Jump to content

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, klehner said:

Do you wake up every morning with the intention of finding something Koll-related to be outraged about?  Or is it Cornell?

Who else is on your **** list?  Just wondering for whom you save your vitriol.

Not outraged, just think he is a two faced pudd.   

I like Yanni, unlike his head coach, a real  stand up kid, admitted he failed. 

Nothing against Cornell Wrestling with the exception of their whining weasel head coach and some annoyng fans who enable his slandering, lying and his disrespecting of his wrestler's opponents. 

Other than that,  peace to all

 

Edited by tbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:47 PM, tbert said:

Not outraged, just think he is a two faced pudd.   

I like Yanni, unlike his head coach, a real  stand up kid, admitted he failed. 

Nothing against Cornell Wrestling with the exception of their whining weasel head coach and some annoyng fans who enable his slandering, lying and his disrespecting of his wrestler's opponents. 

Other than that,  peace to all

 

I think Rob Koll is the best in the biz. He becomes a savage when it comes to his wrestler's best interest. That's the coach I want looking out for my kid.  I think he had/has reason to be exasperated with the officiating in both of those instances, and I see no problem with him having his guys' backs. 

Share this post


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

The first 5 seconds of match 2 should have been scored

4Red

2Blue

Zain got robbed out of a 2 point lead right from the get go in that match. 

 

Well if they had gone 2-2 or 2 blue on the crackdown/chest wrap, I'm sure they would have gone all the way  back to period 1 to review that as well and find a way to award the match to red. :-)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brewland said:

I think Rob Koll is the best in the biz. He becomes a savage when it comes to his wrestler's best interest. That's the coach I want looking out for my kid.  I think he had/has reason to be exasperated with the officiating in both of those instances, and I see no problem with him having his guys' backs. 

Good for you, obviously your only criteria is stated above. He is a slandering two faced liar and my opinion is based off his public interviews where he has slandered officials, lied about calls and  displayed GilmanIsh poor sportsmanship to his teams' opponents.  

I hope  he holds his athletes to higher standards than himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

The first 5 seconds of match 2 should have been scored

4Red

2Blue

Zain got robbed out of a 2 point lead right from the get go in that match. 

 

i agree with that

he never was back to a defensible position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brewland said:

I think Rob Koll is the best in the biz. He becomes a savage when it comes to his wrestler's best interest. That's the coach I want looking out for my kid.  I think he had/has reason to be exasperated with the officiating in both of those instances, and I see no problem with him having his guys' backs. 

I really don't have a horse in this race and its great that he fights for his wrestlers' interests - that is great. But to fight for your wrestlers' interests - you do not need to accuse a ref of being hungover, faulting him for taking a nap between sessions (which many athletes do, by the way), and otherwise personally attacking officials. By all means, talk about how dumb and bungled the officiating was in that match - but I was surprised by the personal attacks - accusing them of being drunk/hungover - and do not think that is remotely appropriate for someone in Koll's position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 10:04 AM, Fishbane said:

You can hear in the one video Zain's corner clearly saying the 2-2 then something inaudible then "the first one" after throwing the brick.  It clear they wanted the 2-2 reviewed, but not clear they wanted the near exposure at the end reviewed.  The thing with asking for a review is that you don't have full control over what they look at they can watch and re-score the whole sequence either to your benefit or detriment.  They could have also looked at Yianni's near turn with about 0:25 seconds left and decided that should have been scored 2b even though it was Zain's brick.  Maybe it would have been more evenhanded if they did, but perhaps they felt they had a good look at that and didn't need to review it because it was scored correctly.  Or maybe the panel thought they were challenging the near exposure at the end because of its temporal proximity to the brick until they were informed otherwise.  I don't know.  The only call they ended up modifying was one that was scored incorrectly by procedure and opinion are divided on the scoring.  It's hard to say the scoring was wrong no matter how the judgement went (within 2 or 3 options) so long as that decision came about the right way.

Apologies if this has already been conclusively established and explained, but how do you know the 2-2 scoring itself is incorrect procedure?  Does the rulebook explicitly preclude the chair from confirming both officials' points?

Not only does such a rule seem, at first glance at least, counterproductive and unnecessary, it's hard to be believe that a veteran, and obviously knowledgable official, would commit such a straightforward procedural violation.

Share this post


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

Apologies if this has already been conclusively established and explained, but how do you know the 2-2 scoring itself is incorrect procedure?  Does the rulebook explicitly preclude the chair from confirming both officials' points?

Not only does such a rule seem, at first glance at least, counterproductive and unnecessary, it's hard to be believe that a veteran, and obviously knowledgable official, would commit such a straightforward procedural violation.

 

Yes. There are two parts of the rulebook that apply.  First is that the judge must vote on all points awarded.  From page 30 of the UWW rule book.

"Under no circumstances may the judge abstain from voting. He must express his decision clearly, leaving no room for ambiguity."

So while the judge can initiate the awarding of points not seen or offered by the referee the chair would not have viewed this situation as such because the judge only raised one paddle 2R.  The chair would have viewed this as a vote against the 2B, because the jugde must offer an opinion on the 2B.  From there page 27 of the UWW applies 

"i) The referee will indicate the points. If the judge agrees, he will raise the bat bearing the colour and value in question (1, 2, 4 (or 5 points in GR). In the event of any disagreement between the referee and the judge, the mat chairman must make a decision in favour of one or the other of the wrestlers; he is not allowed to give a different opinion, except if he calls for a consultation and obtains majority."

To me that's pretty clear.  There is a little table with some voting examples, but none cover this situation exactly perhaps because it's supposed to be impossible.. I'm not sure, but in any event there is no line in the table where the mat chairmen picks something different than the referee and judge.  Also unlike the ref and judge the chair cannot initiate the awarding of points.  So he couldn't vote 2R to settle the vote initiated by the referee and then award 2B as an action that came after the 2R. 

I wouldn't call the tie breaking requirement counterproductive or unnecessary.  The chair shouldn't be able to simply pick a 3rd option and have that be the score.  That kind of defeats the purpose of voting in the first place and gives the chair's opinion more weight than the other two guys who are closer to the action.  What do you think it should it be?  And keep in mind this would have to cover a range of disagreements and not just this particular one.  I think it's reasonable if there are three calls to have them get together and come to some consensus before the points are officially awarded. 

Another approach using three officials to score a match can be found in the IBJJF (Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu) rule book.  From section 1.2.1

"Should there be a discrepancy between all three referees on points to be awarded for the same move, the intermediary decision shall count.

Ex: When one referee awards a guard pass, the second awards an advantage point and the third asks that points be subtracted, the advantage point shall be recorded on the scoreboard."

Under this rule maybe 2-2 is the intermediary decision, and in this case it might work okay but in others it might make less sense.  Supposing there is some action on the edge and it gets scored ref 4R, judge 1B, chair 2R.  Should that just get scored 2R without discussion?  Maybe the judge, being on the other side, saw a step out the others missed. 

uww_table.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whaletail said:

Apologies if this has already been conclusively established and explained, but how do you know the 2-2 scoring itself is incorrect procedure?  Does the rulebook explicitly preclude the chair from confirming both officials' points?

Not only does such a rule seem, at first glance at least, counterproductive and unnecessary, it's hard to be believe that a veteran, and obviously knowledgable official, would commit such a straightforward procedural violation.

25:00 

One of the officials at the center of attn, explains the rule....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how people can say the chair was wrong in confirming both because the judge HAS TO confirm or white paddle the ref. Isn't it possible the judge didn't do the "right thing"? And isn't it possible that just like the rest of the international rule set- we're being overly literal in that reading since it's more of a guideline?

Share this post


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

It's interesting how people can say the chair was wrong in confirming both because the judge HAS TO confirm or white paddle the ref. Isn't it possible the judge didn't do the "right thing"? And isn't it possible that just like the rest of the international rule set- we're being overly literal in that reading since it's more of a guideline?

I agree with your last sentence.  

Share this post


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

It's interesting how people can say the chair was wrong in confirming both because the judge HAS TO confirm or white paddle the ref. Isn't it possible the judge didn't do the "right thing"? And isn't it possible that just like the rest of the international rule set- we're being overly literal in that reading since it's more of a guideline?

It is possible that the judge didn't do the right thing, but I would consider it unlikely.  If the judge did the wrong thing then the chair also did the wrong thing because there would be no way for him know what the judge intended.  Also if the chair did think he made such an error shouldn't he have called for a consultation?

Your second point is more likely.  It's possible that "the mat chairman must make a decision in favour of one or the other of the wrestlers; he is not allowed to give a different opinion" is being taken too rigidly and that it is intended to be more permissive.  Maybe taking both is supposed to be an option if it makes sense.  After all this isn't a 1R-1B step out disagreement.  It is awkwardly worded if nothing else.   It's says "in favour of one or the other wrestlers" but the chair could be deciding between 4R vs 2R so it's not really one wrestler or the other, though both would have a distinct preference. 

A 2R vs 2B disagreement has to have come up on the world stage before and I wonder how often if ever its been scored to be 2R-2B by the chair without a consultation.  

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...