Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Savage74 last won the day on August 3 2019

Savage74 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sure they do. Even the highest level athletes need coaching. It needs to be someone they trust absolutely because when you are that good, you are not going to change anything unless you have incredible trust. Sometimes, it might just be the training schedule. I knew guys who had to be pulled back from over training. The guy I had absolute trust in had me do extra workouts, not for physically conditioning purposes but because I had to mentally believe I was in good enough shape to go really hard for 7 minutes. At the Div. 1 and international levels, every detail makes a difference and all the athletes need their guy to help guide them. They see things the athletes don't. Nobody thought Michael Phelps was going to drown in the pool but he still had a coach that he trusted to guide his training, preparation and mindset. I am not sure why you have such hatred toward Cornell?
  2. Exactly! I guess my message wasn't clear enough but that was a rhetorical question (without a question mark, I know). Something for people who are against this to think about and try to see the positive side for different schools out there.
  3. Not sure why people are upset about this. It is great for the schools to be able to claim their AAs. Especially at a vulnerable time for our sport. And even more so for some programs that need some extra coverage. we all know there are some guys who sneak into a top seed because of a weaker schedule. These generally come from schools that might be at risk given the current circumstances. Not saying any of these guys are that, just a general observation. Think about Campbell. Just lost their coaching staff. Now would be an easier time to drop the program and blame the virus. Maybe having AAs prevents that. Think about Rider & Utah Valley. Maybe these schools weren’t at risk but national tournament success hasn’t been great as of late. How might this help recruiting at schools like Purdue and Michigan State that are trying to catch up with others in a tough conference. the guys who worked hard all year and got seeded got named All-Americans. I promise you, the wrestlers dont get much satisfaction, if any, from it but I truly hope they do. I think they should feel proud of the season they had. in the grand scheme of life, what is accomplished at the highest levels is not as important as getting there. It is to them personally but not out in the real world. for those that know wrestling, being an AA or NC is super impressive but for those that don’t know the sport, being a college wrestler makes you a badass, hard working person. Even if you were a backup with a losing record. wrestling, and sports in general, teach us so many valuable lessons. I think all former wrestlers learned the lesson of working your ass off, living right and still not reaching your goals. But these guys are learning that you can do all the right things and not even get the opportunity to prove yourself. Sometimes life just isn’t fair. It may be the most powerful lesson these wrestlers, and all the athletes across the different sports, will ever learn from athletics. Dont hate on the naming of All Americans. Not an ideal situation because the world is not ideal right now. so many more important things to worry about! hope everyone stays safe out there and congrats to the 2020 All-Americans.
  4. I can't tell if you are just stating an opinion or if you believe them to be evil for taking this approach. If the former, I agree. If that latter, every coach should/would do the same thing.
  5. I really do not understand the extreme hatred for Koll by some people, or Cael Sanderson. Both have done amazing things as wrestlers and coaches. Both have found a level of success never before seen by their programs. Both have positively impacted more young men than most of us could ever dream of. This current situation really comes down to both coaches did what they felt was necessary to protect their wrestlers. The call was made on the mat. The correct scoring is debatable but the call was made and the score reflected that on the scoreboard. Should the score have changed? I have yet to see a definitive answer on whether or not 2-2 was even allowed. If it wasn't, a protocol is to be followed, which wasn't. Regardless, there is a rule in place for a challenge, the rule wasn't followed. All of these procedures and rules are put in place to make sure that the correct scoring occurs and the wrestlers know the score during the match. Cael decided to challenge the score on the scoreboard at the end of the match. I guess he didn't like the outcome and chose to try and get it changed, which I do not blame him for at all! Due to a complete disregard for the rules and procedures clearly outlined in the rule book (not the guideline book as some would suggest), he did get the outcome changed. At this point, Koll decided to follow the procedures in place to protect his wrestler because he did not like the how the outcome of the match was changed after the fact. So he followed the procedure and got the match thrown out. Really, the match should have been awarded to Yianni but I suppose a compromise was reached. The claim is being made that Zain is the better wrestler. Sure, you can argue that but it is not material fact. It also would not be a fact to say Yianni is a better wrestler than Zain. Yianni is not yet the world team rep. He has to win 2 matches in a row to earn that spot. This process just got him the right to try and win the spot, which he should have considering the miserable handling of match 2. If Zain is clearly the better wrestler, he will know doubt win at least 1 of the 2 matches. Especially since they seem to go back and forth with adjustments and Yianni dominated the last match. This process is still heavily to Zain's advantage. If Zain wins the first match, he is the rep. If Yianni wins the first match, they will wrestle again. If Zain wins the 2nd match, you will hear complaints that the first match should have been the deciding factor and Yianni got screwed. Not from me, but it will get said. If Yianni wins the 2nd match, it will be a very clear indication of who the better wrestler is right now. Maybe he is just better, maybe the injury is the reason or any other number of factors, but right now it should be a clear indication. Yianni will have won the last 3 matches (Dogu and 2 in a row) which could be argued 4 (2nd match at WTT). People will argue that Zain got screwed. Either way, this at least removes SOME of the doubt as to who should be representing USA. BUT, it will not stop the bickering. I just wish people would stop attacking Koll or Cael for doing their job as Coaches. They are both near top of the best coaches list (Cael is AT the top & Koll hasn't won a title, I know). Both of them do amazing things for their wrestlers, their programs and the sport of wrestling. This situation changes none of that! I have strong connections to all parties involved (Penn State, Cornell, Zain & Yianni). I am not rooting for either wrestler to win or lose. Both are great young men from great families, members of great programs and led by great coaches. I just want to see a process that is as fair as it can be. Match 2 at the WTT was extremely unfair to Yianni and I would say the exact same thing if the roles were reversed. This outcome is about as fair a compromise as one could imagine.
  6. at least Deringer doesn’t have to peak twice in a short period time. on the other hand, now Dake has that problem... thanks a lot Koll/Dake/Cornell
  7. I guess the rules and process were not followed... at least we get to see these 2 scrap it out at least 1 more time... that’s a win for all of us fans of good wrestling!
  8. You continue to speculate that the same end result would have occurred. We don’t KNOW that to be true. If Tucci says, “you need to have a conference because you didn’t agree” which is what should have happened prior to him reviewing the video. Lets say they score it 2 for either wrestler, but not both. A challenge brick is put out there and it goes to the delegate. Does he decide to override the subjective ruling that was agreed upon by 2 out of 3 officials? Maybe what if all 3 officials decide during the conference that 2-2 makes the most sense. Challenge brick comes in, does Tucci overuse all 3 other officials? Maybe the fact is, he overstepped his role by accepting the challenge brick. There are a number of “what if’s” but in the end, we don’t know for sure what would have happened if the challenge brick was thrown immediately as it is supposed to by rule. We don’t know how Zain and Yianni wrestle differently. We don’t know if the match gets stopped or not. We don’t know if a conference is held. We don’t know what the end result would have been if the rules and process were followed. That is the problem.
  9. Everybody knows that you didn’t see it that way and, this may sound crazy, but maybe the way you see it is wrong. Maybe the way you see it is right. Others, myself included, think the process was mishandled. If the rules are followed the way they are written, the process was mishandled. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the late brick for what it was, shows how bias you are. It wasn’t thrown earlier because the coaches wanted to see what the end result was before they threw it. It was gamesmanship. Which I don’t blame them for, at all. It just shouldn’t have been allowed. We can get into the what if scenarios but the fact remains, the coaches didn’t throw the brick until it was at least 30 seconds after the score was changed. They didn’t challenge the rule about a conference needing to occur. They challenged a subjective scoring sequence. That should not have been allowed that long after it occurred. Had the brick come in immediately and the officials decided not to review until the end, so be it. That is the officials discretion. It is not up to the coaches to decide when it makes sense to challenge. Most of the commentary on here has been that the process was mishandled and it was a severe detriment to Yianni. There is a process in place to settle this type of perceived injustice. That process is being followed. I just don’t see why you can’t admit that there is actually some merit to the arbitration process.
  10. This is a very reasonably thought out post and process. My thoughts in response. How long after the score went on the board do you think the coaches (both FLWC and NLWC) and wrestlers (both Yianni and Zain) noticed what the score was? Specifically, do you think it took until the end of the match for NLWC to realize they were losing and the 2-2 should be challenged or do you think they realized that earlier in the match? I think they probably watched all the officials and the scoreboard to see how it was scored immediately. Just my pretty educated guess. You say it is a difficult decision - So? They made the decision not to challenge. That is their right to do so. Coaches have to make difficult decisions all the time. Sometimes they make the right one, sometimes the wrong one and hindsight is always 20/20. So lets say they throw the brick within 10 seconds of the score going on the board. I am pretty sure they knew they might want to challenge 1 second after seeing the score go on the board but lets just say it takes them 10 to find the brick or whatever. So now we have 0:23 left and the brick is on the mat. The mat chairman would see it immediately and then it is his judgement call as to if and/or when to interrupt the match. That is his job and what he gets paid for. If he chooses to interrupt at 0:19, it gets reviewed and perhaps the ruling is it was Zain's points and now Yianni is down by 2. He has 0:19 knowing he is losing the match. Does he? who knows. I know i have scored to win in the last 0:19 of a match numerous times. I have also been scored on in the last 0:19 of a match to lose. We see it happen all the time. If the mat chairman chooses not to interrupt, then it becomes a judgement call by the official, by the rules and no arbitration is needed. Sure, the score may have changed after the fact but the rules would have been followed. Of course, maybe Yianni sees the brick and knows the outcome could be in question and from one of his strongest positions, he works a little differently to score rather than run out the clock while winning. Is he able to? Who knows. At least the rules would have been followed and the outcome could not have been challenged. The coaches knew the outcome of that scramble well before the end of the match and CHOSE not to challenge until they saw it was needed to win. That is not immediate and it is against the rules and the spirit of the rules. To make this debate even more fun: What if they lose this arbitration hearing because the challenge shouldn't have been accepted but then NLWC wants to appeal because there was never an officials conference on the score like the rule book says? This is why I think the outcome of the arbitration SHOULD be one of two possible scenarios: 1. Match 2 is thrown out because the challenge should not have been accepted which would make Yianni the winner but a conference should have been held by the officials which would have allowed for the challenge that made Zain the winner. Therefore, neither is the winner and Zain is up 1 match to 0. Yianni needs to win 2 in a row. 2. The purpose of the best of 3 series is twofold. Make sure the best guy is the representative by: not allowing for 1 fluke win and the guy who can recover in a relatively short period of time against top notch opponents similar to how the world championships are. For this reason they determine the whole series needs to start from scratch and we are in a true best of 3 series on a single day. I think either is a fine representative but selfishly, I just want to see them wrestle each other more!!
  11. I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule. what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do. It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. I still think it comes down to gamesmanship. Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario. we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him. we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds. Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.
  12. After reading the 5 second “rule” that way, I can see how that is not a rule during regulation. Not sure I agree with it but I can see the interpretation. what is the interpretation of the rule that says no score can be challenged after the final whistle unless the score is posted after the whistle or immediately prior to. That seems to be a pretty hard and fast rule. Probably the rule they put in place to avoid this exact scenario: Coach thinks he wants to challenge but decides to wait it out to see how the match ends and then only challenge if needed. Unless one interprets that 45 seconds is immediate and the rule about challenging after the whistle is not a rule... it is a fairly easy case to determine. the challenge should have been denied, plain and simple.
  13. The thing is, once the score went on the scoreboard and there was no challenge within 5 seconds and there was no consultation and the wrestlers were neutral, it was out of the officials hands. If any of those 3 things were not true, your point is valid. The wrestlers were neutral. IF a consultation was required, the match is supposed to be stopped for that to occur. if Penn State wanted to challenge that score, they could have done so in 5 seconds (even 10 seconds and we probably wouldn’t be having this debate) and the officials would have stopped the action since the wrestlers were neutral and the proper score could have been put on the board. since neither of those things occurred, at that point, it is out of the officials hands and the wrestlers are competing based on the score on the board. to clearly go outside the rules and get the score changed after the final whistle seems worse than using the legal means within the rules to challenge it. to be clear, I think the final score was right. I just don’t know if that would have been the final score if the wrestlers knew the score with 30-40 seconds left. That’s why the time limit is placed on challenges. That’s why it is a rule, in the rule book.
  14. I have enjoyed reading this forum for years but never actually posted. Here is my take, and I am a huge fan of both wrestlers: The issue is not that the final score is incorrect or that the procedure that would have occurred the right way did not ultimately end up happening. The issue comes down to timing. The officials did not seem to think a conference was required. There was not a lot of time to see that though because the challenge from Penn State came immediately at the final whistle. Perhaps they would have consulted. I did not hear Penn State, or anyone else, say anything about the officials not agreeing, just that they believed it was scored wrong. The rules state that the Mat Chairman must side with the referee or judge. Does this mean he can't side with both? I would think the answer is no but it is not actually clear. The biggest issue is the timing of the challenge. The rules clearly indicate that the challenge must happen within 5 seconds of the score being posted and cannot be challenged after the final whistle unless the score is posted after the final whistle or the action occurs just before the final whistle. This is the crucial part. Once a challenge is requested they must stop the match once the action is neutral. It does not say the challenge is to wait until the action stops, the officials are supposed to stop the action once they are neutral. If Penn State wanted to challenge, they should have done so sooner and the action would have been stopped since the wrestlers were in neutral. This would have allowed the score to be corrected and the wrestlers would have known what the score was during the final 30-40 seconds of the match. The only reason they did not challenge sooner was because they thought Zain had a chance to score and didn't want to stop the action. This is why it must happen within 5 seconds. It is not fair to Yianni to believe he is winning the whole time and then a challenge that occurs against the clearly written rules (later than 5 seconds AND after the final whistle) changes something that happened almost a minute prior and he loses the match that he wrestled from a winning perspective for the last minute. I have seen it posted that the 5 second rule is more of a guideline. I can accept that to a certain degree but I don't think it means 45 seconds is OK. Especially the last 45 seconds and after the final whistle. In the end, we can argue who should have received the points. that can always be a debate. However, what cannot be argued is that the challenge was granted outside the rules that are clearly written. If I were the arbitrator, I would read the rules and then watch the procedure. I would see that the challenge happened after, not one, but two clearly defined deadlines. Later than 5 seconds and after the final whistle. Right then and there, the ruling should be in Yianni's favor. With that said, I don't think it will go in Yianni's favor. I do think it will open up the rule book to more interpretation though. If these rules are just guidelines, what else is just a guideline?? We complain about the rules not being easy and too much interpretation but then we claim that some of the rules are guidelines and not really rules. Tough to have it both ways. If 5 seconds is too little time, change the rule don't just make it up as you go. If Zain loses the arbitration, he has no one to blame but his coaches for trying to game the system and not challenge right away. Last thing, I feel bad for Zain. He dominated the first match. I think they ultimately got the score right in the 2nd match and I find it unlikely that Yianni would have been able to score on Zain in 30 seconds to win. It should have been a clear cut victory. BUT, his coaches did not follow the rules because they wanted to see if it would matter and it cost Zain some of the public opinion and quite possibly the match/world team.
  • Create New...