Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
newyorkwrestler

ref inconsistency

Recommended Posts

Wow, they screwed big time with Garrett, here is the excerpt from the rulebook:

 

If there are less than 30 seconds remaining in a Freestyle bout and the refereeing body agrees unanimously that one of the wrestlers is passive, they may issue 1 point for fleeing-the-hold. Should this point determine the winner of the match, the other wrestler may request a challenge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we watched the same match, Vak.  I was at the event and thought it was the worst freestyle call I had ever seen.  After returning and watching the match again, it's worse than I thought.  You claim Garrett "ran for at least a minute".  I invite you to watch the video again.  (I'll link it below.).  With minute 50 seconds to go, Garrett takes a decent shot (Ramos defended) and then 3 seconds later gets put on the clock.  Ramos had done little more than hand fight up to that point.  With minute 31 seconds to go, Garrett gets a single but once again Ramos defends it well.  With minute 15 seconds left, Ramos gets single and quick TD call (I'm not sure Ramos had control).  In the last minute, Garrett was probably as aggressive as Ramos was.  Garrett took a shot at a double with 50 seconds left.  Ramos defended it well.  They continued to hand fight for another 25 seconds.  Garrett was never close to the outer circle, had one foot inside the inner circle for much of the handfighting. Garrett circled back to the center a few times. At 23 seconds left, Ramos takes his first legitimate shot in nearly a minute.  Garrett gets warned.  Garrett spends the next 10 seconds hand fighting with Ramos, with his foot inside the inner circle for much of that time, before the ref awards Ramos the last point.  That was an awful call.  That ref should never officiate an OTT match again.  Ramos will never get a call like that again.  The ref stole that match from Garrett.  If Garrett and Ramos wrestle 10 matches, Garrett wins 8 probably.  That ref decided the match.  Just a terrible call.  

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/article/40979-tony-ramos-vs-nahshon-garrett-at-2016-olympic-trials

 

 

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. I don't want to keep rehashing this over and over again, but I went and rewatched it AGAIN just for you.

 

Lets start with the passivity call that put Garrett on the clock.  You can see the referee call it and at least one blue paddle confirming it before the Garrett shot.  Erego, the ref had already made the call, and was waiting on confirmation.  Garrett shot after the call had been made.

 

Now, the TD where you somehow wonder if Ramos had control.  The ref calls them back to their feet with Garrett flat on his belly and Ramos on top of him with both arms around him  How much more taken down do you want him to be?

 

Now, after that TD, the clock starts again at around 1:14 left.  From there, Garrett backs away almost exclusively.  He takes one countershot.  As I have already argued here, passivity isn't the same as stalling.  Taking shots doesn't equal "Not Passive" that's why Americans are always so confused when they are called for it at International competitions.  Controlling the center of the mat is far more important, and that's exactly what Ramos was doing.  The ref warns Garrett audibly at :52 left, Warns him again at :40 seconds, warns him AGAIN at :38 seconds when he backs up again, warns him AGAIN at :29 seconds while Shane Sparks literally is telling he needs to be careful and stop backing up, then the ref stops the match to give him an official warning at :23 seconds, after which he continues to back up until finally getting the caution and 1 at 14 seconds.  The ref gave Garrett 5 warnings and he continued to do the same thing and he got hit.  If the ref tells you to stop doing what you're doing FIVE TIMES (that we could see; he does go off camera for a bit, so he could be warning him there, too), and you keep doing it, then you can't be shocked you get hit with the call.

 

 

Regardless, it wasn't unanimous. For it to be called in the last 30 seconds of a period, it has to be unanimous.

 

This appears to be a valid point, one of the matside officials clearly white paddled it.  However, nobody seemed to be aware it was the rule that it had to be unanimous, including the white paddling official nor Cornell's coaches.  So we're beyond that at this point.  But this is the only valid argument against the call.

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This appears to be a valid point, one of the matside officials clearly white paddled it.  However, nobody seemed to be aware it was the rule that it had to be unanimous, including the white paddling official nor Cornell's coaches.  So we're beyond that at this point.  But this is the only valid argument against the call.

 

This is a valid point indeed. They gave Ramos one point when they could not do it, they were against the rules, simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a valid point indeed. They gave Ramos one point when they could not do it, they were against the rules, simple as that.

 

Well, it's not that they couldn't do it.  I mean, they did.  The ref who white paddled it didn't say anything, so even he didn't know the rule.  Sadly, rules get messed up all the time.  However, I have already indicated why the call itself was a valid call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not that they couldn't do it.  I mean, they did.  The ref who white paddled it didn't say anything, so even he didn't know the rule.  Sadly, rules get messed up all the time.  However, I have already indicated why the call itself was a valid call.

 

What I meant is that they couldn't do it if they were following the rules, what they should do 100% of the time. They didn't so they screw it up. The call could be valid, but that doesn't matter when in fact one of the officials white paddled it, shame on them on not knowing the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is that they couldn't do it if they were following the rules, what they should do 100% of the time. They didn't so they screw it up. The call could be valid, but that doesn't matter when in fact one of the officials white paddled it, shame on them on not knowing the rules.

 

I agree in principle, so I can leave this here.  It should have been overruled because it wasn't unanimous.  It wasn't.  The call itself was a valid application of the rule excepting the unanimity required to make the call.  He was warned 5 times before he lost the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here it is in print although, even at the Pan-Am Championships and Olympic Qualifier, it only took two out of the three referees to make that call.  So, it is in print but in common practice different than the print.  I would count on the common practice over print every time.

 

Article 48 –Enforcement of Passivity (Freestyle and Greco Roman) Procedure for enforcement of penalties for inactivity in Freestyle wrestling The role of the referees, among other vital duties, should be to evaluate and distinguish what is real action versus a feigned attempt to waste time.

a. Anytime the refereeing body agrees a wrestler is blocking, interlocking fingers, thwarting his opponent and/or generally avoiding wrestling: the mat referee signals to the wrestler “Caution blue or red”. First offence, the action is stopped briefly to give a verbal warning: “Attention”. Second offence: the action is stopped briefly to designate the guilty wrestler and a 30-second mandatory-score period begins. The referee on the mat shall not interrupt the bout in the midst of a viable action to either start or finish an activity period. A light corresponding to the wrestler at fault is lighted. This notifies the wrestlers, coaches and spectators an “activity period” has begun. Should either wrestler score in the 30 seconds penalty session, no penalty point is awarded, only the corresponding technical point or points. If neither wrestlers scores, the opponent of the designated passive-wrestler is awarded a technical point and the passive wrestlers receives a caution (O).

b. If after 2:00 minutes into the first period neither wrestler has scored, the referees must mandatory designate one of the wrestler as inactive (the same procedure described above is administered).

c. When there is less than 30 seconds remaining in either period, if all three of the refereeing body agree a wrestler is evading and/or blocking his opponent, then his/her opponent is awarded a point (i.e fleeing the hold). This situation can be challenged to the “Jury of Appeal”.

d. If a wrestler initiates his action some seconds before minute 2:00 with a 0:0 score or some seconds before the end of the activity period, the referee will not interrupt the bout and will allow the wrestler to finish the action. If the action ends with points, the bout will continue without any interruption. If the action doesn’t end with points, the referee will stop the bout and will apply the right procedure.

 

Article 50 – Fleeing a Hold Fleeing a hold occurs when the defending wrestler openly refuses contact in order to prevent his opponent from executing or initiating a hold. These situations arise in both the standing and "parterre" positions. They may occur in the central wrestling area or from the central wrestling area to the orange zone. Fleeing a hold shall be penalised in the same way as fleeing the mat, that is:

Fleeing the hold in “parterre” wrestling:

- 1 caution against the wrestler at fault (0)

- 1 point in FS and 2 points in GR to the opponent

- Restart in “par terre” position

 

Fleeing the hold in standing wrestling:

- 1 caution against the wrestler at fault (0)

- 1 point in FS and 2 points in GR to the opponent

- Restart in standing position

 

.........

 

The standing position consisting of voluntarily maintain the opponent to a distance or to break contact will penalize the faulty wrestler of 1 caution and 1 point will be attributed to his opponent, just like for the hold escape.

Edited by neutralposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramos took one legitimate attempt at an attack all match and yet Garrett got put on the clock twice.

 

Only in Iowa is the hands down and block style considered offense.

In Iowa they call that "Passive Aggression".  (And in Jersey we call it "Defensive Driving").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. I don't want to keep rehashing this over and over again, but I went and rewatched it AGAIN just for you.

 

Lets start with the passivity call that put Garrett on the clock.  You can see the referee call it and at least one blue paddle confirming it before the Garrett shot.  Erego, the ref had already made the call, and was waiting on confirmation.  Garrett shot after the call had been made.

 

Now, the TD where you somehow wonder if Ramos had control.  The ref calls them back to their feet with Garrett flat on his belly and Ramos on top of him with both arms around him  How much more taken down do you want him to be?

 

Now, after that TD, the clock starts again at around 1:14 left.  From there, Garrett backs away almost exclusively.  He takes one countershot.  As I have already argued here, passivity isn't the same as stalling.  Taking shots doesn't equal "Not Passive" that's why Americans are always so confused when they are called for it at International competitions.  Controlling the center of the mat is far more important, and that's exactly what Ramos was doing.  The ref warns Garrett audibly at :52 left, Warns him again at :40 seconds, warns him AGAIN at :38 seconds when he backs up again, warns him AGAIN at :29 seconds while Shane Sparks literally is telling he needs to be careful and stop backing up, then the ref stops the match to give him an official warning at :23 seconds, after which he continues to back up until finally getting the caution and 1 at 14 seconds.  The ref gave Garrett 5 warnings and he continued to do the same thing and he got hit.  If the ref tells you to stop doing what you're doing FIVE TIMES (that we could see; he does go off camera for a bit, so he could be warning him there, too), and you keep doing it, then you can't be shocked you get hit with the call.

 

 

 

This appears to be a valid point, one of the matside officials clearly white paddled it.  However, nobody seemed to be aware it was the rule that it had to be unanimous, including the white paddling official nor Cornell's coaches.  So we're beyond that at this point.  But this is the only valid argument against the call.

I don't even know what you're watching,Vak.  If you showed that match to 10 Russians (ie. no Iowa love or hate), I'm betting all 10 would say that match was officiated improperly on multiple occasions.  Rewatching Ramos' takedown, he gets Garrett's leg up, sweeps the other leg, but never gains control of other leg or hips while holding Garrett's left leg below the knee.  The ref awards the TD while Garrett is posted on both hands and feet.  Ref blows whistle and Garrett collapses.  There was no TD (despite what the official and Shane Sparks say) at the time of the whistle.  I do see the official gesturing to Garrett but cannot hear what he's saying.  If he's warning him for passivity then the official has no idea what passivity is.  Garrett is hand fighting with Ramos while circling.  When he awards the final point, Garrett is literally standing in the center circle while Ramos is outside.  Yet, people say "controlling the center of the mat" is more important than executing offensive moves.  Garrett was the more aggressive wrestler in that match.  I'm not sure if the official was influenced by the partisan crowd or simply wanted Ramos to win, but that was an awful call.  I've watched 1000s of freestyle matches and I've never seen passivity called as it was in that match.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pico should be representing the US in the Olympics.  In my eyes, he secured his Olympic spot after his 2nd match. He was the better wrestler.  The refs failure to him the 2 back exposures he earned, as well as, the quick whistle to give up another 2 pts to Molinaro as he was walking back to the middle was inexcusable in a match of such magnitude to determine the US Olympian.   

 

Though young, he has been brought along to peak for the Olympics with the outstanding coaching and training regimen of his coach Valentin Kalika.   I believe in Pico! If the US is to be a wrestling power, they need to invest long term in their world class young phenoms like Pico, Snyder and others.  I hope we see him wrestle in the summer games and many more after that.

 

The quick whistle and subsequent shot/takedown was a joke. Just didn't look right IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramos took maybe one legitimate shot the whole match while Garrett took upwards of six. Who was passive? 

Don't you know, staying in the center and not shooting is active wrestling, while moving and actually attempting takedowns is inactive wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...