Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

I did say "no offense." I just think it's a funny thing to say as a counterargument. To be honest, I did try it too. Since you seem to be level-headed, do me a favor and go watch the Flo clip I posted (unfortunately, you have to be a Pro subscriber). Watch Zain's hands as I noted in the slow-mo sequence. I'd LOVE to see you try to replicate the move with hands in those positions.

I’ve seen that angle several times as well and if you read, I said from that angle it appears it’s Yianni’s move. And I took all angles into account when I recreated it. I wanted Yianni to win that match. As I said I think it should be scored 2-2 and Yianni winning. What I can’t see is 2-0 Yianni as some have said.

Also editing your post when someone had quoted it right below is an odd move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Regulator said:

Also editing your post when someone had quoted it right below is an odd move. 

Why is it odd? Did you even see what the edit was? I had read that you had tried Zain's move at first. You meant your friend had tried it on you. Nothing of substance was edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll bet no one can find examples of zain turning other opponents like the refs concluded he was turning and exposing Yianni.

Because it wasn’t zain making any of the the questionable turns in that match with Yianni either. Zain was going for a ride and getting points for participating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can go on all day about who initiated what and who should score what. It was a very close call and judgemental on the three individuals working the match. So all of that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that the three gentlemen at the table, and I say this having known and respected them for decades, have had dinners in their homes and with their families, messed this up big time. The match was overturned, score changed after the match over on a very close, very debatable call, in a manner that is not legal. At the end of the day the protest should go through, the score when the clock read 0:00 should stand, and a third match should be wrestled. I do not care if Yanni or Zain is our rep, I don’t like one more than the other. But the right thing is not to select our rep the wrong way, changing the outcome and result of the match in a manner that is in extreme violation of the rules. The right thing is the score stand as it were, which initiates and third and final match. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lurker said:

People can go on all day about who initiated what and who should score what. It was a very close call and judgemental on the three individuals working the match. So all of that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that the three gentlemen at the table, and I say this having known and respected them for decades, have had dinners in their homes and with their families, messed this up big time. The match was overturned, score changed after the match over on a very close, very debatable call, in a manner that is not legal. At the end of the day the protest should go through, the score when the clock read 0:00 should stand, and a third match should be wrestled. I do not care if Yanni or Zain is our rep, I don’t like one more than the other. But the right thing is not to select our rep the wrong way, in a manner that is in extreme violation of the rules. The right thing is the score stand as it were, which initiates and third and final match. 

The right thing happened.A review was scored and the match ended.You can argue about how it was scored but that is a judgement call and those don't get reversed.The confusion started when the chair went 2 and 2 and it was put on the scoreboard incorrectly.The Chair needed to call a conference to discuss the points in which he didn't therefore procedure wasn't followed.The brick being late is irrelevant because the score on the board was wrong and you can throw the brick at anytime when the score is wrong.If the Chair calls a conference and they decide on points Cody can still challenge.So no matter what it still ends up with a Tucci review.And for those that say you can't go back that far you've to go back and score the sequence that was put on the board incorrectly.They all end up with the same end result a Tucci review.The way the sequence was scored by review will not change it's a judgement call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lurker said:

How was the score on the board “wrong” prior to the review?

Ref offered 2 the judge offered 2 and the chair went 2 and 2.The 2 and 2 should not have gone on the board without a conference to discuss the points.The 2 and 2 wasn't offered so they need a conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that scenario is correct I’ll say I stand corrected. I saw Sammie go to the table with the brick, Tucci hold up 2-2, Sammie hold up two red, pause, 2 blue, talked with Errett, then went two two quick with both hands, point to Errett, then nod okay. The brick was for the situation at the very end, as evidenced by that’s what they were looking at on the monitor. They then went all the way back to the possible 2-2 situation, there was never a conference, Sammie and the judge never came over to Errett and conferenced. Tucci put 2 red by way of the jury review. But there wasn’t a conference for the three working the match to discuss that sequence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If that scenario is correct I’ll say I stand corrected. I saw Sammie go to the table with the brick, Tucci hold up 2-2, Sammie hold up two red, pause, 2 blue, talked with Errett, then went two two quick with both hands, point to Errett, then nod okay. The brick was for the situation at the very end, as evidenced by that’s what they were looking at on the monitor. They then went all the way back to the possible 2-2 situation, there was never a conference, Sammie and the judge never came over to Errett and conferenced. Tucci put 2 red by way of the jury review. But there wasn’t a conference for the three working the match to discuss that sequence. 

The 2 and 2 Sam held up was letting Tucci know Cody was challenging the 2 and 2 and Tucci held up 2 and 2 back to Sam at 7:35 letting Sam know he was looking at the 2 and 2. The situation was headed to a review the second Zach went 2 and 2.With a conference either coach can challenge the decision.Without a conference well you saw what that did.So regardless Tucci is reviewing the last minute

Edited by justafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Regulator said:

I’ve seen that angle several times as well and if you read, I said from that angle it appears it’s Yianni’s move. And I took all angles into account when I recreated it. I wanted Yianni to win that match. As I said I think it should be scored 2-2 and Yianni winning. What I can’t see is 2-0 Yianni as some have said.

Also editing your post when someone had quoted it right below is an odd move. 

 

Flo posted a slow motion high def video. I think it confirms your suspicion that Yianni did not push off his left foot. When you push off to gain leverage your leg straightens out, as Zain's did. Yianni's left leg never straightens out until that roll is long past its born on date. So if he didn't push off, where did he get leverage to initiate that move? Also, it is very clear in that slow motion high def video that Zain did push off. FRL's slow motion high def video basically proved your point.

I will also offer that Colon Brewer match Period 1 2:25 mark. Same exact position. Colon even has his foot solidly on the ground at various points in that sequence, and Colon loves to score from the Chest Wrap. If it were easy to create the lever from just that one foot being posted to the ground then he'd probably try to initiate from that position, but he doesn't. I suggest he doesn't because, like you wrote in an earlier post in this thread, he really can't. It is almost impossible to get the requisite power required to initiate that roll while you are on your rear end and you only have one foot on the ground and the other up in the air. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

The 2 and 2 Sam held up was letting Tucci know Cody was challenging the 2 and 2 and Tucci held up 2 and 2 back to Sam at 7:35 letting Sam know he was looking at the 2 and 2. The situation was headed to a review the second Zach went 2 and 2.With a conference either coach can challenge the decision.Without a conference well you saw what that did.So regardless Tucci is reviewing the last minute

The conference situation is discussed at 25:00

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A respected poster on bwi said he listened to Koll interview with Dernlan and Koll told Dernlan the challenge from Cody was for the 2 and 2 score at the 50 second mark. The refs said they could go back that far because it was one single long sequence. 

Bottom line is that both the challenge and the review were justified in their committee's point of view, and the review resulted in them scoring the match as they saw it. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If that scenario is correct I’ll say I stand corrected. I saw Sammie go to the table with the brick, Tucci hold up 2-2, Sammie hold up two red, pause, 2 blue, talked with Errett, then went two two quick with both hands, point to Errett, then nod okay. The brick was for the situation at the very end, as evidenced by that’s what they were looking at on the monitor. They then went all the way back to the possible 2-2 situation, there was never a conference, Sammie and the judge never came over to Errett and conferenced. Tucci put 2 red by way of the jury review. But there wasn’t a conference for the three working the match to discuss that sequence. 

This situation should be impossible.  The judge is obligated to give his opinion on an action awarded points by the referee.  So the opinion of 2R held up by the judge should be in response to 2B from the referee.  For the chair to consider these two separate actions to give his opinion on each independently the judge should have white paddled the 2B offered by the referee and then offered 2R.  The Chairmen could have then given his opinion on those two situations and 2B-2R would be a valid score.  As it went down there should have been a consultation.  

In the consultation the chairmen would have to convince a majority (either the judge or referee) of his opinion or he would be obligated to chose between the opinion of the judge and referee.  The result of the consultation it challenge-able, by either wrestler.   Maybe the chairman was in error in holding up 2-2 or at the least caused confusion in doing so, but time the wrestlers were neutral was the end of the match to stop it anyway if he was planning to have a consultation which looks like it either never happened or was interrupted/preempted by the challenge brick. 

 

Share this post


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

Ref offered 2 the judge offered 2 and the chair went 2 and 2.The 2 and 2 should not have gone on the board without a conference to discuss the points.The 2 and 2 wasn't offered so they need a conference

I've brought this up before but I disagree that 2-2 by chairman is invalid. I agree that a conference was warranted. Sammy saw 2 blue based on his thought that Y initiated. Judge went 2 red because he thought Z initiated. Therefore they were both calling separate moves. Therefore each is ruled on separately. Valid calls are 2 Blue or 2 Red or 2-2 or nothing at all. You agree or disagree with each independently.

Share this post


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

This situation should be impossible.  The judge is obligated to give his opinion on an action awarded points by the referee.  So the opinion of 2R held up by the judge should be in response to 2B from the referee.  For the chair to consider these two separate actions to give his opinion on each independently the judge should have white paddled the 2B offered by the referee and then offered 2R.  The Chairmen could have then given his opinion on those two situations and 2B-2R would be a valid score.  As it went down there should have been a consultation.  

In the consultation the chairmen would have to convince a majority (either the judge or referee) of his opinion or he would be obligated to chose between the opinion of the judge and referee.  The result of the consultation it challenge-able, by either wrestler.   Maybe the chairman was in error in holding up 2-2 or at the least caused confusion in doing so, but time the wrestlers were neutral was the end of the match to stop it anyway if he was planning to have a consultation which looks like it either never happened or was interrupted/preempted by the challenge brick. 

 

correct, chairman can not go 2b&2r.     Is there any video of the judge going 2r.

My understanding by the video explanation I posted was only the chair and delegate can decide at that point?

Share this post


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

This situation should be impossible.  The judge is obligated to give his opinion on an action awarded points by the referee.  So the opinion of 2R held up by the judge should be in response to 2B from the referee.  For the chair to consider these two separate actions to give his opinion on each independently the judge should have white paddled the 2B offered by the referee and then offered 2R.  The Chairmen could have then given his opinion on those two situations and 2B-2R would be a valid score.  As it went down there should have been a consultation.  

In the consultation the chairmen would have to convince a majority (either the judge or referee) of his opinion or he would be obligated to chose between the opinion of the judge and referee.  The result of the consultation it challenge-able, by either wrestler.   Maybe the chairman was in error in holding up 2-2 or at the least caused confusion in doing so, but time the wrestlers were neutral was the end of the match to stop it anyway if he was planning to have a consultation which looks like it either never happened or was interrupted/preempted by the challenge brick. 

 

 

This seems correct. The Chairman must agree with one or the other. The consult rules above confirm this. The word or is key in the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

I've brought this up before but I disagree that 2-2 by chairman is invalid. I agree that a conference was warranted. Sammy saw 2 blue based on his thought that Y initiated. Judge went 2 red because he thought Z initiated. Therefore they were both calling separate moves. Therefore each is ruled on separately. Valid calls are 2 Blue or 2 Red or 2-2 or nothing at all. You agree or disagree with each independently.

I think 2-2 can be scored if your position is that this is two separate moves, but what if its just that this is one move and the call is regarding who initiated that move? Then doesn't it have to be one or the other? 

 

Share this post


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

 

This seems correct. The Chairman must agree with one or the other. The consult rules above confirm this. The word or is key in the rules. 

From Article 40 of UWW "In case of a disagreement, the mat chairman makes the decision. This decision, in which he must decide between the opposing opinions of the referee and judge, obliges the mat chairman to vote in all cases for one or the other of the views given."  The idea that he can confirm their two opinions independently is just not correct.

 

2 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I think 2-2 can be scored if your position is that this is two separate moves, but what if its just that this is one move and the call is regarding who initiated that move? Then doesn't it have to be one or the other? 

 

This cannot be the case either.  The rules state that the judge is obliged to give his opinon on every vote.  He would have had to put up a paddle in response to the referee's offering. from article 40 "Under no circumstances may the judge abstain from voting."  So to think the judge abstained his opinion on 2b and then gave a separate opinion of 2r should not be something expected by the chairman.  For the chairman to interpret it this way the judge would have had to white paddle the 2b and then give 2r.

Share this post


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

I think 2-2 can be scored if your position is that this is two separate moves, but what if its just that this is one move and the call is regarding who initiated that move? Then doesn't it have to be one or the other? 

 

I should add a nuance to terms here (my opinion though). Most people are saying initiated meaning to the whole sequence. I'm suggesting it's possible for each wrestler to have initiated some part of the action. Z by pushing with his left foot and possibly diving over (see Sadulaev clip). Y by pushing with his left foot and possibly pulling Z over with the lock.

My gut tells me that if Y initiated his action first then it should be only for him. But if Z initiated first it's then possible for Y's motion to also score since that's what turned Z over.

 

Also, some seem to be trying to interpret rules in English that were written in French. The rules have always been more of a set of guidelines. Tucci talked about the 5 second rule (so to speak) and said it wasn't really hard and fast.

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

I should add a nuance to terms here (my opinion though). Most people are saying initiated meaning to the whole sequence. I'm suggesting it's possible for each wrestler to have initiated some part of the action. Z by pushing with his left foot and possibly diving over (see Sadulaev clip). Y by pushing with his left foot and possibly pulling Z over with the lock.

My gut tells me that if Y initiated his action first then it should be only for him. But if Z initiated first it's then possible for Y's motion to also score since that's what turned Z over.

 

Also, some seem to be trying to interpret rules in English that were written in French. The rules have always been more of a set of guidelines. Tucci talked about the 5 second rule (so to speak) and said it wasn't really hard and fast.

But not so loose as to wait until there is no risk to challenging, que no?

Share this post


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

I should add a nuance to terms here (my opinion though). Most people are saying initiated meaning to the whole sequence. I'm suggesting it's possible for each wrestler to have initiated some part of the action. Z by pushing with his left foot and possibly diving over (see Sadulaev clip). Y by pushing with his left foot and possibly pulling Z over with the lock.

My gut tells me that if Y initiated his action first then it should be only for him. But if Z initiated first it's then possible for Y's motion to also score since that's what turned Z over.

 

I think it is absolutely possible to have two separate moves. That isn't a question for me. In the Colon Brewer match in Period 2 you actually see this position for the 2nd time in that match, but unlike the first sequence in Period 1 of that match which was scored 2 Brewer 0 Colon (the one I cited above as evidence of how hard it would be for the defensive wrestler to initiate that roll thru), this one is ultimately scored 2 Brewer then 2 Colon. The difference is that the second sequence is obviously two different moves/actions - 1. Brewer exposes Colon's back 2. Colon torques Brewer over exposing Brewer's back. 

I saw the Zain Yianni match sequence as one move/one action, although from a different position it seemed from an action standpoint something more like what is seen in the clip that Tucci discusses regarding the Marstellar vs. Massa match where Chance gets all the points and despite his (Chance's)  back being exposed Massa gets 0. Tucci's rationale there was that Marstellar took the risk of exposure but got the reward because it was his action. 

I do agree that you could score Zain Yianni as two separate actions, although this is not my view. 

Share this post


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

From Article 40 of UWW "In case of a disagreement, the mat chairman makes the decision. This decision, in which he must decide between the opposing opinions of the referee and judge, obliges the mat chairman to vote in all cases for one or the other of the views given."  The idea that he can confirm their two opinions independently is just not correct.

Aren't we in agreement here? The Chair must agree with one or the other, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main point with this is that it's possible that the 2-2 was valid. Valid is different than correct.

If you get pulled over for speeding it's possible that the radar used showed you speeding. But it could be wrong. So the pullover was valid but wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBar1977 said:

Aren't we in agreement here? The Chair must agree with one or the other, right? 

Yes I think we are. What he did would only be valid if the judge held up two paddles.  I haven't seen any videos of him holding up two paddles, but everyone seems to be saying he held up only one, two 2R.  If he only held up one then there isn't room for the chair to interpret the sequence as 2r-2b or at least he can't give that opinion, since the judge abstaining is not an option.  The only way 2-2 could have been the official score (assuming the judge held up one paddle) is after a conference or in error. 

Share this post


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

Yes I think we are. What he did would only be valid if the judge held up two paddles.  I haven't seen any videos of him holding up two paddles, but everyone seems to be saying he held up only one, two 2R.  If he only held up one then there isn't room for the chair to interpret the sequence as 2r-2b or at least he can't give that opinion, since the judge abstaining is not an option.  The only way 2-2 could have been the official score (assuming the judge held up one paddle) is after a conference or in error. 

Agree 100% that to get to 2Red and 2Blue there would have to be a conference, since neither the ref or judge offered that. At the end of regulation you had three different scores on that sequence. That absolutely required a review at that point. 

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...