Jump to content

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, GockeS said:

so you think that after a break in the match they would put them back in the same situation?

someone was telling the rest of us we dont know the rules...

I never said that, you just said that. Stop making things up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, GockeS said:

but yes, this also points out the need to stop the 'action'...b/c there wasn't any.

No points and no action are two totally different things. You are the first person I have seen say there wasn't any action. That is crazy to even suggest.

Share this post


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

I never said that, you just said that. Stop making things up. 

so why do you assume there would be no scoring?

they would be in a different position and the score would have been different.

pretty easy to see there would have been at least some great action,, instead of what we had.

Share this post


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

No points and no action are two totally different things. You are the first person I have seen say there wasn't any action. That is crazy to even suggest.

um, no, now you are making things up.

go back to the 1st couple pages... most people are saying they were doing nothing for 23-40 seconds... 

try again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 3:26 PM, qc8223 said:

You're being intentionally obtuse by quoting poorly written rules in English written by many people who don't speak English as a first language to obscure the obvious. This situation occurs in freestyle regularly, and is called consistently. Zain attacks the legs. Yianni sits the corner. They are in the crackdown position for 23 seconds with almost no change. In other words, Yianni has stopped Zain's initial attack, forcing him to move to another finish.

here is the 1st example i found... not much action

Share this post


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

The only thing we know is old officials can't ref  because rob Koll has to wake him up from a drunken hangover

And said head official has done this same exact thing, well not same exact thing to Koll before, so here we go again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more I think that situations like this are why the five second rule is in place.  If a coach feels the officials blew it and a closer review will get it right, throw the brick then and there.  Take your chances with the understanding that if you lose the challenge, you will give up an additional point.  There is an actual risk in challenging the officials, which is what you want.  This eliminates things like a coach throwing in the brick to give his athlete a lung break.   In this situation, if Zain scored a td or exposure in the last 40 seconds, he'd win on criteria even with no review of the sequence. (He had a four pointer)  His team decided not to challenge the sequence when it happened and take that risk.  Only after Zain wasn't able to score in the remaining 40 seconds of the match (thus winning even with the scoreboard having the score that it had) did they throw in the brick.  And in looking at the video of their corner, they were challenging "the first one,"  (though Zain himself looks like he thought there was an exposure at the end.)   By waiting till then, team Zain is taking zero risk in challenging.  They've already lost on the scoreboard, so even if the review doesn't go their way, giving up the extra point by losing the challenge doesn't change anything.  That is kind of gaming the system.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jmachinder said:

The more I think about it, the more I think that situations like this are why the five second rule is in place.  If a coach feels the officials blew it and a closer review will get it right, throw the brick then and there.  Take your chances with the understanding that if you lose the challenge, you will give up an additional point.  There is an actual risk in challenging the officials, which is what you want.  This eliminates things like a coach throwing in the brick to give his athlete a lung break.   In this situation, if Zain scored a td or exposure in the last 40 seconds, he'd win on criteria even with no review of the sequence. (He had a four pointer)  His team decided not to challenge the sequence when it happened and take that risk.  Only after Zain wasn't able to score in the remaining 40 seconds of the match (thus winning even with the scoreboard having the score that it had) did they throw in the brick.  And in looking at the video of their corner, they were challenging "the first one,"  (though Zain himself looks like he thought there was an exposure at the end.)   By waiting till then, team Zain is taking zero risk in challenging.  They've already lost on the scoreboard, so even if the review doesn't go their way, giving up the extra point by losing the challenge doesn't change anything.  That is kind of gaming the system.      

 

9 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

It seems to me that:

Msg. Board Team Yianni wants to protect the integrity of the challenge rule process ... for the good of wrestling.

Msg. Board Team Zain wants to protect getting the score correct ... for the good of wrestling. 

Sums it up

Share this post


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

The more I think about it, the more I think that situations like this are why the five second rule is in place.  If a coach feels the officials blew it and a closer review will get it right, throw the brick then and there.  Take your chances with the understanding that if you lose the challenge, you will give up an additional point.  There is an actual risk in challenging the officials, which is what you want.  This eliminates things like a coach throwing in the brick to give his athlete a lung break.   In this situation, if Zain scored a td or exposure in the last 40 seconds, he'd win on criteria even with no review of the sequence. (He had a four pointer)  His team decided not to challenge the sequence when it happened and take that risk.  Only after Zain wasn't able to score in the remaining 40 seconds of the match (thus winning even with the scoreboard having the score that it had) did they throw in the brick.  And in looking at the video of their corner, they were challenging "the first one,"  (though Zain himself looks like he thought there was an exposure at the end.)   By waiting till then, team Zain is taking zero risk in challenging.  They've already lost on the scoreboard, so even if the review doesn't go their way, giving up the extra point by losing the challenge doesn't change anything.  That is kind of gaming the system.      

Zain's corner could have thrown the brick around 0:35 when the points went on the board.  If action was allowed to continue to 0:00 because there was action happening and Zain scored a 2 point exposure in that time ,then Zain could just tell the ref he doesn't want the challenge.  The wrestler can reject a challenge brick his corner throws and would almost certainly do so in that situation.  The only risk would be that Zain was about to score an exposure and his corner was afraid that they thought the ref/chair would stop the match and deny him that opportunity.  Which shouldn't be a risk because the referee/chair should stop the match for the challenge review until the wrestler are neutral.

I don't think this was intentional gamesmanship on the part of NLWC coaches.  They probably to some extent got caught up in the action and the confusing scoring situation and threw the brick at the end of the prolonged sequence. Probably more of  a yolo brick in that you lost the match so you have nothing to lose in throwing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this is a T.S.Eliot thread?

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

Or is that what Yianni said to Zain before they started rolling?






Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tbert said:

 

Sums it up

Sums it up badly. TD's people thin the process was wrong and the ultimate call was wrong. But even if the ultimate call was right, the result is wrong b/c there was no brick that would allow a review. 

Zain's folks either cannot defend the process or must do advanced yoga poses to do so.They only defend the revised call. 

Neither rests on a "good of wrestling" argument.

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...