plus, some judges/arbitrators simply struggle to make difficult or unpopular decisions.

 

[NitWit24]

*.*.*.*.*

 

[IANit]

Also a Nebraska receiver illegally kicking the ball to himself in the end zone in 1994 to preserve their undefeated season.

Pretty sure that was actually in 1997 on the same day we got whipped by Michigan at home.

 

[PrairieHawk24]

Does anyone know Zain’s status? At 100% he’s proven this is a 50/50 matchup. Less than 100% doesn’t favor him

 

[PSU_Pride_93]

Does anyone know Zain’s status? At 100% he’s proven this is a 50/50 matchup. Less than 100% doesn’t favor him

Why don't you try Google?

(Hint: You would have the same chance as finding out on this board.)