Jump to content

Rakkasan91

Members
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rakkasan91

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here is a link to older rules books (up to early 80's). The rules books are embedded into these guides. https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/ncaa-guides/ There use to be a 1-point score for a "predicament" in the 50's but there was also a 2-point near fall at the same time.
  2. Not streaming but all the medal matches are shown both live and tape delayed on the Olympic Channel (Direct TV 624).
  3. Look around 3:40 in this video: https://www.flowrestling.org/video/5237423-157-matt-lester-vs-james-fleming
  4. If you want to see some weird positions, look at the complete staff and their titles for some of the big time college football programs.
  5. No, a slip is different that a correct throw. A correct throw is a hold/throw that takes one wrestler off his/her feet and moves them 180 degrees but does not score. The defensive wrestler must “LOSE CONTROL” and lands on their hip, side or stomach when they hit the mat as a result of the action. Reward the technique and risk taken by the offensive wrestler. If the defensive wrestler lands on his knees or feet after the attempt, it should be judged as the defensive wrestler not losing control. A slip throw is an action that results in the offensive wrestling going “directly” to parterre without any action by the defensive wrestler.
  6. It was called a correct hold. The correct throw is still on the books. The correct hold was in the rules in 2015 and then quickly removed. "1 point-To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "parterre" position with three points of contact but who does not secure control by passing behind in FS wrestling."
  7. It was the almost takedown fiasco rule. Lasted a year before that nonsense was removed.
  8. My 2 cents. The UWW is pretty vague on defining a takedown. I think most officials would not award a takedown in that situation. But there are a lot of different interpretations in FS. You won't read in the UWW rules book about locking up a cradle and busting your opponent to his hip, but that is interpreted as a takedown even though the offensive wrestler may not have passed behind. That becomes an interpretation of "overcomes" or the buzz word now, "establishing the dominant position." Errett awarded the two and looked pretty confident when doing it and it was confirmed and re-confirmed by the jury so I have to wonder (and I don't know the answer) if there is some interpretation about this position and "establishing a dominant position". While Gillman still had had his arms around a leg, Fix was on top with Gillman's leg trapped/foot to butt and his hands looked like they were locked around Gillman's waist. If there is some other interpretation, Errett is a UWW instructor and is in the best position to know what is most current.
  9. In some instances (probably most) they do. But USAW has made modifications in the past for team trials. As an example, the Paulson/Hall match in the 2004 Olympic trials would have never lasted that long following International rules. USAW made their own modifications to ending a bout for team qualifiers, essentially extending the overtime periods rather than the clinch deciding who made a World or Olympic team. That is one instance that comes to mind. While the quote above is not from the official USWOA rules book, it is endorsed by them and is used extensively throughout the USWOA Officials Education Program (OEP). I would say it compliments USAW's rules book. The author is the VP of USWOA and would not put something in that manual that differs from what the board wants to be taught.
  10. It may depend on what rule set the body that hears the protest is guided to. The UWW rules have a specific time established. The USAW rules do not. Protected Competition (Section 9) of the USOC refers to National Governing Body (NGB) rules, not International (but I may be reading way more into this). A manual endorsed by USWOA states (kind of like the case manual in high school): "ANNEX K - THE CHALLENGE (Figures K1A & K1B apply) When a challenge occurs and “the brick” is thrown onto the mat, do not immediately blow the whistle stopping the action. This becomes a Chairman’s decision and he/she will stop the bout at the appropriate time in order to review the action being challenged. When challenging an action; the coach has “APPROXIMATELY” five (5) seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge. The challenge timeframe is an approximation and “NOT A HARD TIMELINE.” However, a challenge may be accepted if it is made within a reasonable amount of time (longer than five seconds); especially, if the challenge will ultimately determine the winner of the bout. Again, do not get fixated on five seconds, it is an approximation. Once a challenge is accepted, the jury of appeals will review the video and render a decision. It is not possible to request a “counter challenge” and there is no follow-on discussion. The jury of appeal’s decision is final." https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/d1fb-1764411/2019_-_5th_Ed_-_THE_ART_OF_REFEREEING_FS-GR_WRESTLING.pdf?_ga=2.234359390.134440142.1560173269-1361780741.1553016222
  11. By the letter of the rule, 5 seconds is a hard and fast rule per the UWW rules book (Article 32). "No challenge can be requested after the end of the regular time of a period, except when the points are added to the scoreboard after the referee’s whistle or in case action occurred just before the time is over. The coach has 5 seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge." The video I posted has Tucci discussing if more in the lines of spirit of the rule most likely from his experience with overseas officiating. Perhaps that is why Koll made the comment of 2 officials having their day passed which he is obviously talking about the jury.
  12. "Final note - I do not believe the result will be changed. The match was scored by two of the best officials in the sport. They scored it, it is over. What are we going to allow here? That Koll can say he disagrees with the scoring so let's get some different refs that agree with a different interpretation? That would make this sport a joke. I don't believe the timing of the brick throw will change anything either. The NLWC will easily be able to cite hundreds of brick throws that happen after the clock reads 0:00 that have been reviewed in the past, probably dozens for action that occurred more than 5 seconds prior. So I don't believe they will go down into that rabbit hole. The result will be upheld and Zain will rightfully represent the USA at Worlds." I tend to agree with you even though I had scored 2 for Yianni. The officials involved in this are the best in the US. The Referee, Chairman and two member jury have officiated multiple Olympic Games. Since, 1983, only five American referees have been awarded the Golden Whistle at a senior World Championship or Olympic Games. Three of them were involved in this match (Errett, Tucci, Stecklien (sp)). One of the referees is a UWW instructor and there are only like six of those in the World. While seasoned officials can get calls wrong, the resumes of those involved in this match are impressive and I would think offers a great deal of credibility with the USOC protest.
  13. Old, but somewhat applicable to the timeliness of the challenge and initiation of action(s). The official that is being interviewed was the same member of the review jury during Final X. Once the challenge is accepted, the three man officiating crew is out of the decision loop and the two man jury makes the final decision based of watching the video. https://www.flowrestling.org/video/5519057-head-official-explains-ruthreader-and-marstellermassa-explanations-christian-pylesmp4
  14. He is not doing that anymore. The university moved him up to some newly created position within the school administration and there is a new AD running the show. The PSAC schools have been looked at closely regarding financials over the past couple of years and I know EUP isn't doing that well even after dumping a ton of money into facilities across the campus. Matt Hill has been doing the right things in terms of fundraising, communicating with alumni, but the departure of the wrestlers listed above all at once would devastate most programs.
  15. I don't think the no fall call was the most egregious part of that match. I still contend that two of the takedown calls were much worse. JO/Stieber: At that time, I still say no takedown. Rules changed to make it so. Wilps/Brown: I think the official had to call that because he had to review it. He may have wanted to ignore it but once that challenge was out there, he was forced to review it and it was there. The Kent State wrestler that had the wrong score recorded and the NCAA wished that away was pretty bad for a non-final.
×
×
  • Create New...