Jump to content
NJDan

USAW's coverage is just sad

Recommended Posts

On 6/9/2019 at 1:31 PM, JasonBryant said:

 


Let me provide a little insight, having been on both sides of the coverage of events like this. The first line quoted is accurate because at USAW events, the communications team is first and foremost, media relations/public relations for the organization. Some NGBs don’t even provide external content. For USAW purposes, Gary, Mike and Taylor’s job is to focus on USAW and the basic facts of any and all situations. Editorializing and feature-based journalism exists in their external coverage of the college season, etc. I first experienced it in 2003 when I was freelancing for TheMat.com and stringing for the Associated Press at the World Championships. IIRC, Cormier got beat and shoved his Iranian opponent. My story for USAW skirted over this, since it did not impact the final score, but I did allude to it being something like “an emotional finish.” In my AP story, I outlined what happened post-match.

Independent media will focus more on the controversy, but don’t expect any NGB to draw attention to a controversial topic as a big part of a recap or release.

As someone who cut my teeth in newsrooms, it was a hard thing for me to deal with initially, but there is a difference between PR and journalism. We have a lot of fuzzy lines in our sport in that regard - a lot of covering your friends and access journalism -
so the bottom line here is the folks did their job as it relates to their company. The editorializing and analysis won’t come from an NGB in a post event wrap.

Hope that provides some background on why you don’t see long, drawn out explanations on things like what happened on Saturday night.

 

jason, im not quoting you to talk about this topic...but wanted to bring your attention to another matter.

are you aware of any efforts by UWW or USAW  to collect data on the stepout rule?

has it effected shots or TD's as intended?

etc etc... thanks

Share this post


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

jason, im not quoting you to talk about this topic...but wanted to bring your attention to another matter.

are you aware of any efforts by UWW or USAW  to collect data on the stepout rule?

has it effected shots or TD's as intended?

etc etc... thanks

Dr. David Curby is probably the best way to direct the question - he's with the International Network of Wrestling Researchers - that's the type of stuff they dig on, with the blessing of UWW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 7:31 AM, Bryan said:

More than likely the courts would block USA Wrestling from allowing anyone to compete at the weight class in question until the issue has been resolved.  This is the way that it happens 99.9% of the time.  That is why I am adamant that this issue must be resolved ASAP if not sooner.  

That's the way it happens 99.9% of the time?  Hard to argue with that.

With all of those examples when's the last time an athlete couldn't compete because a legal court was legislating out an in match rules application?

Share this post


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

That's the way it happens 99.9% of the time?  Hard to argue with that.

With all of those examples when's the last time an athlete couldn't compete because a legal court was legislating out an in match rules application?

I personally don't know if it was the last time a court overruled the match results but the most famous instance was in 1984 when the courts ruled that the Olympic trials match between Randy Lewis and Lee Roy Smith be wrestled again.  

Share this post


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

That's the way it happens 99.9% of the time?  Hard to argue with that.

With all of those examples when's the last time an athlete couldn't compete because a legal court was legislating out an in match rules application?

Except no one has filed a lawsuit or even threatened to do. Koll wants to appeal to the USAW or the USOC. In theory that could lead to a court battle, but it's not inevitable or even likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koll told Dernlan he is sending a 4 page letter to three named bodies: UWW, USAWrestling and the USOC. Dernlan then asked him what would come after that and he started talking about lawyers. Said he didn't "want" to go there but he had to fight for his wrestler.

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may get ugly, but you have to appreciate a coach that sticks by their wrestler and is willing to go every avenue and be willing to seriously piss off peers, fans, colleagues, alumni, current team members, and recruits - and to some this will be Koll's defining legacy, right or wrong.

Edited by bnwtwg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bryan said:

I personally don't know if it was the last time a court overruled the match results but the most famous instance was in 1984 when the courts ruled that the Olympic trials match between Randy Lewis and Lee Roy Smith be wrestled again.  

So 25 years ago they had to re-wrestle a match and from that you come up with the courts barring an American from entering because it happens 99.9% of the time?  

Retherford will almost certainly be wrestling.  There's a tiny chance Yianni will be.  There is zero chance that no American wrestles that weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP's point is valid in the sense that we have no wrestling media offering opinion pieces in the immediate aftermath of the match.  I looked--Flo and Intermat had nothing.  The opinions are provided by fans on forums but the concrete thoughtful analysis we'd like to see was not to be found for a few days.  Tomorrow TR Foley will likely weigh in but that's too long after the fact.

Logan Stieber makes an excellent point in his recent Flo interview.  He points out that the three guys in charge of making a call had three different opinions so how do they end up going with the one that changes the outcome?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boconnell said:

So 25 years ago they had to re-wrestle a match and from that you come up with the courts barring an American from entering because it happens 99.9% of the time?  

Retherford will almost certainly be wrestling.  There's a tiny chance Yianni will be.  There is zero chance that no American wrestles that weight.

Time will tell what happens and absolutely no one knows for sure that Yianni's camp will seek help from the legal system.  Yes I know what Rob said on Flo but once the emotions are out of the picture people often go in very different directions.  What I do know is that a good attorney would rip the officials from USA wrestling a new A** HOLE for not following the rules.  This point would not be hard to prove and you would almost certainly win if the case went before a jury.  

Share this post


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

Time will tell what happens and absolutely no one knows for sure that Yianni's camp will seek help from the legal system.  Yes I know what Rob said on Flo but once the emotions are out of the picture people often go in very different directions.  What I do know is that a good attorney would rip the officials from USA wrestling a new A** HOLE for not following the rules.  This point would not be hard to prove and you would almost certainly win if the case went before a jury.  

First of all, this case will NEVER go to a jury. The YD camp would be seeking an injunction and juries don't rule on injunctions. Second, it's unlikely to go to any court. Koll was talking about making a case to the USOC or USAW. It's possible a lawyer would help make that case, but not in court. No one speaking for YD has ever said anything about going to court.

Share this post


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

Time will tell what happens and absolutely no one knows for sure that Yianni's camp will seek help from the legal system.  Yes I know what Rob said on Flo but once the emotions are out of the picture people often go in very different directions.  What I do know is that a good attorney would rip the officials from USA wrestling a new A** HOLE for not following the rules.  This point would not be hard to prove and you would almost certainly win if the case went before a jury.  

There are 100 cases of officials not following rules across sports everyday.  It's never illegal and never goes to court.  

Share this post


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

 

Logan Stieber makes an excellent point in his recent Flo interview.  He points out that the three guys in charge of making a call had three different opinions so how do they end up going with the one that changes the outcome?  

They went with what 2 of the 3 agreed upon. Pretty straight forward.

Share this post


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

They went with what 2 of the 3 agreed upon. Pretty straight forward.

One went 2 red, one went 2 blue, and the chair went 2-2. The jury of appeal said 2 red. That's not part of the 2 of the 3 on the mat, so this whole situation is anything but straight forward. For the record, I don't care who wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JasonBryant said:

One went 2 red, one went 2 blue, and the chair went 2-2. The jury of appeal said 2 red. That's not part of the 2 of the 3 on the mat, so this whole situation is anything but straight forward. For the record, I don't care who wins. 

I have heard this stated both ways and couldn't figure that part out. So if it was the jury, and not to equate this with the two out of three situation because its obviously different, but how many are on that jury of appeal? 

Share this post


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

I have heard this stated both ways and couldn't figure that part out. So if it was the jury, and not to equate this with the two out of three situation because its obviously different, but how many are on that jury of appeal? 

I believe just two - Rick Tucci and Bill Stecklein. Typically, when three referees disagree, there's a conference, then they figure it out (not a challenge, not a review). Then when the points go up, then the call is open for a video challenge. That whole situation was fast and furious, so as I said, it was anything but straight forward given the length of the scramble, the disagreement from the three officials on the mat (referee, judge, chairman) and then the subsequent challenge from the red corner. To put it in my most professional terminology - the whole thing was wacky. 

Share this post


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

I believe just two - Rick Tucci and Bill Stecklein. Typically, when three referees disagree, there's a conference, then they figure it out (not a challenge, not a review). Then when the points go up, then the call is open for a video challenge. That whole situation was fast and furious, so as I said, it was anything but straight forward given the length of the scramble, the disagreement from the three officials on the mat (referee, judge, chairman) and then the subsequent challenge from the red corner. To put it in my most professional terminology - the whole thing was wacky. 

Ok, so in this case Tucci and Stecklein review the 0:50 scoring and as a two many jury make the final determination as to which score to accept?

Share this post


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

Ok, so in this case Tucci and Stecklein review the 0:50 scoring and as a two many jury make the final determination as to which score to accept?

The jury is only involved when there's a challenge. They're not involved in determining what points should go on the board at any other time. That's where a lot of the confusion (from where I sit) is coming from. They don't have a score to accept. They look at the action and score it based on what they see - Hypothetically, they could have come up with something totally different from what was presented by all three mat officials. 

Share this post


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

The jury is only involved when there's a challenge. They're not involved in determining what points should go on the board at any other time. That's where a lot of the confusion (from where I sit) is coming from. They don't have a score to accept. They look at the action and score it based on what they see - Hypothetically, they could have come up with something totally different from what was presented by all three mat officials. 

Had there been no challenge, though, the way they got to 2-2 would still have to be reviewed by the 3 man team, right? It appears by the rules I have read that this would have had to have been reviewed and corrected so the chair would either accept 2red or 2blue. 

Seems if no brick the three man crew reviews it. Brick sends it to the two man jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had there been no challenge, though, the way they got to 2-2 would still have to be reviewed by the 3 man team, right? It appears by the rules I have read that this would have had to have been reviewed and corrected so the chair would either accept 2red or 2blue. 
Seems if no brick the three man crew reviews it. Brick sends it to the two man jury.

They discuss, I believe they have the option to review. It’s not automatic. If there’s no challenge, my personal opinion is that it’s 2-2. Yes, that isn’t offered, but the chairman is usually the most seasoned/highest ranking official - i’ve seen two different things presented and the chair call the other two over and come up with something else.

Share this post


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


They discuss, I believe they have the option to review. It’s not automatic. If there’s no challenge, my personal opinion is that it’s 2-2. Yes, that isn’t offered, but the chairman is usually the most seasoned/highest ranking official - i’ve seen two different things presented and the chair call the other two over and come up with something else.

So that required a conference at least to discuss it. Seems the rules are almost purposefully vague to give the crew and/ or the jury a lot of leeway to call each situation as they see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So that required a conference at least to discuss it. Seems the rules are almost purposefully vague to give the crew and/ or the jury a lot of leeway to call each situation as they see it.

There are rules and there are guidelines. The two terms aren’t synonymous, so as I first stated - not straight forward.

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

×