Jump to content
Rideonbus

Tom Ryan Sounds Off on Instant Replay

Recommended Posts

During the heavyweight match, Kevin Snyder (Ohio State) was in deep on a shot against No. 10 Youssif Hemida (Maryland). The referee awarded a takedown, and Maryland challenged the call. After video review, the replay official ruled that the hip was not down at the time of the takedown call. Thus, the takedown was taken off the scoreboard, and the match was restarted in the neutral position even though Snyder had clearly established control after the referee had awarded the points. Ohio State's coaches were visibly upset with the call during and following the match.
 
"We are in a state of wrestling that needs serious collaboration among the officials, the coaches and people that use common sense, because with the rules now there is no way an official can manage all the rules there are right now in a split second and what happened tonight is a testament to the problem," Ryan said. "Basically they argued that the ref may have given two a split second early and then we end up riding him, clearly taking him down. They only look at the clip when the two is called, insane. When common sense stops prevailing there is a problem in the world and there's a problem with wrestling right now. So, I am upset about that."

 

 

 
Edited by Rideonbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this issue first came up during regulation in the Yianni-Meredith match. Yianni got the questionable 2 and clearly would have taken him down during same sequence. Wyoming challenged and it was reversed. The subsequent action was erased, from the time the 2 was awarded even though the subsequent action clearly showed Yianni would definitely have gotten the 2 eventually.

 

Yianni got the win in OT but it was very strange.

 

The rule is flawed but the refs followed the correct procedure in the Hemida-Snyder match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why it can suck, but it can be very similar to something happening in football after the whistle is blown. When a ref signals 2 the defensive wrestler usually stops fighting the position and immediately works to his base to work on the escape. Once the takedown is called you have no certainty that the same immediate sequence takes place after if it wasn't called.

 

I understand common sense and you aren't looking at it in a vacuum, but that is how rules are made, and trust me, there are rules I hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why it can suck, but it can be very similar to something happening in football after the whistle is blown. When a ref signals 2 the defensive wrestler usually stops fighting the position and immediately works to his base to work on the escape. Once the takedown is called you have no certainty that the same immediate sequence takes place after if it wasn't called.

I understand common sense and you aren't looking at it in a vacuum, but that is how rules are made, and trust me, there are rules I hate.

Yeah but coaches are going to start using this to their advantage. Anytime the ref awards a takedown a split second too soon the coaches will challenge and win even if the takedown is eminent. I'm not exactly sure the best solution but something needs to be done before NCAAs. I would think having the wrestler continue to wrestle to the next whistle and not conceded the takedown if they think they can challenge it, is the best solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why it can suck, but it can be very similar to something happening in football after the whistle is blown. When a ref signals 2 the defensive wrestler usually stops fighting the position and immediately works to his base to work on the escape. Once the takedown is called you have no certainty that the same immediate sequence takes place after if it wasn't called.

 

I understand common sense and you aren't looking at it in a vacuum, but that is how rules are made, and trust me, there are rules I hate.

That's why most of the time in football refs don't blow the whistle if the play is close.  If there's a questionable fumble, the refs let the play finish, and then rule on whether it is fumble or not.  There should be a similar thing in wrestling where a ref can make a call and allow the action to continue.  After which, the opposing coach can challenge the entire situation and not merely the moment 2 was called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe you actually have to have control instead of these "flash" takedowns. Man the elimination of reaction time was the stupidest thing they could have done to solve a nearly non-existent problem.

Now that I completely agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe you actually have to have control instead of these "flash" takedowns. Man the elimination of reaction time was the stupidest thing they could have done to solve a nearly non-existent problem.

 

Agreed 100%

Not only was it a non-existent problem, it has created a whole bunch more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan is the biggest opportunist in the business.  A pragmatic ideologue to put it more mildly.  Anyone that doesn't think he plays the seed card all the time (more than anyone) is naive.  He doesn't care about duals or fabricating excuses.   Tomassello can easily go tomorrow against Rutgers.  Ryan exudes anxiety.    (Aside:  he is one of those anti-scientific anti-vaxers who, hypocritically, loves to inoculate his own guys against losses early in the season.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan is the biggest opportunist in the business. A pragmatic ideologue to put it more mildly. Anyone that doesn't think he plays the seed card all the time (more than anyone) is naive. He doesn't care about duals or fabricating excuses. Tomassello can easily go tomorrow against Rutgers. Ryan exudes anxiety. (Aside: he is one of those anti-scientific anti-vaxers who, hypocritically, loves to inoculate his own guys against losses early in the season.)

Coach Ryan is also in the Anti-Clinton camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always liked the concept of folkstyle wrestling because of its emphasis on control, mastery, and dominance (CMD) in order to score points.  Whether it was a takedown, riding, reversal, escape, near-fall, or a pin, one has to demonstrate those three proficiencies all at once in order to earn points.  Those exact same skills must be exhibited when one is defending offensive attacks.  Whether offensively or defensively, one or the other wrestler must establish CMD in order to score or prevent scoring.  Not so much anymore, it seems.

 

The recently incorporated “Hand-Touch” takedown rule is contradictory to the whole idea of control, mastery, and dominance, or so it seems to me.

 

The 2017-18 NCAA Wrestling Rule 4, Section 2, Art. 1, defines Match Takedowns:

“A takedown shall be awarded when, from the neutral position, a competitor gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds beyond reaction time.”

 

Contrast that definition with the 1975 rule:   “When, from a neutral position, a contestant gains control and places his opponent's supporting points down on the mat, and held beyond reaction time, while the supporting points of either wrestler are within the wrestling area, he has gained a takedown.”

 

Rule 4, Section 2, Art. 2, defines Hand-Touch Takedown:

To award a takedown, reaction time is not required in instances in which a wrestler has standing neutral control of their opponent and the defending wrestler's hand comes in contact with the mat.

 

So if the defensive man doesn’t touch the mat with his hand, how can his opponent have “standing neutral control?”  Look up the definition of “neutral” and “control.”

 

In order to create leverage, torque, imbalance, or an opportunity to defend, one may have to post a hand for a brief moment to set up his options to counter.  If he posts “beyond reaction time,” then I would submit that points should be awarded. 

 

With this rule, we have all witnessed a wrestler being awarded a takedown when the hand touched briefly, only to lose “control” in a split second after the hand touch, and in reality there was no clear cut control ever demonstrated. The judgment of this standard is totally up to the referee and we know how that can vary.   This is clearly obvious in the 2016-17 rules video when the narrator states “Keep in mind we are not trying to judge whether the calls are correct or incorrect because only the referee on mat makes a determination if control was established and established beyond the reaction time needed.”   One referee’s definition of a takedown is another referee’s definition of no points.  See for yourself.

 

Rule 4, Section 5, Art. 3 defines Two-point Near Fall:

If a criterion for a near fall is met and held uninterrupted for two seconds, two points shall be awarded.  This seems to me to be a closer definition of “beyond reaction time.”  And why wouldn’t this criterion be congruent throughout all scoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why it can suck, but it can be very similar to something happening in football after the whistle is blown. When a ref signals 2 the defensive wrestler usually stops fighting the position and immediately works to his base to work on the escape. Once the takedown is called you have no certainty that the same immediate sequence takes place after if it wasn't called.

 

I understand common sense and you aren't looking at it in a vacuum, but that is how rules are made, and trust me, there are rules I hate.

 

Yeah, I agree with you there.  You can't look at what happens after the takedown is awarded because the situation is entirely different for the defensive wrestler.  Once the 2 is given it is in their best interest to get themselves to a spot where they are relatively safe from getting turned and work from there. A guy being clearly taken down at any point after the 2 is awarded is irrelevant. You see it all the time when two guys are scrambling.  It's 50/50 for a while, then it goes to 51/49 for a split second, somebody gets 2, and the guy on the losing side of the scramble bails to his stomach. 

 

To me, the real issue with instant replay is that it requires refs to overturn their own calls.  Probably no way around that at duals but at (at least) the bigger in season tournaments like Vegas, Reno, Midlands, and Scuffle plus during any postseason events they should have a separate ref who makes the call when it goes to instant replay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but coaches are going to start using this to their advantage. Anytime the ref awards a takedown a split second too soon the coaches will challenge and win even if the takedown is eminent. I'm not exactly sure the best solution but something needs to be done before NCAAs. I would think having the wrestler continue to wrestle to the next whistle and not conceded the takedown if they think they can challenge it, is the best solution

 

I don't think that could work because the entire dynamic changes as soon as a TD is awarded, and not bailing once you've given up two puts you at a huge disadvantage to give up backpoints or a pin.  I think the best, though not ideal, solution is to not award a questionable TD until the action settles and make the challenge be that there was a TD as opposed to awarding it and making the challenge be that there wasn't. That's the Wrestling equivalent of a football ref letting a play continue if he isn't sure and then cleaning it up once the play is clearly finished.

Edited by ThatLogSchuteWasCarrying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan is the biggest opportunist in the business.  A pragmatic ideologue to put it more mildly.  Anyone that doesn't think he plays the seed card all the time (more than anyone) is naive.  He doesn't care about duals or fabricating excuses.   Tomassello can easily go tomorrow against Rutgers.  Ryan exudes anxiety.    (Aside:  he is one of those anti-scientific anti-vaxers who, hypocritically, loves to inoculate his own guys against losses early in the season.)  

 

I could care less about politics of a coach but I do care about the health of kids. Is he seriously an anti-vaxxer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coach Ryan is an enigma.  Drinks the right wing kool aid because of his staunch religious beliefs but decidedly liberal when it comes to the sport of wrestling.  My opinion of course.  

 

DMM's post is nonsense.  Tom Ryan doesn't protect his wrestlers any more or less than other prominent coaches.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules have gotten so stupid the refs do not know when to call a takedown, call stalling,backing out of bounds, call back points or pins. Also picking and choosing what they can replay is stupid. No two refs call them the same way, and it isn't consistent within the same match.

Folkstyle is becoming more and more difficult to watch and understand.

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...