Jump to content

gimpeltf

Members
  • Content Count

    4,068
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by gimpeltf

  1. It appears the point Borelli was making was that they should have included some of the time where he pushed up away from the mat while within 4 inches or in a bridge. Personally, I don't think it was two. You can't review a review so it's possible they just rejected the second challenge and that what looks like them going to the table was to warn Borelli for misconduct. As opposed to my earlier post, which was meant to be more theoretical, I see now that the call wouldn't have been made until they went out of bounds therefore no erasure of anything that happened other than the call itself. Possibly there could be an argument for an escape and that would be eliminated.
  2. I have no idea what happened but this all depends on exactly what was challenged and when. The initial challenge might not have been about the NF per se but about something leading up to it. Possibly this happened near the edge (again I have no idea just laying something out there) and the challenge was about an out of bounds scenario that would preempt the NF. At this point time would revert to the time of the OB and erasing all existence of the NF. The match now ends at the OB so you can't now challenge what never happened. As a real example, when Lehigh wrestled PSU at the PPL center 2 years ago, Scott Parker pinned the PSU 133 in the second period. You can't challenge a fall so they questioned whether there was a locked hands just before it. During the broadcast I questioned the utility of the challenge. Not at all as to whether they were right about locked hands but the way Parker was wrestling at that point he was going to either pin or tech him anyway and in losing the challenge they had none left and I knew the last few weights were likely to be close and more in needing of having a brick available. Had this been near the end of the dual this thought process would have been exactly the right thing to do and pretty clever. It would have eliminated the fall from the record entirely.
  3. Not any more. Just saying it seems like it would make more sense than only either 2. But it's been this way as long as I can remember- and I'm old. I reffed intl late 70s early 80s and even though scoring was different (1 for td) this would have been 2 not 1 and 2.
  4. That's pretty much it. Had it been straight from feet to back 4. It kind of feels like something like this should be 3 since it's more than just one or the other but ...
  5. I think the father and both sons all spelled it differently
  6. Did you realize that since Mike new left Princeton and until Roger Reina came back a couple years ago, there wasn't a single ivy head coach that went to an ivy
  7. I asked the head of district xi. He said it should all count including that loss. That doesn't speak to district 2 people. I asked the head of that district (I help with the power ranking for team sports in 2,3,4,11 although 2 doesn't use it for wrestling). He's passing the question on to the d2 wrestling chair.
  8. Career record isn't actually official. I would agree with your statement that schools would likely not count if not counted for seeding but I don't know of any PIAA standards on career totals. Yes, the 100 wins are announced but they're only based on a coach coming and asking them to be announced. I've never heard anyone at the head tables question the accuracy of these claims. What district are you talking about, in case that matters to my question later today?
  9. Plus a three point penalty. (Or minus) I never heard of the other issue and don't see anything online implying that. I'll probably be with some others that would know later today so I'll check but it's hard to show a rule that doesn't exist.
  10. Not sure I understand the question but again if he got a TD and then turned him a little later he would get two and two. But one action can only result in one score.
  11. He's showing where the feet/knees are although it appears he circled one of Joey's. But one arm and one leg down.
  12. You only get the opportunity for one score at a time. In this case, there was the td or reversal or whatever you want to call it simultaneous with a tilt. Had he gained control belly down and gutted right after he probably would get 2-2.
  13. I don't think state sponsored is technically correct. But I would say state condoned with a lot of people looking the other way.
  14. First I met him was at some dual tournament. I believe it was a Cadet age group but he was a first year schoolboy and probably under the weight also. Never complained. Did pretty well.
  15. To add to Lurker- the liftee got his feet back on the mat as they were somewhere around the circle. That would have pulled the lifter's head down and forced more momentum forward with the liftee running backwards.
  16. I have a question though- how the h#$$ did we get here in a thread about DeSanto?
  17. Hardly know it all. But I know that!
  18. No. As said elsewhere here- it's Ess for the letter itself.
  19. Should be 5 feet from the circle to the edge. Then ten feet to stands or benches. I'm not sure I see that other ten all the time, particularly in tournaments. You'd never fit the mats in a lot of gyms.
  20. About 5 years ago they defunded some of the middle school programs.
  21. Actually, it should be "an" if you are saying the letters but "a" if you are speaking the words in full. It's the sound of the start of the word not the spelling. β€œA” is used before words starting in consonant sounds and β€œan” is used before words starting with vowel sounds. It doesn't matter if the word is an adjective, a noun, an adverb, or anything else; the rule is exactly the same.
×
×
  • Create New...