Defensive exposures from neutral

[Gantry 1,872]

Can someone give a little more detail on how that is supposed to be scored?  Two specific examples are Reader's chest wraps against Ruth and Steibers failed one against Oliver at the end of his match. 

 

In both cases to me, the defensive guy tried to expose the attacking wrestler.  In both cases it was awarded 4 for the attackers.  In Steiber's case he clearly failed and in Reader's case it looked successful.  I though if you initiate the action (even in failure) the attacking wrestler does't get credit for feet to back.  But I must be wrong on it...  and I have no idea why Reader's wasn't two for him, or at last 2 & 2. 

 

Can someone enlighten this idiot?  Thanks...

Edited November 8, 2015 by Gantry

[GranbyTroll 452]

I thought Streeb vs JO should have been 2 for JO . JO shoots, Streeb attempts a high flyer/ elevator / whatever, JO stops the throw and ends up on top. Clearly a counter to the throw for 2

 

I'll have to re-watch the Reader match, but I remember thinking it should have been 2&2 at least, maybe 4&2

[ShortAmplitude 15]

I thought Streeb vs JO should have been 2 for JO . JO shoots, Streeb attempts a high flyer/ elevator / whatever, JO stops the throw and ends up on top. Clearly a counter to the throw for 2

 

I'll have to re-watch the Reader match, but I remember thinking it should have been 2&2 at least, maybe 4&2

I agreed on Steiber/JO...but I thought Reader got an exposure after the four for Ruth.  But since Ruth finished on top, it would be 4-2-1. 

[sbdude 16]

I may be wrong here, but I thought they had changed an interpretation in order to reward offense. If someone takes a shot that they complete, even if the opponent tries a chest wrap, etc. counter it will not score as long as the action is continuous.  Pretty much no more 2-2 scores, only the one initiating the original action will score.

 

Again I may be wrong but thought I read that somewhere.  Also I have not seen either of the above mentioned matches so can not speak directly to them.

[LJB 2,093]

this summer the rule was the offensive action had to be stopped first, then another action commited by the "defensive" wrestler... not sure if this applies to the above situations as i didn't watch any of the farrel... work and national youth tourney took precedent...

[GranbyTroll 452]

Just rewatched the Reader v Ruth match from this weekend:

 

Ruth shoots an outside double, stays on knees. While Ruth attempts to drive up, Reader secures a chest lock and Ruth's right  hand slips off the double, left hand stays on the single-leg leg. Reader takes the chest wrap on top of Ruth's head (not sure I'd ever seen that before) and rolls him through. During the roll, Ruth locks his hands  on the single, comes up on top. It all happens pretty fast, but IMO Reader stops Ruth's shot, and initiate's his own chest wrap attack. 

 

The ref scores the action 4-0 Ruth, it's confirmed. 

 

1) Even if Ruth gets all the points in this situation, they're clearly on their knees should be 2-0

2) Ruth doesn't hold onto his grip of the double, but halfway through locks onto a single. Isn't letting go of the legs all that Reader needs to score? IMO 2-2

[GranbyTroll 452]

this summer the rule was the offensive action had to be stopped first, then another action commited by the "defensive" wrestler... not sure if this applies to the above situations as i didn't watch any of the farrel... work and national youth tourney took precedent...

 

Is there a rule clarification, illustration, video etc. for this? I've heard a few different things: "you have to stop the attacker's motion," "the attacker has to let go of the legs"

[GoNotQuietly 1,168]

I may be wrong here, but I thought they had changed an interpretation in order to reward offense. If someone takes a shot that they complete, even if the opponent tries a chest wrap, etc. counter it will not score as long as the action is continuous.  Pretty much no more 2-2 scores, only the one initiating the original action will score.

 

Again I may be wrong but thought I read that somewhere.  Also I have not seen either of the above mentioned matches so can not speak directly to them.

 

 

This was definitely what they were advocating when the rule changes came out, from the multiple rules clinics and conversations with refs that I had.  They don't want to try to interpret who's action it was at all; once the initial attack happens, that wrestler is getting the points unless they are clearly stopped and redirected.

 

GranbyTroll, I think it was explicitly stated in a UWW video or pamphlet, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edited November 9, 2015 by GoNotQuietly

[ColumbusBuckeyes 30]

Seems to me that more wrestlers should be bailing out and giving up the two instead of attempting a chest roll. In the case of the Mongolian vs. Burroughs at Worlds I didn't really blame him because it could have been his best position to put up points against someone elite. But for the most part it seems this is going to result in a four point move for the shooter almost every time. Can't just complete the motion of the double leg and roll through it.

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,047]

that rule interpretation would explain this sequence from Novachkov and Ramonov in Vegas

 

https://youtu.be/2noUu6PazeA?t=5m37s

 

huge game point swing. Novachkov went from up 7-5 to down 7-5.

[armspin 257]

What SBdude said.

 

A very situation specific rule tweak... If you shoot a double and maintain control during the takedown (ie hold on to the legs and end up on top) the points go to attacker only if both expose. If defensive guy stops the shot, then hits a counter throw, he still gets points.

 

Of course there's a ton of gray area here (ie Burroughs vs Mongolia world final).