Jump to content
manyak

Lebedev Controversial Matches 2016 Nationals

Recommended Posts

Finals:

 

 

The match that caused Dagestan and Chechenya to go home:

 

 

Musukaev wrestles for Dagestan but is from Kabardino-Balkaria (he is a Balkar).. interesting that Kabardino-Balkaria did not send their wrestlers home (they are receiving flak for this).. Ossetia didn't send their wrestlers home either in protest but they are the most culturally distinct of the North Caucasus people (unless you count Kalmyks) since they are an Iranic people who are mostly Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like all the Dagestani team weighed in and got draws for 61 and 86. we'll see if they all take the mat. only the Chchens are absent. Goigereev got a draw for 61 but I was told he is a Chechen who wrestles for the Dagestan team. 

they do weigh in when was fighting between Lebedev and Musukaev 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-1 Musukaev and 2-1 Bogomoev, that was ridiculous. Boltukaev is going home as well it seems. One match and all that expectation goes downhill for Russian Nationals.

 

I said in twitter on December 25, 2015: "I just hope Musukaev give him a beating that even the judges can't robbe him."

 

Well, he didn't give Lebedev a beating and he was robbed.

 

When lebedev won the 2010 and 2011 worlds does anyone remember if any of those matches were controversial

 

I would gladly welcome a review of those world championships.

Edited by Axe_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to the shot clock, everything I know about passivity with international wrestling seems to be thrown out the window. It's not about shots, but about control of the center. Prior to the passivity being offered (and confirmed), Lebedev backs towards the zone on two occasions while the official on the mat is asking for blue. 

 

This flies in the face of every explanation I've been given, and I've had to explain the passivity thing more as a broadcaster more times than I can count. 

 

Lebedev's final passivity point against Musukaev was also a situation where Lebedev appeared to be passive (as noted above) but called differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to the shot clock, everything I know about passivity with international wrestling seems to be thrown out the window. It's not about shots, but about control of the center. Prior to the passivity being offered (and confirmed), Lebedev backs towards the zone on two occasions while the official on the mat is asking for blue. 

 

This flies in the face of every explanation I've been given, and I've had to explain the passivity thing more as a broadcaster more times than I can count. 

 

Lebedev's final passivity point against Musukaev was also a situation where Lebedev appeared to be passive (as noted above) but called differently. 

 

It's about the shots ("real" shots), give it a read: http://board.themat.com/index.php?/topic/12297-prime-b-saitiev-vs-prime-burroughs-who-wins/page-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how the rules are written and I'm relatively decent at being able to explain them to mass audiences. When wrestlers' backs are to the zone and not in the center, they're going to get warned for passivity. That's been an undeniable fact. Someone could make 50 legit attacks, but if they're feet and back are to the zone, they're not going to get a passivity call when the other athlete is in the center of the mat. 

 

One of those things I don't particularly like about international rules, but thankfully, it's one of the few left that are troublesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how the rules are written and I'm relatively decent at being able to explain them to mass audiences. When wrestlers' backs are to the zone and not in the center, they're going to get warned for passivity. That's been an undeniable fact. Someone could make 50 legit attacks, but if they're feet and back are to the zone, they're not going to get a passivity call when the other athlete is in the center of the mat. 

 

One of those things I don't particularly like about international rules, but thankfully, it's one of the few left that are troublesome. 

 

Have you read what I post? Please, go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read what I post? Please, go there.

I read that series of posts.  Based on the international wrestling that you've seen, do you think that referees consistently call passivity based on how many real attacks they see?

 

At this point, when I watch freestyle matches, I have no confidence in my ability to predict when passivity will be called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no rhyme or reason to how passive are called by style or location. Free or greco, domestic or international it's a crap shoot at best. Most of the time the whistle picks red or blue then it's monkey see monkey do for the judge and chair.

Edited by gutfirst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axe,

I read your posts. I appreciate your input. They aren't off base, but they're also not as cut and dry. I've been having to explain rules en masse for well over a decade to viewers in arenas and on webstreams. I've had meetings with numerous officials over the past 20 years to keep myself abreast of the rules and what they mean. I'll stand by my present understanding of passivity and how it is called. I routinely discuss rules with Olympic-level officials to make sure I can do my job to the best of my ability. 

 

We can disagree on the merits and styles of those passivity calls. I'm able to relay my knowledge because I'm asking the right people the right questions. This is why I found the passivity to be confusing to me in the Lebedev match because having covered 9 World Championships and soon to be two Olympic Games, I have to know this stuff a little more than the general fan does. I'm not trying to "big time" you with this, rather explaining where my explanations originate -- the officials themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They definitely didn't call him for not controlling the center, because he was literally inside the center circle from the time he tied the match to the time they called him for passive.  It looks like they called him passive for a) clamming up in the collar tie to avoid action and b) retreating/circling out of Lebedev's snap downs.  I'm not saying that is the correct call, at all, but it visibly bothered the ref when those things happened, and he was definitely interpreting any disengagement or cling from Mus as passive, even if lebedev wasn't advancing or attacking at all. I agree with Jason, this is not how the top level officials have described passive recently, at all.  That said, I think the two point quadpod being upheld is a worse call, and that the pushout for Mus should have been continuous action for 2pts on the flipside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axe,

I read your posts. I appreciate your input. They aren't off base, but they're also not as cut and dry. I've been having to explain rules en masse for well over a decade to viewers in arenas and on webstreams. I've had meetings with numerous officials over the past 20 years to keep myself abreast of the rules and what they mean. I'll stand by my present understanding of passivity and how it is called. I routinely discuss rules with Olympic-level officials to make sure I can do my job to the best of my ability.

 

We can disagree on the merits and styles of those passivity calls. I'm able to relay my knowledge because I'm asking the right people the right questions. This is why I found the passivity to be confusing to me in the Lebedev match because having covered 9 World Championships and soon to be two Olympic Games, I have to know this stuff a little more than the general fan does. I'm not trying to "big time" you with this, rather explaining where my explanations originate -- the officials themselves.

Well, we agree on disagree then, having received the same response from the UWW technical comission vice-president and an official who will be at the Olympics shows that controlling the center of the mat is secondary, however if you are receiving another kind of response from respectable officials like you said, then we have a big problem on how the rules are being applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axe,

I read your posts. I appreciate your input. They aren't off base, but they're also not as cut and dry. I've been having to explain rules en masse for well over a decade to viewers in arenas and on webstreams. I've had meetings with numerous officials over the past 20 years to keep myself abreast of the rules and what they mean. I'll stand by my present understanding of passivity and how it is called. I routinely discuss rules with Olympic-level officials to make sure I can do my job to the best of my ability. 

 

We can disagree on the merits and styles of those passivity calls. I'm able to relay my knowledge because I'm asking the right people the right questions. This is why I found the passivity to be confusing to me in the Lebedev match because having covered 9 World Championships and soon to be two Olympic Games, I have to know this stuff a little more than the general fan does. I'm not trying to "big time" you with this, rather explaining where my explanations originate -- the officials themselves. 

Jason:

 

Out of curiosity, do you find yourself consistently able to anticipate when passivity will be called?  There is a difference between being able to anticipate a call and being able to justify/explain/understand a call after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After calling international matches with passivity since the 2013 rule change, I feel I could correctly anticipate a passivity call the vast majority of the time. You would often hear me question the motions of the official when I would see "red" in the center defending (not blocking, but defending) and "red" being called passive. I'd honestly put my acumen in being able to anticipate a passive call at about 75 percent. I might be overstating my own knowledge, but I've called a lot of international matches, not just finals, but entire week's worth of championships at a time. 

 

I might not be a true expert on officiating, but I do acknowledge the difference between true attempts, true attacks and feigning action. You'll often hear me explain how the wrestlers need to "look busy" on top in par terre and while in the center of the mat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After calling international matches with passivity since the 2013 rule change, I feel I could correctly anticipate a passivity call the vast majority of the time. You would often hear me question the motions of the official when I would see "red" in the center defending (not blocking, but defending) and "red" being called passive. I'd honestly put my acumen in being able to anticipate a passive call at about 75 percent. I might be overstating my own knowledge, but I've called a lot of international matches, not just finals, but entire week's worth of championships at a time. 

 

I might not be a true expert on officiating, but I do acknowledge the difference between true attempts, true attacks and feigning action. You'll often hear me explain how the wrestlers need to "look busy" on top in par terre and while in the center of the mat. 

 

I totally agree with your earlier point that we essentially have to block anything we knew about passivity before out of our minds.  We also have to get whatever we've argued from a folkstyle standpoint regarding stalling out of our minds.  If we can do those 2 things, I truly believe the past 2 years at world-level and national events you can almost always predict when passivity is coming in both free and greco.  

 

(I know you know these things below, Jason...general thoughts for all)

 

If we can set aside even our own interpretations of the rules and expect these general rules of thumb, we'll start to see a rhythm to when passivity is called and when it's not:

 

1. The general principle is "rewarding aggression"--not necessarily penalizing stalling.  In other words, you see the less aggressive guy penalized--whether he was defending the center or feigning a couple shots or not.  If the other guy was a bit more active, the less active guy will get called as a reward to the aggressor (Lebedev doing snap downs trumps Musukaev only defending position...I said on another thread, the atrocity was the reviewed call, not the passivity at the end...the passivity calls felt very in-rhythm to what has become the norm). 

 

2. If there's no scoring for a little bit, someone will always get hit.  Stop trying to figure out if guys are doing enough.  Someone WILL get hit as a reward to the aggressor.  If there's no scoring by about 2 minutes in, someone WILL go on the clock by having already been hit twice, virtually regardless of the amount of total action.  No scoring means a passivity call.  Period.

 

3. If there's no scoring and aggression is relatively even, the guy who didn't get popped the first time will get popped the second time.  The rhythm is this in a match with no scoring: about a minute in, one guy is hit...30 seconds later the other...30 seconds later the currently less aggressive guy goes on the clock.  I'm slightly oversimplifying, but not much.

 

4. Late in a match, if a guy got hit with about a minute left or slightly less and can't disguise his running, he's in serious danger of getting hit for "fleeing the hold" during the last 30 seconds since he can't get put on the clock again but he has a recent caution (Nahshon Garrett).

 

5. Late in a match, if you can get to about 30 seconds and haven't been hit since the most recent scoring sequence, you can get away with almost anything...especially the last 15 seconds (J'Den Cox).  Again, it's very predictable that they won't call it again if you don't have the preceding caution to accompany it.  People wanted to argue and argue about Garrett's running vs. Cox's running--it had nothing to do with the action and everything to do with previous caution and elapsed time.  Both were highly predictable based on the rhythm of how it's called now.

 

6. One more thing that's a bit confusing for the US mind to grasp: arm ties are viewed as aggression because they're the standard precursor to so much international offense.  Cox, for example, never works arm ties.  He already found out in his one international tournament that if his opponent defends the center and works 3 or 4 arm ties that he yanks loose, those trump his 2 unsuccessful shots that didn't result in scrambles.  Our folkstyle/shot-oriented minds tell us we're being robbed.  But arm ties are such good offense for all types of attacks in freestyle that they're rewarded in the battle to show you're the most aggressive.

Edited by maligned

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...

×
×
  • Create New...