Tweet
Noah Bryant: 67' 51/2" (20.56)
http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_ ... ucla042807
http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_ ... ucla042807
-
-
Trojan men win on clerical error.... nice, I guess they'll take it any way they can
All observers and TV viewers saw that the USC volleyball player in the long jump actually landed just past the 22' marker and behind the 23' marker. That would've given him a place of 3rd or 4th, meaning UCLA would've won the meet. It looks now like his mark was 22'-5.5", but someone logged it in as 25"-5.5" (UCLA's 3rd best jumper was 22-6).
Meanwhile the dominance continues on the women's side for the 14th straight year with a 98-65 drubbing.
Soph. Nicole Leach ran 55.60 in the 400H, and a PB of 51.97 in the flat 400 -
Check the results... I think USC still wins on the strength of the volleykid's second best jump. He gets 2nd then, not 3rd. Unless I am wrong...Comment
-
Who says dual meets never produce great times/marks?
USC vs UCLA - Los Angeles, CA
--- Men
• Ahmad Rashad, USC - 10.33 / 100m
• Lionel Larry, USC - 45.41 / 400m
• Duane Solomon, USC - 1:47.60 / 800m
• Logan Taylor, USC - 13.71 / 110m hurdles
• Kai Kelley, USC - 13.76 / 110m hurdles
• Kevin Craddock, UCLA - 13.76 / 110m hurdles
• Brandon Johnson, UCLA - 50.76 / 400m hurdles
• Mike Landers, UCLA - 17-06 / PV
• Juan Figueroa, USC - 25-05.50 / LJ
• Noah Bryant, USC - 67-05.50 / SP
• John Caulfield, UCLA - 63-01.25 / SP
• William Denbo, USC - 61-11.50 / SP
• Greg Garza, UCLA - 197-10 / DT
• Darius Savage, UCLA - 186-04 / DT
• Adam Midles, USC - 228-03 / HT
• Boldizsar Kocsor, UCLA - 217-02 / HT
• Andrew Ninow, UCLA - 207-04 / HT
--- Women
• Jessica Onyepunuka, USC - 11.36 / 100m
• Jessica Onyepunuka, USC - 23.43 / 200m
• Carol Rodriguez, USC - 51.90 / 400m
• Nicole Leach, UCLA - 51.97 / 400m
• Candice Davis, USC - 12.94 / 100m hurdles
• Nicole Leach, UCLA - 55.60 / 400m hurdles
• Shalina Clarke, USC - 57.78 / 400m hurdles
• USC - 44.09 / 4x100m
• UCLA - 3:36.55 / 4x400m
• Rhonda Watkins, UCLA - 21-05.50 / LJ
• Shana Woods, USC - 20-08 / LJ
• Kamaiya Warren, UCLA - 52-04.75 / SP
• Eva Orban, USC - 210-00 / HT
• Julia Rozenfeld, USC - 201-08 / HT
http://www.trackshark.com/coverage/2007/april28.phpComment
-
I don't have a dog in this fight but this should have been fixable if it was truly a clerical error.. Was this meet recorded in imperial?... how does "someone" recording a jump 3 feet long make it official?.. did they not have a second recorder? ..was there no protest? .anyone can see the difference in a 22 foot jump and a 25 foot jump, especially if there are distance markers along side the pit..the jumpers and coaches know what they are capable of... this was a dual meet, there were no out of town sleepers and the marker and measurer would know if they measured a 25-5 jump for a newbie... ..
Reminds me of an incident in the Womens LJ at Indoor NCAA several years ago. I do not remember the exact numbers but the palm pilot operator looking over the recorders shoulder dutifully entered a transposed entry which caused the electronic scoreboard to signal a new WR.. it got the crowd excited but the jumper and coach knew she was not capable of jumping within a meter of the world record and, to their credit, immediately acknowledged there was a mistake in her favor..since the error was caught immediately, the tape reader knew what the correct reading was and the second recorder had it recorded correctly.. so, the "official" first recorder entry was negated.. no harm done..
I cannot understand how the jumpers, officials and coaches could remain unknowing and silent until the end of the competition to discover this anomaly..Comment
-
What was his series?Comment
-
Originally posted by gh
1 Figueroa, Juan Usc 7.76m 1.3
6.57m(-0.7) 6.83m(-0.5) 6.66m(-0.8 ) 7.76m(1.3) 7.00m(0.3) 6.45m(-1.5)
2 Tuosto, Joel Ucla 7.30m 1.0
FOUL(1.8 ) 6.94m(+0.0) 6.80m(+0.0) FOUL(1.3) 7.30m(1.0) FOUL(1.6)
3 Easterling, Dominique Ucla 6.97m -0.5
FOUL(0.6) FOUL(-1.7) 6.30m(0.2) 6.90m(+0.0) 6.86m(+0.0) 6.97m(-0.5)
4 Johnson, Michael Ucla 6.86m 0.5
FOUL(0.8 ) FOUL(+0.0) 6.81m(1.5) FOUL(0.6) 6.86m(0.5) FOUL(1.7)Comment
-
Who said they were? Mike Powell, the UCLA jumps coach, was reportedly "going ballistic" as soon as the mark was announced.Originally posted by lonewolfComment
-
Based upon the detailed account at www.thesportsexaminer.com (you may need to scroll or check the archive for the end of the blog for 4/30/07) it seems that as aggravating as the long jump measurement controversy was to UCLA, it was not the determinative factor in the meet's outcome.Originally posted by richxx87
An excerpt:
"Were the Bruin men cheated? Not really; [Kai] Kelley’s disqualification in the hurdles made up for Figueroa’s suspect mark in the long jump. But three more points in the javelin, high jump or triple jump would have made the difference and in the latter two events, the Bruins just couldn’t overcome their injuries. USC competed well and earned its victory."
And those are the words of the former meet director for UCLA's T&F program.Comment
-
So let me see if I have this logic straight -- Kelley is legitimately DQed for going around the first 3 hurdles, therefore a bit of fudging (or a lack of interest in correcting a clerical error) in the LJ was somebody's way to "even things out"? Is that like the make-up calls in the NBA? Is it in the rule book somewhere that if one team gets a legit DQ, the officials must then give extra points elsewhere to make up for it?"Were the Bruin men cheated? Not really; [Kai] Kelley’s disqualification in the hurdles made up for Figueroa’s suspect mark in the long jump.
Fascinating. I'll have to keep that rule in mind next time I do any dual meet predictions.
Another thing I've found rather interesting is that the NCAA does not show Figueroa's 7.76 on the latest performance lists, even though several other marks from the same meet are listed.
http://web1.ncaa.org/track/eventFiles/d1moutR4.txt
http://web1.ncaa.org/track/eventFiles/d1mout.txtComment
-
Good for Mike! I can believe that..Originally posted by richxx87Comment
-
I do not think that the comment about "making up" for the suspect LJ mark was suggesting a linkage between the two calls at all or even equating the variance from the predicted results. Rather, it just pointed out two unpredictable elements where the score awarded to each team did not reflect the physical performance. UCLA was lucky that Kelley scored zero in the IH, and USC was lucky to get 5 in the LJ.Originally posted by richxx87
That said, I'm pretty sure that the IH DQ happened after the LJ controversy, so one cannot conclude that the Figueroa measurement gaffe was intended to "make up" for the legitimate DQ of Kelley.Comment
-
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2007/ap ... crown_usc/USC jumper Juan Figueroa, a volleyball player who joined the team earlier that week, won the event with a recorded leap of 25-05.5, a mark that would make the newcomer a top 10 jumper in the nation. However, the UCLA coaches had challenged that mark on the grounds that the officials made a mistake and recorded 7.76 meters (25-5 feet) instead of 7.16 (23-4 feet), but to no avail.
“That mistake could have cost us the meet,” said jumps coach Mike Powell, who believed that the officials misread the tape. “I have seen some really bad things happen in the long jump, but that was the worst I have seen in my whole career as a coach and athlete. It’s a travesty.”
Clearly, as was stated previously in this thread, the math still says USC wins by a point, but jump competitions like this are not always that simple. Things like that can change the whole nature of the competition.
Finally, I don't want all of this to reflect poorly on the overall effort of USC. They came up with some huge, gutsy performances when it mattered most and really deserved to win IMO. Lots of big PBs and SBs all around.Comment
-
Hmmm.. 7.16 or 7.76?... another possibility... I don't care who won this meet or this event but whether it was an error in reading the tape or reading the score sheet it was an anomolous performance that should have been recognized on the spot.. especially with Mike Powell reportedly protesting.. I suspect it was announced as 7.76.. I don't thing he would have been as incensed at a 7.16..
Please forgive my righteous indignation... just striving for perfection in officiating..Comment
-
I don't know who the officials were, or where they were from, but it's noteworthy that people in some foreign countries do not write the numeral 1 with a single straight line, the way most Americans do. Rather, they have an add-on at the top that can make it look like the way we would write a 7. It doesn't confuse them, because they write a 7 with a short line crossing the long diagonal line. But it could confuse someone reading it. Perhaps the person keeping the field event card wrote it as a 1, but it was read as a 7 by someone else.
Obviously a wild theory, with no basis at all in fact. Just trying to figure out how this mix-up might have happened.Comment
Comment