Jump to content

gimpeltf

Members
  • Content Count

    3,719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by gimpeltf

  1. That position looked legal to me. The rulebook shows a picture on WR-89 number 68 as a legal hold when the bottom guy tries to pull the head over the shoulder. The picture shows the bottom guy sitting up with the top guy behind him mostly on his knees and head over the one shoulder.
  2. Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not since this is a pretty widely known story. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
  3. When I started wrestling in high school, my grandfather told me he once saw a kid from Oregon State enter and win four different weight classes at one of the Olympic trials back in the 1920s. I thought it a tall tale, but didn't say anything as I was raised to respect my elders. Many years later, I found out the old codger was telling the truth. Robert Pearce?
  4. The issue is clearly not why that picture does or doesn't constitute a reversal. Note that the official has already signaled 2. All we need to see here in this frame is whether Dake would have maintained control to this point.
  5. But it might be that the available allocation for schools has dropped that much. The boxes are the boxes and the NWCA allocation may not have changed and add in a couple of other pre-existing allocations. I heard 40% earlier.
  6. Let's not forget that at 125 even though it ended up a tech it was a while before the points started flying and it was in the earlier action that he was hit. Yes, Jake did up the stall calls in some of the matches. I'm guessing that he justifiably didn't want to impact the 184 match too much so he held back some there. He held back a little at 133 also but it was probably harder to decide it there. Dixon scored early and sometimes it's hard to decide if the bottom guy is stalling when the top guy is a legger.
  7. The difference from this one versus the one against Burak is the positioning of Camp's left leg. Against Kilgore it is outside or on the hamstring of Kilgore's right leg. Obviously at this angle, less pressure against the joint is generated. With the Burak match Camp's left leg stayed infront or on the quad of Burak. In both instances Camp goes low to the ankle, but in my opinion, the one against Burak had the potential to generate more force against the joint. It goes without saying that the ability of wrestlers to scramble in these situations create opportunities to be bent in manners which we are not suppose to bend. It is amazing to watch how deep wrestler A could be on a shot only to have wrestl,er B scramble out. In college wrestling, only about 5% of takedowns are uncontested. The other 95% is a scramble war. A lot of positions can be considered illegal that are outside of specific rules. I still don't see this as a cutback at all but what you're describing here is possibly to be considered within general prohibitions. I look at the other guy here (Burak) and note that he moved forward through the action and secured the takedown very quickly in spite of it so I don't understand how it would cause this much consternation but ...
  8. I was doing an audio broadcast and our vantage was from above the throw. I knew Dake did greco precollege and my sense of the situation even then was that Dake kind of had him 'all the way'. I can see that although Nathaniel certainly took advantage and caught him slightly off guard Dake adjusted his feet on the way down and popped his hips at the end of the sag throw.
  9. They smiled at each other during the introductions.
  10. What about it? Virtually the same move. Nowhere near the knee. Nothing flying. Nothing whipping. In this case there was so little pressure Camp went backwards.
  11. Couldn't edit or delete the other. Anyway- I meant full nelson not locked hands here to answer lightweight. Nobody said everything of Dake was behind Taylor- nor that it needs to be. His upper body was clearly behind DTs upper.
  12. Dake locked up very quickly at the end. The call looks better to me from this angle. Nice pics of the crowd. Noticed at ~8:10 Taylor never set on the elbow during the start. And Dake the same at 9:00. I think what appeared to be locked hands from the other view came around 9:10. Not even close.
  13. Not sure where some of this comes from but the move in the video is not at all of a cutback. And I'd like to see someone put his hand on the mat while performing the move. The move is based on having one hand at the opponents upper body- likely in a whizzer- and the other at the knee. It's using the foot that might make it illegal. Even then it must be in a whip-like manner. And there is no rule or picture stating or showing anything about the hand being on the mat.
  14. At one point I think in the 90s, the same guys wrestled 3 times. Not sure if same guy won each time. There was an unresolveable scoring problem (I think it was who got a warning/penalty). Minnesota and Nebraska as I recall, both reddish uniforms and back then they forced us to assign colors in such a way that in this case Minnesota got red over Nebraska and the ref and scorers got confused with the stall call. They felt they had no choice but to rewrestle.
  15. I don't see it as a cutback at all although I could see someone argue that point. The rule itself (pg wr-46 5.8.1) only says that a leg cut back is illegal. But the picture (pg wr-89 #66) shows the defender in the air free leg at and behind the shooter's knee. The wording says that you can't use the leg in a whip-like fashion. That was hardly whip-like and he was nowhere near the knee.
  16. Are you proposing to dig up all this info for the announcers next time?
  17. Again, it's hard to tell if the left hand is on the neck or head or if it's basically in a reverse underhook pulling back on DTs left arm. And the ref is in perfect position to see it.
  18. The issue is reaction time. There was a point where Dake's right hand was still holding DTs left leg and then the re-grab. Basically, I agree with you that another set of refs might have called it differently and with justification. One interesting thing with this analysis is the impact that watching on a video has. I think the two main scenarios discussed here (reverse and escape) are differently analyzed by video. The reverse showed itself to be a better call by slowing it down and seeing that Dake really was behind. Can still argue reaction time but at first almost no one thought it was there never mind reaction time. With the escape slowing it down gives the appearance of more reaction time than there was.
  19. I've been watching wrestling since the late 60s and it's always been like that both HS and college. Reason for the reversal rule is simple. Imagine doing it and not calling 2. What is it? If 0? Go out of bounds there- back to the bottom? If 1? Then he takes him to the mat and and gets 2 more? Would be a disaster. The better argument/question might be to ask why isn't a takedown scored like that? I guess because it wouldn't be a takeDOWN anymore. I think it should be scored as an escape. You have escaped the top man's control, but you have yet to demonstrate control yourself. If you bring the man to the mat, then it is scored as a reversal for an additional point (not 2). I really don't care about who won, just want to understand our (sometimes nebulous) scoring system. It sounds like JR scored it correctly last night! If 1, then Taylor 'reversed again', 1 for Taylor? If DT brought him down would it be 2? If they stayed standing 1-1 would almost make sense but would it be right (wishes during sig bets notwithstanding) for DT to gain from the scenario?
  20. I've been watching wrestling since the late 60s and it's always been like that both HS and college. Reason for the reversal rule is simple. Imagine doing it and not calling 2. What is it? If 0? Go out of bounds there- back to the bottom? If 1? Then he takes him to the mat and and gets 2 more? Would be a disaster. The better argument/question might be to ask why isn't a takedown scored like that? I guess because it wouldn't be a takeDOWN anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...