According to a source in the know;
The actual
investigation into the matter after a protest was filed showed that:
BYU player served the ball and the line judge called it out.
The line judge signaled out but did so in an unusual way.
The head official saw the line judge's call and misunderstood it to be signaled in.
The line judge, seeing the call made by the head official, thought he had been over ruled and thought the match was over.
The head official, by his own statement, never saw the ball in or out as he said his view was blocked. He looked to the line judge and misunderstood his call to be signaled in.
The head official, thinking the ball was in, signaled in and ruled that play had concluded.
UCLA captain approaches head official and tells him that the line judge signaled out and asks if he over ruled the line judge.
The head official tells UCLA captain that the line judge signaled in and that play had concluded.
UCLA Head Coach is told by UCLA captain that head official said the line judge called the ball in.
UCLA Head Coach crosses court and demands that the line judge be asked if his call was signaled in or out.
Line judge had already left playing floor and was summoned back to the court by the head official.
Line Judge tells head official that he signaled out.
Head official has meeting with BYU and UCLA captain.
Head official tells both Captains that his ruling is going to be to replay the point 16-15 and whistles the match to be restarted at 16-15.
UCLA wins match.
Shortly after match, BYU identifies several points of contention as to why BYU should have won match and Protests match.
Determination:
The determination of whether the ball was actually in or out is a judgment call made by the officials on the floor and cannot be resolved via protest. BYU's request for a win based on the ball being in is denied. Judgment calls cannot be protested.
The line judge saw the ball out, therefore, the ball was out.
The head official did not see whether the ball was in or out, therefore, the head official should have deferred to the line judge and the ball should have been ruled out, point UCLA.
The replay determined to be the course of action by the head official was deemed wrong.
The signal by the line judge was considered to be not one that was proper, causing confusion on the part of the head official.
The delay in the match during the ruling on the court was such that warm up time should have been granted to both teams.
None of the concerns brought in question by BYU regarding other judgment calls were used in decision. Judgment calls (ie. in/out, touch) cannot be used during the resolution of a protest. Whether the ball was actually in or out is deemed moot. The line judge made a determination that the ball was out.
Conclusion:
The serve at 16-15 should have been ruled out as the judgment of the line judge was that the ball was out, giving the point to UCLA. The score should have then been 16-16 when play resumed.
Warm up time should have been given to both teams prior to resuming match, based on the delay during the on court ruling.
Because of those 2 factors, starting play at 16-15, match point for BYU was not the correct course of action. Thereby negating the win for UCLA. Win/Loss for both teams expunged. Match restarted the following day, at 16-16, with same line ups and match ups.
Interesting. UCLA was at a disadvantage at 16-15, wins match anyway and yet BYU protest, which shows that not granting the ace to BYU server was the correct course of action, gets to play over the last two points the following day. That was pretty strange.