Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ugarte

  1. On 6/29/2019 at 7:24 PM, TripNSweep said:

    Does anyone know what process Amine used to get citizenship in San Marino? Are his parents from there or something? It seems like an odd place to compete for.  Also worth noting that it is the world's oldest continuous republic and was among the first nations to recognize the USA.  

    i think international rules usually let you go back to a grandparent. i think palacio uses a parent to wrestle for uruguay but i could be mistaken.

  2. 19 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

    Or they can have the integrity to accept the result of the scoring that occurred that nite. They ruled Zain the winner, integrity is accepting the correct result and not changing it because Yianni fans can't accept that he lost.

    this is just not good faith.

    whether or not the 5 second challenge rule is literal and/or enforceable is a good faith debate. "u mad" is trolling bull****.

  3. 3 hours ago, jchapman said:

    I thought that you had to be eligible to receive a passport from the country you represent.  

    the gulf states just give out passports to try to get medals. look up the qatari olympic weightlifting team - i think they were all bulgarian.


    3 hours ago, NJDan said:

    Is that really true? What's to stop Saudi Arabia from deciding it wants to be a world power in wrestling and offering top guys a few million dollars to join their team?

    nothing at all - except it becomes trickier if they've competed internationally for their real home country already.

  4. 1 hour ago, tbert said:

    .....or attempted...some people accept rulings by officials... right or wrong

    Y v Z is not going to come down to the actual scoring  - it will only be about application of challenge or review rules. i will leave it to the arbitrators from there and hope there' s a written ruling. wild that even if he wins the appeal he'll have to go 2-0 to make the team.

  5. 14 hours ago, justafan said:

    Once the score on the scoreboard is wrong which it was it said 8-6 the Chair went 2 and 2 and it was put on the board.Once the score on the board is wrong a challenge can come at anytime to question the score.So the scoring in question has the be scored again once a brick is thrown.So the 5 second rule doesnt matter in this situation.The Chair shouldve  never gone 2 and 2. The Chair did call 2 and 2 but couldnt call a  conference  because the scramble  never stopped until the buzzer. Im not saying 2 and 2 isnt a reasonable call but with that crew  the Chair dropped the ball hes gotta go 2 for someone.This isnt a Regional with Zach (Chair) and a few beginners ref and judge.With the crew they had no way should he have gone 2 and 2.Once he went 2 and 2 it was gonna end up in a Tucci review regardless.If  action did stop and the Chair calls a conference  either corner can challenge the outcome.Action never stopped and continued until the buzzer so youve to go back and score the 2 and 2 situation in question.I understand the people saying they shouldve stopped it with time left so Yianni had a chance to win but at no point did the action stop to warrant a stoppage both corners wouldve been screaming louder then theyre now if they wouldve stopped that scramble.If your not happy with the way Tucci scored it thats a different issue that was a judgement call and those dont change during a protest

    this is the only procedural argument in zain's favor that makes sense. it essentially means that it isn't a challenge question, it is an internal officials' review to correct a procedural error. and presumably if the officials make a change to the scoreboard, zain withdraws his brick on the last 10 seconds.

    13 hours ago, Fishbane said:

    Are you okay with it being 8-6 because you think it should have been scored 2B and Yianni would win anyway or because you think obvious procedural errors in scoring should be allowed to stand if 0:30 of match time have passed?    

    if it's based on the corner failing to challenge in time? yes. i'm ok with that. the rule limiting the time to challenge and including a one-point penalty for losing a challenge is to minimize gamesmanship. it intentionally trades off some level of "perfection" for certainty and finality. yes, sometimes the result will be wrong. in this case, i think you're arguing for what i think is literally the wrong result on scoring the scramble! are you ok with confirming 2 for Zain if there was indisputable video evidence that it was Yianni's move that initiated Zain's exposure? 

  6. people keep conflating "stoppage" and "challenge" and they are - under the rules - not the same thing. the rule is "throw the brick within 5 seconds of the score being posted." even if you interpret 5 as "five-ish"; you have to act quickly. it puts the officials on notice of your intent to challenge something. the wrestling continues until a natural stoppage, but you've preserved your right to make your case. this isn't part of the rule, more a guess about human nature, but It probably makes the ref more likely to whistle a stalemate to keep the clock from winding down since the time can't be recovered. "getting the scoring right" is literally not the only objective because if it were, you'd allow unlimited challenges. the rule is "pay attention and promptly challenge, because if you snooze you lose." 

    based on the titan mercury post, assuming the mic is picking up everything that was said (and i don't pretend that it does, that's just the assumption for these purposes), i don't know how waiting 20 seconds to contemplate a challenge, then another 10 to throw the brick, is legit.

  7. 36 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

    I imagine the rule must be for whatever weight they wrestled Final X at...

    Otherwise we could legit have Deakin(70) and Nickal(92) legit challenge Dean(86), right?

    they can challenge at whatever weight they can make. not sure why nickal would go to 86 to challenge dean instead of staying at 92 to take on woodley. 

    if yianni loses his appeal, i wonder if he goes after eierman's spot. i haven't heard anything about Steveson challenging Kirkvleit either.

  8. 4 minutes ago, NJDan said:

    If this is allowed-- and it's hard to believe this was the nature of the challenge-- it would eliminate the 5-second rule. Anyone could challenge at any point and say "I was not disputing the call, I was disputing the failure to review the call."

    the only way it makes sense is if the review is being done on the initiative of the panel, not zain's corner. if the officials have to confer to resolve a dispute, but the fight should continue until the ref believes a stoppage in the normal flow of the match is appropriate, then i guess this is how that would play out for better or worse.

    whether that means that zain should have been penalized for a failed challenge of a no-call on in the final seconds becomes a separate question, because that would make it 7-6 yianni (though of course if the refs change the scoring at :55, zain's corner would withdraw the brick).

  9. 1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

    Wtt was after bts?

    I guess that's right - he probably could have used the NCAA championship to chose his WTT weight class regardless of the US Open finish. That said, Nickal was at BtS, watching from matside. I think he knew as well as anyone else that Taylor was going to need surgery and wouldn't be at Final X. I hoped for the best but expected the worst.

  10. 35 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

    He knows how he matches up with Taylor.  If he knows he cant beat DT and he has never wrestled Cox, that is an easy decision. It is also an easy decision to pick wrestling a guy you teched at your natural weight vs up a weight against the reigning world champion. 

    I feel like all this means he had no prior knowledge to DT forfeiting.  

    At the time of the US Open, Taylor wasn't hurt! He got hurt at Beat the Streets, after Nickal chose to wrestle the US Open in Cox's weight class. Why would Nickal have been allowed to challenge Downey when they each won different weight classes at the US Open?

  11. 25 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

    I'm in favor of giving medalists a break.

    But, It comes down to this: He knew a long time ago that he wouldn't be ready for Final X.  Declare out of it when you know you can't wrestle in it, rather than screw up the WTT champs training cycle.  I get why he did it, he followed the rules etc.  I understand.  Maybe we would get a better Ringer in the challenge matches if he wasn't tapering for last weekend and now is training for a date that is unknown to him (but likely known to Dake.)

    People who questioned Dake and Taylor were told that we "don't like winning."

     Just the opposite, I want to see the best Ringer vs. the best Dake.  Not Dake vs. a Ringer who is going to be jerked around with for three months.  

    Dake and Taylor had a deadline to announce that they wanted to postpone. Complaining that they didn't announce earlier than the deadline is ridiculous. Everyone who needed to know, knew when the deadline was.

  12. i just want a formal explanation. if the answer is that a post-stoppage officials' conference was required, since the judges did not properly agree (rather than acknowledging a late brick) that's probably a satisfactory answer that will leave me disappointed. an error on the scoreboard sucks, but ... as Ian Miller knows, sometimes life sucks. I don't want to be on the wrong side of a situation like that but if that's what it is, that's what it is. An in-match scoring (or score-posting) error is bad luck for Yianni; accepting an out-of-time challenge is something that can and should be subject to protest.

  13. On 6/10/2019 at 3:45 PM, lu1979 said:

    I fully expect the protest to fail - that won't change the facts that 1) Yianni clearly initiated the move and it should have been scored 2 blue - and 2) the brick should have been summarily rejected and no review should have been done of a scoring move which happened 42 seconds earlier and had scores posted at least 30 seconds earlier - 

    If the protest is successful I expect it will be won on the 2nd point - They won't overturn the judges interpretation but they might decide that the judges had no right to review that sequence.

    This is also basically where I come out. The call on the mat was at best too favorable to Zain, the call on review was worse, but accepting the challenge at all was the real error. I still don't expect the protest to succeed but think it should. Gimme round 3. Just like I said re: OT vs McKenna, in the immortal words of Rasheed Wallace, Ball Don't Lie and the third match will be the fates explaining the right call in the second.*


    *Don't take this literally. But literally give us a third match.

  14. On 6/10/2019 at 2:20 PM, Scorenomore said:

    I thought it was Zain’s score but after watching for like ten times I noticed the direction of Zain’s feet when the exposure occurs.  When looking at Zain’s feet, it appears that he is lifted off of his feet rather than propelling off of his feet.  Combining that with Yanni’s shifting of his left foot to initiate the move, I think it is definitely Yanni’s score.  

    this is the right answer - zain has yianni's right leg on a shelf, but zain's left hand comes free and yianni senses the new leverage and makes his move off of his own left leg and chest wrap. zain doesn't push off at all, his feet start scrambling and he tries to find the mat to brace against the throw and goes stiff during the throw. 

  15. I agree with NJDan on the UWW rule; even with the interpretive guideline, 45 seconds and after the final whistle is not a reasonable extension of the 5 second challenge rule. 

    As for the call, I don't really know about Zain's 2 but I know damn well about Yianni's. Zain doesn't push off of Yianni - his left hand loses it's grip, and his left foot is flailing, not planting - Yianni is the one torquing Zain over. Someone made a joke about people who think you can tell something from their eyes but, man... you can tell by Zain's eyes that he knows he's getting tossed. That call is almost certainly not reviewable again, though - it just annoys me. 

  16. On 4/30/2019 at 2:32 PM, IronChef said:

    Making Medical Forfeits count as losses will negatively affect more than just the wrestler who forfeits. The reason for the rule is to punish people who drop out of tournaments by lowering their seed at the NCAA championships due to the arcane formula they use. Seeding at the NCAA DI tournament is the only effect of this change. The unintended consequence is how it affects everyone else in the bracket. Do we really want a potential national finalist knocked into the consolation because the best guy sprained his ankle at the Southern Scuffle and then dropped out of the B1G tournament with a tweaked knee? The point of seeding is to separate the top guys in the weight. Anything that artificially affects that is a negative. 

    I worry less about seeding than about conference AQ allocations and at-large bids. Both of those are driven by formulas that factor in win% and MFFs would be a killer. It's bad for real injuries, and it's even bad when it's just a coach's choice to bail. As much as I'm sure that it's cool to finish in 3rd place at the Mat-Town Open, if your coach has decided that 4 matches is enough for a day in November, that shouldn't be held against the wrestler when he's told to skip the consolation final.

  • Create New...