QF #3 Hopkins vs #6 Virginia Sunday @2:30

[CU77]

Not sure either but could have put Hop unreleasable man up in OT

"Unreleasable" doesn't matter in OT ...

[blue angels]

it wasn't clear. and that's the worst screenshot/angle bc the camera was moving and the turf was blurry and bad enough with the colors. you can see it looks like a crooked circle from that view.

the best angle was from 4 o'clock and above the goal, when they zoomed in, as the 4k camera was stationary. it "looked like" he planted just before the line. he had momentum carrying him, so very well he could've touched the line even if the above were the case. we are talking about a half inch in either direction.

referencing quint by folks here.... that 5 minute episode was riddled with doubt, from start to finish. that's exactly why it wasn't overturned. the announcers weren't saying at all what you think they were saying. can someone cut it up and post the video?

gun to my head, i would choose as in between the 2. but if you asked me if i wanted to play $1 million you win, lose you die (or lose a million)... hard pass.

Good points. It really highlights the main flaw in the system, which is that the call on the field is considered “accurate” until proven otherwise. Camera movement, picture resolution, poorly selected line colors are all confounding issues, but none really have the extent of error as the himan eye and brain judging this in real-time at game speed. If you were to simply use replay to make the call, you could easily come to a different conclusion.


BTW.. this is more a comment on the system in general, not specifically this game. If you’re going to have video review, fine, but don’t subjugate it to the call on the field.

That is the crux of the situation with replay. It is written only to overturn the obvious errors. I was looking for the NCAA guidelines, but could not find them. The guideline is generally irrefutable evidence (believe Anish said that a couple times). So when you have close plays and weak camera angles/shots to review. Its going to be hard to overturn the close calls.

Yeah this should change, not just in lacrosse but all sports. It's not a murder trial, you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting the original call on a pedestal as some standard to surpass is wild considering the refs were so unsure about it that they needed to ask for replay. They threw their hands up and said "we don't know so let's look at the replay." Once you do that...the replay should take precedence over the initial call, no? Let the replay actually help you make the most accurate call. Even if you're STILL unsure after watching the replay, it's better to apply a subjective judgment call to a slowed down replay w/ multiple angles vs. a bang-bang play in the moment that you've already admitted you're unsure about. Think you'd get more accurate calls that way, and isn't that the whole point of this?

I am salty, yes, but honestly think this would make things better in general. The Penn State/Duke game last year led to expanded replay, so maybe this game will lead to further changes to how it's used.

That's the whole point....... The refs who are trying to do the right thing didn't think the replay evidence clearly showed the call was incorrect. If it had, they would have changed it........Time to move on. Those biased one way or the other are going to believe the call is right or wrong based on their rooting interest. It's fortunate that there was replay and the certainly unbiased refs took the time to determine if they got it wrong or not........

[tech37]

Not sure either but could have put Hop unreleasable man up in OT

"Unreleasable" doesn't matter in OT ...

"splain Lucy"

[norcalhop]

Not sure either but could have put Hop unreleasable man up in OT

"Unreleasable" doesn't matter in OT ...

"splain Lucy"

I think he means man advantage gets reset with a goal. But that would have been game over anyways.

[tech37]

No way, that's just too obvious!

[Hooz123]

I was in the game thread and said I think he is in the crease, but I am not sure there is enough evidence to over-turn it. This play was not like the Duke goal .

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstate/2023 ... jones.html

you can see there is no doubt that Duke guy was on the crease. Millon was debate about was his foot touching the crease. I think it the tip of his shoe touched the line, but pretty sure most rational people would say that it was a really tough call.

As others are noting, this Millon crease review is nothing like the Duke one from 2023 where the player's toe was across the entire crease line.

It's certainly possible that Millon's toe was barely in the crease, but replay isn't intended to be perfect, it's intended to fix blatant mistakes. For example, the Maryland fans are right that the tying goal UVA scored in the tournament went off the crossbar and never hit the net. The complaining here about such a close call is absurd--whatever was called on the field was always going to stand.

When the announcer literally says it's going to be overturned, yes it is controversial.

NO WAY!! You mean the guy on his knees for alma mater says it would be overturned, and the other guy said it wouldn't? WOW THAT'S COMPELLING!!!

[nyjay]

I was in the game thread and said I think he is in the crease, but I am not sure there is enough evidence to over-turn it. This play was not like the Duke goal .

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstate/2023 ... jones.html

you can see there is no doubt that Duke guy was on the crease. Millon was debate about was his foot touching the crease. I think it the tip of his shoe touched the line, but pretty sure most rational people would say that it was a really tough call.

As others are noting, this Millon crease review is nothing like the Duke one from 2023 where the player's toe was across the entire crease line.

It's certainly possible that Millon's toe was barely in the crease, but replay isn't intended to be perfect, it's intended to fix blatant mistakes. For example, the Maryland fans are right that the tying goal UVA scored in the tournament went off the crossbar and never hit the net. The complaining here about such a close call is absurd--whatever was called on the field was always going to stand.

When the announcer literally says it's going to be overturned, yes it is controversial.

Go listen to the IL podcast. Both Foy and Osello were - in real time - basically sure it was going to be overturned. But here it’s over now.

[nyjay]

Not sure either but could have put Hop unreleasable man up in OT

"Unreleasable" doesn't matter in OT ...

It does, however, matter when the call is made with 2 seconds left in regulation. Go ask Scott Smith if you doubt it.

[norcalhop]

I was in the game thread and said I think he is in the crease, but I am not sure there is enough evidence to over-turn it. This play was not like the Duke goal .

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstate/2023 ... jones.html

you can see there is no doubt that Duke guy was on the crease. Millon was debate about was his foot touching the crease. I think it the tip of his shoe touched the line, but pretty sure most rational people would say that it was a really tough call.

As others are noting, this Millon crease review is nothing like the Duke one from 2023 where the player's toe was across the entire crease line.

It's certainly possible that Millon's toe was barely in the crease, but replay isn't intended to be perfect, it's intended to fix blatant mistakes. For example, the Maryland fans are right that the tying goal UVA scored in the tournament went off the crossbar and never hit the net. The complaining here about such a close call is absurd--whatever was called on the field was always going to stand.

When the announcer literally says it's going to be overturned, yes it is controversial.

NO WAY!! You mean the guy on his knees for alma mater says it would be overturned, and the other guy said it wouldn't? WOW THAT'S COMPELLING!!!

You're a clown. Quint is known as the biggest anti-Hopkins homer out there since they parted ways with his teammate Petro. He called the first Hopkins man-up a bad call when it was Collison was on the ground getting rode on by a UVa player. Other commentators cited on podcasts with no Hopkins ties in above posts agreed as well with the crease call being reversed.

I still don't know why you're even on this forum. You've been lambasted repeatedly by UVa fans for your ridiculous comments against UVa players, let alone other teams.

[wgdsr]

hopkins guys citing podcasters is the chef's kiss.

[norcalhop]

hopkins guys citing podcasters is the chef's kiss.

you'll enjoy Uva's loss soon enough.

[OCanada]

I was in the game thread and said I think he is in the crease, but I am not sure there is enough evidence to over-turn it. This play was not like the Duke goal .

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstate/2023 ... jones.html

you can see there is no doubt that Duke guy was on the crease. Millon was debate about was his foot touching the crease. I think it the tip of his shoe touched the line, but pretty sure most rational people would say that it was a really tough call.

As others are noting, this Millon crease review is nothing like the Duke one from 2023 where the player's toe was across the entire crease line.

It's certainly possible that Millon's toe was barely in the crease, but replay isn't intended to be perfect, it's intended to fix blatant mistakes. For example, the Maryland fans are right that the tying goal UVA scored in the tournament went off the crossbar and never hit the net. The complaining here about such a close call is absurd--whatever was called on the field was always going to stand.

When the announcer literally says it's going to be overturned, yes it is controversial.

NO WAY!! You mean the guy on his knees for alma mater says it would be overturned, and the other guy said it wouldn't? WOW THAT'S COMPELLING!!!

You're a clown. Quint is known as the biggest anti-Hopkins homer out there since they parted ways with his teammate Petro. He called the first Hopkins man-up a bad call when it was Collison was on the ground getting rode on by a UVa player. Other commentators cited on podcasts with no Hopkins ties in above posts agreed as well with the crease call being reversed.

I still don't know why you're even on this forum. You've been lambasted repeatedly by UVa fans for your ridiculous comments against UVa players, let alone other teams.

Personally i never heard that characterization from anyone inside the game. QK is probably the most informed commentator in the business.

[51percentcorn]

the fact that there are posts about that play 4 days later is evidence it was controversial - it did not in and of itself decide the game - just one of a gazillion plays. Hopkins was still free to win the game. Win more face-offs/get more groundballs and avoid 9 failed clears and 20+ turnovers and Hopkins people don't have to talk about that play. UVA folks - IMO - should ignore this thread and go discuss Maryland. Hopkins folks should take their spilt milk and go to the '25 thread.

[NYlax222]

the fact that there are posts about that play 4 days later is evidence it was controversial - it did not in and of itself decide the game - just one of a gazillion plays. Hopkins was still free to win the game. Win more face-offs/get more groundballs and avoid 9 failed clears and 20+ turnovers and Hopkins people don't have to talk about that play. UVA folks - IMO - should ignore this thread and go discuss Maryland. Hopkins folks should take their spilt milk and go to the '25 thread.

great post. Tight call, by no means indisputable. JHU played dreadfully in final 20 minutes?, plenty of opportunities to have won. As to QK, amazed by the intense criticism he gets - from both sides: JHU fans who claim he's biased against, and those who think he's a JHU homer. I think he's great, and a rare leading analyst of any sport who - while being one of its biggest champions - is willing to point out flaws/shortcomings of every team he covers.

[Hoxwurth]

As to QK, amazed by the intense criticism he gets - from both sides: JHU fans who claim he's biased against, and those who think he's a JHU homer. I think he's great, and a rare leading analyst of any sport who - while being one of its biggest champions - is willing to point out flaws/shortcomings of every team he covers.

Being a commentator is a difficult job, but QK does it as well as anyone.

[coda]

the fact that there are posts about that play 4 days later is evidence it was controversial - it did not in and of itself decide the game - just one of a gazillion plays. Hopkins was still free to win the game. Win more face-offs/get more groundballs and avoid 9 failed clears and 20+ turnovers and Hopkins people don't have to talk about that play. UVA folks - IMO - should ignore this thread and go discuss Maryland. Hopkins folks should take their spilt milk and go to the '25 thread.

great post. Tight call, by no means indisputable. JHU played dreadfully in final 20 minutes?, plenty of opportunities to have won. As to QK, amazed by the intense criticism he gets - from both sides: JHU fans who claim he's biased against, and those who think he's a JHU homer. I think he's great, and a rare leading analyst of any sport who - while being one of its biggest champions - is willing to point out flaws/shortcomings of every team he covers.

If QK is pissing off Hopkins fans (they think he is biased against Hop) and pissing off non-Hop fans (they think he is biased for Hop). That is a great sign that he is not the biased one, the fans are.

[norcalhop]

the fact that there are posts about that play 4 days later is evidence it was controversial - it did not in and of itself decide the game - just one of a gazillion plays. Hopkins was still free to win the game. Win more face-offs/get more groundballs and avoid 9 failed clears and 20+ turnovers and Hopkins people don't have to talk about that play. UVA folks - IMO - should ignore this thread and go discuss Maryland. Hopkins folks should take their spilt milk and go to the '25 thread.

great post. Tight call, by no means indisputable. JHU played dreadfully in final 20 minutes?, plenty of opportunities to have won. As to QK, amazed by the intense criticism he gets - from both sides: JHU fans who claim he's biased against, and those who think he's a JHU homer. I think he's great, and a rare leading analyst of any sport who - while being one of its biggest champions - is willing to point out flaws/shortcomings of every team he covers.

If QK is pissing off Hopkins fans (they think he is biased against Hop) and pissing off non-Hop fans (they think he is biased for Hop). That is a great sign that he is not the biased one, the fans are.

There's only one person in this thread who thinks he is biased for Hopkins by virtue of Quint's affiliation. And that's coincidentally a poster that's more or less universally disliked by everyone on this forum.

Most people do not want to hear "Quaint" commentate, and that's due to his commentator quality on an objective level. Quaint isn't doing much right in that regard. Go see the gameday threads as evidence. The bar is not to be universally disliked, but rather to be universally regarded.

Someone like Ryan Boyle is vastly more amenable and preferable.

[cmbtp88]

Yeah there were two issues that doomed Hopkins on that crease call:

1) The blue lines
2) The bias toward sticking with the call on the field, rather than using replay to try to actually get the call right. "Call on the field" should be disregarded out once you decide it's too close and you need the replay to figure it out. Let the replay do its job. If it shows he didn't step in the crease then so be it. But the call should reflect what the replay shows.



Saw this posted on social media, someone took the above screengrab and played with the contrast of the colors to make it clearer. Laugh if you want but clearly the blue lines are a joke. Obviously the refs did not have this at their disposal but it shows that if the lines were a normal color and not blue, it would have been even clearer than it already was:

The video replay is to correct obvious and horrible miscalls that give a player a real advantage. This is not that not matter if his cleat touched a bade of blue grass or not. Stop being ridiculous....take the loss...great season, a lot to be proud of ..... enjoy the games this weekend

[HopFan16]

The video replay is to correct obvious and horrible miscalls that give a player a real advantage. This is not that not matter if his cleat touched a bade of blue grass or not. Stop being ridiculous....take the loss...great season, a lot to be proud of ..... enjoy the games this weekend

We've moved on, you can't seem to stop talking about it though

[wgdsr]

as long as we're still talking about it, rather than hoping one day lacrosse rulemakers break hallowed ground and allow replay to do all the talking.

we're not too many years away from getting someone to triangulate both creases with 16k cameras on drones at 30 yards vertical for the championships. i'd be up for an enterprising someone to push that thru.