Jump to content

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, justafan said:

2 and 2 can easily be called in that situation.The issue is the Chair going 2 and 2 when that wasn't offered and it was put on the board.The chair should've called a conference.Once that 2 and 2 was put on the board Cody can challenge at anytime because the score was wrong.

Again, 2-2 isn't necessarily 1 call. It might be and it might be 2 calls. Given that both mat officials saw different initiation of actions it can be viewed as separate calls requiring separate confirmations. I'm not sure I think that applies here - I'm just stating a theoretical possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBar... I have stated I am a ref, but not international, meaning I do folkstyle.

I am not sure of International protocol.  I do know that as an official, or an assistant that if there is a discrepancy of some sort, you want to handle it ASAP... and you want to get it RIGHT.  Especially when there are dozens of people filming every important match these days.  I would rather overturn a bad call than have a bad call in plain view of YouTube for eternity.  But it needs to be done right away and you have to get the right kid winning.

With that being said, there are different standards in the International styles, and no bad time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AHamilton said:

TBar... I have stated I am a ref, but not international, meaning I do folkstyle.

I am not sure of International protocol.  I do know that as an official, or an assistant that if there is a discrepancy of some sort, you want to handle it ASAP... and you want to get it RIGHT.  Especially when there are dozens of people filming every important match these days.  I would rather overturn a bad call than have a bad call in plain view of YouTube for eternity.  But it needs to be done right away and you have to get the right kid winning.

With that being said, there are different standards in the International styles, and no bad time.

Taking into account that you are not an Int'l official, when you say "ASAP" does this mean at the next natural stoppage OR does it mean you should stop potential further scoring even if said wrestlers appear to be in a mad scramble to address the first scoring sequence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

Taking into account that you are not an Int'l official, when you say "ASAP" does this mean at the next natural stoppage OR does it mean you should stop potential further scoring even if said wrestlers appear to be in a mad scramble to address the first scoring sequence? 

Next natural stoppage.  Generally Out of bounds or a situation where not much is happening (ex. Both neutral and no one engaged in a scoring move at the moment.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AHamilton said:

Next natural stoppage.  Generally Out of bounds or a situation where not much is happening (ex. Both neutral and no one engaged in a scoring move at the moment.) 

OK. So in this case the next stoppage was at 0:00. So it would seem the scorers table had to address the discrepancy after the match anyway, brick or no brick. Kind of takes the timing of the brick challenge, Koll's chief complaint, out of the equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

OK. So in this case the next stoppage was at 0:00. So it would seem the scorers table had to address the discrepancy after the match anyway, brick or no brick. Kind of takes the timing of the brick challenge, Koll's chief complaint, out of the equation. 

Perhaps.  But, by rule,  is the brick to be thrown immediately after a scoring discrepancy or immediately following a stoppage?

And my guess is that the scoring of the moves won't be taken into account during arbitration, it will be entirely based on procedural matters (brick throwing, conferences, etc.)  I don't think the arbitrator will want to touch the scoring (ref's judgement) but whether the procedures were followed correctly.

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Perhaps.  But, by rule,  is the brick to be thrown immediately after a scoring discrepancy or immediately following a stoppage?

Forget the brick. Weren't they required to review anyway? It appears they have to conference and review anyway, brick or no brick. If the review is required anyway and it changes the score you wouldn't be in favor of un changing it because of the timing of the brick? 

What is more important here? That the match be scored the way the officiating crew determines after review OR a brick timing issue that would be MOOT given the review had to happen anyway? 

Tucci described in one of the interviews I saw where in situations like this where the very winner of the match can change after review, then the review must happen. I guess I don't see the timing of the brick toss as relevant given they had to make the review anyway. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, justafan said:

2 and 2 can easily be called in that situation.The issue is the Chair going 2 and 2 when that wasn't offered and it was put on the board.The chair should've called a conference.Once that 2 and 2 was put on the board Cody can challenge at anytime because the score was wrong.

 

12 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Again, 2-2 isn't necessarily 1 call. It might be and it might be 2 calls. Given that both mat officials saw different initiation of actions it can be viewed as separate calls requiring separate confirmations. I'm not sure I think that applies here - I'm just stating a theoretical possibility.

I get what you are saying Gimp, but I think we all agree it doesn’t apply here. If the ref says 2 blue and nothing for red and the judge says two red and nothing for blue, I don’t think 2-2 affirms both of those calls. The problem is there was no real stop in the action to conference about the score. So it went to the end of the match and really is a coin flip to guess who initiated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

OK. So in this case the next stoppage was at 0:00. So it would seem the scorers table had to address the discrepancy after the match anyway, brick or no brick. Kind of takes the timing of the brick challenge, Koll's chief complaint, out of the equation. 

Why do you say they had to wait until 0:00. Z and Y were at loggerheads. A stalemate could have been called at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gimpeltf said:

Again, 2-2 isn't necessarily 1 call. It might be and it might be 2 calls. Given that both mat officials saw different initiation of actions it can be viewed as separate calls requiring separate confirmations. I'm not sure I think that applies here - I'm just stating a theoretical possibility.

That is not possible.  The judge isn't allowed to abstain from a vote.  If the referee offered points (2b) then the judge is required to hold up a paddle in response to that paddle.  This is not optional.  If the judge saw a second action missed by the referee he could offer other points for confirmation by the chairman.  My understanding is that didn't happen.  

Even if the chairmen thought the referee and judge were awarding for separate actions he should have called a conference and asked the judge to weigh in on the action the referee was awarding points for because the judge is not allowed to not give his vote in the awarding of points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Forget the brick. Weren't they required to review anyway? It appears they have to conference and review anyway, brick or no brick. If the review is required anyway and it changes the score you wouldn't be in favor of un changing it because of the timing of the brick? 

What is more important here? That the match be scored the way the officiating crew determines after review OR a brick timing issue that would be MOOT given the review had to happen anyway? 

Tucci described in one of the interviews I saw where in situations like this where the very winner of the match can change after review, then the review must happen. I guess I don't see the timing of the brick toss as relevant given they had to make the review anyway. 

They reviewed because of the brick. We know that because they rejected the brick from Yianni, saying you can’t challenge a challenge. Whether they should’ve reviewed anyways is a separate question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RJChicago said:

Good points, I have a similar question.

Could anyone help me with the following question, I really don't know and this seems like an important point in all of this and I haven't seen it discussed on here:

If a conference is required because of the scoring error - does anyone know when that conference is supposed to occur - meaning, would they stop the action as soon as they realized they need a conference regardless of the wrestling position even if one (or both) of the wrestlers is in a potential scoring position? Or do they avoid stopping the match for the conference in the middle of a potential scoring sequence and wait until there is a natural stoppage or neither wrestler is in a potentially imminent scoring situation?

The english UWW rulebook doesn't give a time for the chairmen to stop the match and call for a conference.  In terms of stopping the match for challenges it says the chairman should wait until the wrestler are neutral.  It's reasonable to assume a similar timing should be used for stopping the match for a conference or any other time the chairman needs to stop the bout.  Not sure if neutral is interpreted as neither wrestler having an advantage or possibly meaning more specifically both standing I'm not really sure.  But I think if NLWC had thrown the brick when the points went on the board action would have continued and the review would have happened at 0:00.  Seems like the appropriate time to call the conference too. 

Edited by Fishbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Housebuye said:

They reviewed because of the brick. We know that because they rejected the brick from Yianni, saying you can’t challenge a challenge. Whether they should’ve reviewed anyways is a separate question. 

It would literally be the same panel reviewing using the same video what would be the point of doing that? Makes sense that you cannot review the review for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fishbane said:

It would literally be the same panel reviewing using the same video what would be the point of doing that? Makes sense that you cannot review the review for any reason.

The point is that they reviewed because of the brick. Given that is the case, and the brick was thrown way too late to challenge, they broke their own rules. 

I wasn’t commenting on whether that should or shouldn’t be the rule. I think it makes sense that you can’t challenge a challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fishbane said:

The english UWW rulebook doesn't give a time for the chairmen to stop the match and call for a conference.  In terms of stopping the match for challenges it says the chairman would wait until the wrestler are neutral.  It's reasonable to assume a similar timing should be used for stopping the match for a conference or any other time the chairman needs to stop the bout.  Not sure if neutral is interpreted as neither having an advantage or possibly both meaning more specifically both standing I'm not really sure.  But I think if NLWC had thrown the brick when the points went on the board action would have continued and the review would have happened at 0:00.  Seems like the appropriate time to call the conference too. 

It's possible that the review would have occurred after the clock went to 0:00. It's also possible that the ref would have called a stalemate after seeing the brick. But neither scenario justifies allowing for a review where the brick was thrown 30-40 seconds after the score went up.

Also: is the chairman allowed to stop the match to review a call that was not challenged? I thought the chairman could not review without a challenge (though I believe such a thing is done in college wrestling).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

The english UWW rulebook doesn't give a time for the chairmen to stop the match and call for a conference.  In terms of stopping the match for challenges it says the chairman should wait until the wrestler are neutral.  It's reasonable to assume a similar timing should be used for stopping the match for a conference or any other time the chairman needs to stop the bout.  Not sure if neutral is interpreted as neither wrestler having an advantage or possibly meaning more specifically both standing I'm not really sure.  But I think if NLWC had thrown the brick when the points went on the board action would have continued and the review would have happened at 0:00.  Seems like the appropriate time to call the conference too. 

Ok but they reviewed because of the brick that was thrown. They should’ve kicked it back as it was well past the 5 second time limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NJDan said:

It's possible that the review would have occurred after the clock went to 0:00. It's also possible that the ref would have called a stalemate after seeing the brick. But neither scenario justifies allowing for a review where the brick was thrown 30-40 seconds after the score went up.

Also: is the chairman allowed to stop the match to review a call that was not challenged? I thought the chairman could not review without a challenge (though I believe such a thing is done in college wrestling).

 

 

Yes in a case where the score isn’t clear, but they didn’t do that. They accepted Penn State’s challenge brick. That in and of itself broke their rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Housebuye said:

Yes in a case where the score isn’t clear, but they didn’t do that. They accepted Penn State’s challenge brick. That in and of itself broke their rules. 

On that we-- and all clear thinking people-- are agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Housebuye said:

Yes in a case where the score isn’t clear, but they didn’t do that. They accepted Penn State’s challenge brick. That in and of itself broke their rules. 

It has to be this, nothing else makes sense.  If they claim that they accepted Penn State's challenge and the challenge was of the last sequence, that challenge was denied.  So that means Yianni would be given a point.  The ONLY thing that makes sense is that they are claiming the challenge applied to the scoring sequence from the beginning of the exchange, which, by rule, should not have been allowed, since no brick was thrown within 5 seconds, or even close to 5 seconds, of that exchange.

Basically, what this allows for, if allowed thru, is that a coach can allow a wrongly scored exchange to sit up there and leave one wrestler believing he is wrestling with a lead, and then saying at the end of the match when he has not time left to try to win "just kidding, you were actually losing the whole time."  Miss me with the "they should always be trying to score" junk, because that is just not reality at this level where the margins of error are so small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Housebuye said:

Ok but they reviewed because of the brick that was thrown. They should’ve kicked it back as it was well past the 5 second time limit. 

Or maybe they threw the brick and said they are protesting that there was no consultation for the scoring of that action.  The timing of the brick would be appropriate for that, since that consultation should not have happened until the break in action.  The wrestler has the right to challenge the result of the consultation so they may have been waiting until the result of the expected conference to decide whether or not to throw the brick.  And even if that wasn't going through their heads at the time it would be a reasonable thing to claim after all it is a little ridiculous to expect them to have to preemptively challenge the result of an expected process.  

Finally the mat chairman isn't supposed to be the person to to reject a challenge request.  According to UWW rules "In case of dispute between the refereeing body and the coach, the refereeing body is allowed to refuse a challenge only after the approval of the refereeing delegate (or his substitute). The mat chairman and/or the referee cannot decline a challenge by them self."  So 0:05 rule or no the chairman/referee shouldn't have kicked it back because the delegate panel is the only one who can decline the challenge.  If they knew of the scoring error and that the three officials should have pow-wowed to get the score right at the next break in action (0:00) but did not I think they should review it and render their decision.  The brick was thrown within 0:05 of when said conference should have happened to fix the clear scoring error. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

Or maybe they threw the brick and said they are protesting that there was no consultation for the scoring of that action.  The timing of the brick would be appropriate for that, since that consultation should not have happened until the break in action.  The wrestler has the right to challenge the result of the consultation so they may have been waiting until the result of the expected conference to decide whether or not to throw the brick.  And even if that wasn't going through their heads at the time it would be a reasonable thing to claim after all it is a little ridiculous to expect them to have to preemptively challenge the result of an expected process.  

Finally the mat chairman isn't supposed to be the person to to reject a challenge request.  According to UWW rules "In case of dispute between the refereeing body and the coach, the refereeing body is allowed to refuse a challenge only after the approval of the refereeing delegate (or his substitute). The mat chairman and/or the referee cannot decline a challenge by them self."  So 0:05 rule or no the chairman/referee shouldn't have kicked it back because the delegate panel is the only one who can decline the challenge.  If they knew of the scoring error and that the three officials should have pow-wowed to get the score right at the next break in action (0:00) but did not I think they should review it and render their decision.  The brick was thrown within 0:05 of when said conference should have happened to fix the clear scoring error. 

 

 

 

If this is allowed-- and it's hard to believe this was the nature of the challenge-- it would eliminate the 5-second rule. Anyone could challenge at any point and say "I was not disputing the call, I was disputing the failure to review the call."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NJDan said:

If this is allowed-- and it's hard to believe this was the nature of the challenge-- it would eliminate the 5-second rule. Anyone could challenge at any point and say "I was not disputing the call, I was disputing the failure to review the call."

the only way it makes sense is if the review is being done on the initiative of the panel, not zain's corner. if the officials have to confer to resolve a dispute, but the fight should continue until the ref believes a stoppage in the normal flow of the match is appropriate, then i guess this is how that would play out for better or worse.

whether that means that zain should have been penalized for a failed challenge of a no-call on in the final seconds becomes a separate question, because that would make it 7-6 yianni (though of course if the refs change the scoring at :55, zain's corner would withdraw the brick).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NJDan said:

If this is allowed-- and it's hard to believe this was the nature of the challenge-- it would eliminate the 5-second rule. Anyone could challenge at any point and say "I was not disputing the call, I was disputing the failure to review the call."

Not at all.  By rule the officials needed to consult for 2-2 to be scored given how the judge and referee scored it.  It is reasonable to expect a consultation to happen to clear that up.  If the ref had offered 2b the judge had confirmed 2b then there would be no reason to expect a consultation and the timeliness of the challenge could be used to reject it. 

Edited by Fishbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ugarte said:

the only way it makes sense is if the review is being done on the initiative of the panel, not zain's corner. if the officials have to confer to resolve a dispute, but the fight should continue until the ref believes a stoppage in the normal flow of the match is appropriate, then i guess this is how that would play out for better or worse.

whether that means that zain should have been penalized for a failed challenge of a no-call on in the final seconds becomes a separate question, because that would make it 7-6 yianni (though of course if the refs change the scoring at :55, zain's corner would withdraw the brick).

That possibility makes no sense to me. If the officials need to huddle to figure the correct score, they shouldn't be doing it while the match is continuing. They should stop. Fix the score, Then continue. I know I have seen refs stop a match when the score is wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×