Jump to content

gimpeltf

Members
  • Content Count

    4,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by gimpeltf

  1. The officials aren't really in charge of college events. If the coaches and/or Big12 officials present said to do X, wouldn't they do it? Am I missing something? Something does sound pretty fishy but I'm not sure I understand why the referee had much to do with something outside of a wrestling rule interpretation which this isn't since the conference can structure the event pretty much as it wishes.
  2. http://view.mail2.ncaa.com/?qs=4e9f966ae288ed2da5558829fb0beda3c24a2d0eaa4ac52f313b46ad5fe97d1c6418a02c9cc137b899bdb6900441016fd92d2ddb12b454988bdda64659a78025af36a389cc9ecaa7f96d0cc9c84e7ffc2605ff51520b9d0d
  3. Each weight brings an alternate ready to go at the last minute.
  4. It doesn't surprise me that Yale would tell the Harvard kids to stay home!
  5. Again, I was answering your question of why wouldn't we do it. I was telling you why some wouldn't do it not why I wouldn't do it.
  6. A true pushout rule isn't very subjective, if at all. Who's foot was out first? Also, a more proper terminology might be step out. One problem with a pushout in folkstyle that I didn't think of in previous post is in trying to work it in with current college out of bounds rules. In international you would be out as soon as someone steps out. In collegiate you aren't out until both are completely out. So which guy would be the cause? If the first guy out was being pushed without extended arms on the part of the pusher and the pusher recognizes this and then intentionally steps out isn't he the actual problem? Possibly all that would be needed here is to limit the out of bounds from standing/neutral to more along the lines of international allowing for continuous motion leading to a score one way or the other.
  7. The problem (in answering your question here as to why wouldn't we) is in perception of a large portion of the wrestling populace. People still say internationally that bouts are decided solely by that. I'm sure some are but in general even those are ones that would have been stall-fests otherwise. So even though it's probably a good thing too many would oppose on general principles.
  8. I never said I was opposed to a push out rule. I believe it's worked much better internationally than everyone initially thought. Your statements suggested getting rid of variance by changing the rule structure. Push outs help in one area but if you got rid of all variance you would have to make the rules either so complicated or so simple that it would cause other problems as I said before.
  9. Sorry- looked at the wrong one. But you're proving my point. If you only added a push out and eliminated other subjective stalling the wrestlers would easily game it. The matches you mention would have been wrestled differently. They could have worked to stall on the mat rather than at the edge and that would have to be called subjectively or not at all.
  10. I responded to B10. Are you also B10?
  11. Bring back Billy Sheridan! He reffed every bout at 1928 NCAAs
  12. How? Stalling is by definition subjective. To make it too objective would either mean so many specific rules that no human other than Dr Reed on Criminal Minds could remember them all or so few that they could easily be gamed.
  13. I get that. But they scored the bouts on Flo.
  14. Did Glory verbal in 2015? Soph HS?
  15. I don't know for sure but that's not the Flo embedded graphic scoring/timing so I would guess not.
  16. He once told me he had a good connection with Storniolo. He waited until the day after the change to announce.
  17. I believe it's currently more of an interpretation. It was clearly stated a couple of books ago but I believe it disappeared. But refs I asked about it said they still do it.
  18. To defend the hosts, the rule is 5 feet from the circle not the edge of mat as is the case with photogs.
  19. They figure on generally getting one more afterwards.
  20. Again, you're making assumptions without any actual evidence. Possible reasons for the 2019 change was team scoring. The top teams get screwed if you give the seeds byes. Depending on the method used either they only have a chance for bye points or as I think I'm seeing they wouldn't even get that. So by randomizing the spots it gives them a chance to score. If that was all that was done I might agree as there are other ways to accomplish that. But switching the 2nd and 3rd seeds is what tells me there's more to this. I'm a Flo guy (and EscapeSports and my own program before Flo) but Track seems to have all the options needed. I'm just not willing to denigrate people that do what I do without knowing what they had in mind.
  21. But that doesn't mean that's why they did it in the first place. I find it hard to believe they simply feel in love with that bracket look and changed everything else to fit it. It's more likely they were concerned about some other problem. The fact that the second and third seeds are flipped tells me there's more to this.
  22. Who said that was why they did it? In years past I had noticed some issues in some events caused because of certain symmetric relationships of the locations of the top two seeds and the way the second round Cross brackets.
  23. They can set the bracket up pretty much however they want as long as the coaches agree. I'm assuming they wanted to address some situation they were afraid of.
×
×
  • Create New...