Jump to content
NJDan

The Yianni Challenge

Recommended Posts

People have to distinguish between two aspects of the possible challenge: 

The scoring of the sequence where Yianni was eventually awarded two back points was a judgment call and a tough one. So I agree that that aspect will be hard to challenge. But the five second rule is not a judgment call. Because the brick was not thrown within five seconds or anything close to five seconds, there should have been NO review and the score should have remained 8-6 in favor of Yianni. This was a clear error. Also, this was not a case where the score went on the board late. So there was no excuse for not throwing the brick on time.

Parenthetically, while I don't know what Cael was thinking, he might have been waiting to throw the brick because he thought Zain had a good chance to score from the position he was in. Then the match ended and Zain had not scored. At that point he threw the brick. This is gamesmanship even if it was not conscious gamesmanship. And this is the kind of action that the the five second rule seems designed to prevent. Toss your brick or keep your peace.

 
Edited by NJDan
typos

Share this post


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

People have to distinguish between two aspects of the possible challenge: 

The scoring of the sequence where Yianni was eventually awarded two back points was a judgment call and a tough one. So I agree that that aspect will be hard to challenge. But the five second rule is not a judgment call. Because the brick was not thrown within five second or anything close to five seconds, there should have been NO review and the score should have remained 8-6 in favor of Yianni. This was a clear error. Also, this was not a case where the score went on the board late. So there was no excuse for not throwing the brick on time.

Parenthetically, while I don't know what Cael was thinking, he might have been waiting to throw the brick because he though Zain had a good chance to score from the position he was in. Then the match ended and Zain had not scored. At that point he threw the brick. This is gamesmanship even if it was not conscious gamesmanship. And this is the kind of action that the the five second rule seems designed to prevent. Toss your brick or keep your peace.

 

That is a very good point NJD - If that is allowed it would give a a wrestler two shots to win.  You either score on your own or you get a chance to go back 30 seconds to review something.  The rules as they stand clearly say that brick has to be thrown within 5 seconds of the action being challenged (or the score being posted for that action).  I do not see how the judges have the authority to overrule that and do this review.  USAW should overturn what they did and YD should win the second match and a 3rd should be wrestled for the WT spot.  I doubt that happens though. 

Share this post


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

People have to distinguish between two aspects of the possible challenge: 

The scoring of the sequence where Yianni was eventually awarded two back points was a judgment call and a tough one. So I agree that that aspect will be hard to challenge. But the five second rule is not a judgment call. Because the brick was not thrown within five second or anything close to five seconds, there should have been NO review and the score should have remained 8-6 in favor of Yianni. This was a clear error. Also, this was not a case where the score went on the board late. So there was no excuse for not throwing the brick on time.

Parenthetically, while I don't know what Cael was thinking, he might have been waiting to throw the brick because he though Zain had a good chance to score from the position he was in. Then the match ended and Zain had not scored. At that point he threw the brick. This is gamesmanship even if it was not conscious gamesmanship. And this is the kind of action that the the five second rule seems designed to prevent. Toss your brick or keep your peace.

 

 

If you watch the Tucci video in the other thread, he states the exact opposite. He states that if the brick is thrown in a reasonable period of time it will be accepted, and he cites the fact this has happened many times before in Int'l. competition. He then even goes so far as to describe how a coach can be watching the action and only upon stoppage realize the score is not what he believes it should be, then throws the brick. Tucci states that getting the score correct takes priority over the timing of the throw especially when it impacts the result of the match. This all goes squarely against your interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrestlers are supposed to go 100 percent at all times which negates any need to add time back to the clock. I think they will rule that Cunningham throwing the brick at the first stoppage was appropriate and reasonable. It is coincidence in this case that the first stoppage occurs when times expires. 

Share this post


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

 

If you watch the Tucci video in the other thread, he states the exact opposite. He states that if the brick is thrown in a reasonable period of time it will be accepted, and he cites the fact this has happened many times before in Int'l. competition. He then even goes so far as to describe how a coach can be watching the action and only upon stoppage realize the score is not what he believes it should be, then throws the brick. Tucci states that getting the score correct takes priority over the timing of the throw especially when it impacts the result of the match. This all goes squarely against your interpretation.

But "5 seconds" is not a matter of interpretation. Tucci said that in the match he was discussing, the brick came 8-9 seconds later. He also says he has seen bricks being thrown after 15 seconds. None of what Tucci said is the "opposite" of what I am saying. Also: Tucci can be wrong.

I guess allowing for reaction time is one thing. But the refs should simply not allow 15 seconds when the rule says 5 seconds. Here the brick was thrown after 20 seconds, maybe 30. Also, the refs should they allow a brick to be thrown after the time runs out.  This is not a case where Cael did not "realize" that the score was wrong. He knew the score. Everyone in the arena knew the score. 

If "getting the score right" is the only priority, there would be no five second rule.

To draw an analogy from the law, in federal court a losing party has 30 days (usually) to file a notice of appeal. If he files it on the 40th day, he is out of court regardless of how strong his case would have been. 

Share this post


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

Wrestlers are supposed to go 100 percent at all times which negates any need to add time back to the clock. I think they will rule that Cunningham throwing the brick at the first stoppage was appropriate and reasonable. It is coincidence in this case that the first stoppage occurs when times expires. 

If they rule like that it's a travesty. The rule says "5 seconds." It does not say an "appropriate and reasonable time." By this reasoning, they might have let the match go another 15 seconds. After all, who is to say that 6:15 is not just as reasonable as minutes?

BTW, I am not predicting the outcome of the challenge. I don't know how these things are done in practice. I am just saying that Yianni has a good case based on the 5 second rule.

Also, both wrestlers were going 100%-- that has nothing to do with this situation.

 

Edited by NJDan

Share this post


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

But "5 seconds" is not a matter of interpretation. Tucci said that in the match he was discussing, the brick came 8-9 seconds later. He also says he has seen bricks being thrown after 15 seconds. None of what Tucci said is the "opposite" of what I am saying. Also: Tucci can be wrong.

I guess allowing for reaction time is one thing. But the refs should simply not allow 15 seconds when the rule says 5 seconds. Here the brick was thrown after 20 seconds, maybe 30. Also, the refs should they allow a brick to be thrown after the time runs out.  This is not a case where Cael did not "realize" that the score was wrong. He knew the score. Everyone in the arena knew the score. 

If "getting the score right" is the only priority, there would be no five second rule.

To draw an analogy from the law, in federal court a losing party has 30 days (usually) to file a notice of appeal. If he files it on the 40th day, he is out of court regardless of how strong his case would have been. 

 

Tucci stated that the timing has to be considered "reasonable". He further stated the 5 seconds is not a hard and fast time limit. In fact, he gave no hard and fast time limit. Instead he stated it must be reasonable. It is obvious they considered it reasonable otherwise they would not have done the review. Once the standard becomes "reasonable", as opposed to a strict set time limit as applies in your legal scenario, it is then open to interpretation. You have made your claim as to what refs "should" do, and Tucci and that crew did something else. They have the most experience at doing this so I am going with their decision. 

To overturn on the 5 second rule you have to claim their "reasonable" standard applied to this case was, in fact, unreasonable. That is a judgment call. So you are then going to ask the USOC or some other body to over rule a judgment call where the true standard as applied by prior case law (i.e. prior International competition) isn't 5 seconds at all, it is "reasonable time". I doubt that could happen.

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

If they rule like that it's a travesty. The rule says "5 seconds." It does not say an "appropriate and reasonable time." By this reasoning, they might have let the match go another 15 seconds. After all, who is to say that 6:15 is not just as reasonable as minutes?

But according to the Tucci video we have all seen, in application in past events the rule isn't really 5 seconds, it is within reasonable time. They obviously concluded the challenge at the instant of first stoppage was within a reasonable time. That is a judgment call and there probably isn't any way to over turn that. 

Your citing an absurdely ridiculous 6:15 elapsed time doesn't help your case in this match. The only thing that matters with the timing is whether it was reasonable or not in this specific match. They deemed it was reasonable and I don't see how one judgment can be over ruled by another. The result is likely to stand. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

But "5 seconds" is not a matter of interpretation. Tucci said that in the match he was discussing, the brick came 8-9 seconds later. He also says he has seen bricks being thrown after 15 seconds. None of what Tucci said is the "opposite" of what I am saying. Also: Tucci can be wrong.

I guess allowing for reaction time is one thing. But the refs should simply not allow 15 seconds when the rule says 5 seconds. Here the brick was thrown after 20 seconds, maybe 30. Also, the refs should they allow a brick to be thrown after the time runs out.  This is not a case where Cael did not "realize" that the score was wrong. He knew the score. Everyone in the arena knew the score. 

If "getting the score right" is the only priority, there would be no five second rule.

To draw an analogy from the law, in federal court a losing party has 30 days (usually) to file a notice of appeal. If he files it on the 40th day, he is out of court regardless of how strong his case would have been. 

If there is a rule about throwing the brick after time runs out,  Koll was allowed to challenge in both of the Burroughs matches in 2017 after time ran out. 

Share this post


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

But according to the Tucci video we have all seen, in application in past events the rule isn't really 5 seconds, it is within reasonable time. They obviously concluded the challenge at the instant of first stoppage was within a reasonable time. That is a judgment call and there probably isn't any way to over turn that. 

Tucci said that in the case he was discussing, they ruled on a challenge that came after 8-9 seconds. He sort of justifies permitting that review because the coach, in his mind, might not have known what the score was. In this case, the brick came 20-30 seconds after the score and the whole building knew the score.

 

Share this post


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

Tucci said that in the case he was discussing, they ruled on a challenge that came after 8-9 seconds. He sort of justifies permitting that review because the coach, in his mind, might not have known what the score was. In this case, the brick came 20-30 seconds after the score and the whole building knew the score.

 

In that match 8 or 9 seconds was considered reasonable because that was the timing at the stoppage. In other matches he's witnessed longer periods of time were considered, due to the facts and circumstances in those matches, to also have been reasonable. The only thing that matters is whether considering the facts and circumstances in this particular match the timing was "reasonable". Turns out it was. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

If there is a rule about throwing the brick after time runs out,  Koll was allowed to challenge in both of the Burroughs matches in 2017 after time ran out. 

That's not so. In the third match, Koll was protesting a non-call (Dake was not awarded a pushout) that occurred in the last second of the match. In that circumstance, it's OK to throw the brick after time was called. 

 

 

Edited by NJDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, lu1979 said:

That is a very good point NJD - If that is allowed it would give a a wrestler two shots to win.  You either score on your own or you get a chance to go back 30 seconds to review something.  The rules as they stand clearly say that brick has to be thrown within 5 seconds of the action being challenged (or the score being posted for that action).  I do not see how the judges have the authority to overrule that and do this review.  USAW should overturn what they did and YD should win the second match and a 3rd should be wrestled for the WT spot.  I doubt that happens though. 

This case is absurdly cut and dry.  YD won.  They will wrestle a third.

Share this post


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

That's not so. In the third match, Koll was protesting a non-call (Dake was not awarded a pushout) that occurred in the last second of the match. In that circumstance, it's OK to throw the brick after time was called. 

 

 

So what you are saying, is there ARE exceptions?

Share this post


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

So what you are saying, is there ARE exceptions?

No, you are not understanding. If the action was in the last second of the match, a brick thrown when time is called IS within the 5 seconds. 

Share this post


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

No, you are not understanding. If the action was in the last second of the match, a brick thrown when time is called IS within the 5 seconds. 

That's great. How does change anything when the applied standard is actually "reasonableness"? It doesn't. 

Tucci stated the 5 second rule is not a hard and fast rule. The standard in reality is "reasonableness". In the moment in this case it was deemed reasonable. You keep citing 5 seconds as if that is some hard and fast rule. Do you think Tucci doesn't know what he's talking about? Please answer that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been brought up, but in one of the FLO videos, the announcers say that Zain's corner was challenging exposure at the end of the match (not the earlier 2/2 call).

If that's the case, there's going to be leniency on whether the brick comes after the buzzer, because some flurries, etc., simply happen at the end of the match. The question for me is why the other sequence got reviewed at all if it wasn't technically what was being challenged. (I don't know the rules well enough to answer that myself.) If it were completely at the table refs discretion, rather than a direct challenge from Cael, the '5 second' question is beside the point--the brick basically just opened the door for the refs to review an earlier call that doesn't seem to be have been challenged by either corner.

Again, sorry if this has been covered or if I'm missing the point.  

Share this post


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

Sorry if this has been brought up, but in one of the FLO videos, the announcers say that Zain's corner was challenging exposure at the end of the match (not the earlier 2/2 call).

If that's the case, there's going to be leniency on whether the brick comes after the buzzer, because some flurries, etc., simply happen at the end of the match. The question for me is why the other sequence got reviewed at all if it wasn't technically what was being challenged. (I don't know the rules well enough to answer that myself.) If it were completely at the table refs discretion, rather than a direct challenge from Cael, the '5 second' question is beside the point--the brick basically just opened the door for the refs to review an earlier call that doesn't seem to be have been challenged by either corner.

Again, sorry if this has been covered or if I'm missing the point.  

I think they can go back because it was ruled one long continuous action. 

Share this post


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

 

Tucci stated that the timing has to be considered "reasonable". He further stated the 5 seconds is not a hard and fast time limit. In fact, he gave no hard and fast time limit. Instead he stated it must be reasonable. It is obvious they considered it reasonable otherwise they would not have done the review. Once the standard becomes "reasonable", as opposed to a strict set time limit as applies in your legal scenario, it is then open to interpretation. You have made your claim as to what refs "should" do, and Tucci and that crew did something else. They have the most experience at doing this so I am going with their decision. 

To overturn on the 5 second rule you have to claim their "reasonable" standard applied to this case was, in fact, unreasonable. That is a judgment call. So you are then going to ask the USOC or some other body to over rule a judgment call where the true standard as applied by prior case law (i.e. prior International competition) isn't 5 seconds at all, it is "reasonable time". I doubt that could happen.

Waiting until the match is over and your guy lost and there is not risk of a lost challenge point hurting you is not a reasonable time frame. 

Share this post


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

Sorry if this has been brought up, but in one of the FLO videos, the announcers say that Zain's corner was challenging exposure at the end of the match (not the earlier 2/2 call).

If that's the case, there's going to be leniency on whether the brick comes after the buzzer, because some flurries, etc., simply happen at the end of the match. The question for me is why the other sequence got reviewed at all if it wasn't technically what was being challenged. (I don't know the rules well enough to answer that myself.) If it were completely at the table refs discretion, rather than a direct challenge from Cael, the '5 second' question is beside the point--the brick basically just opened the door for the refs to review an earlier call that doesn't seem to be have been challenged by either corner.

Again, sorry if this has been covered or if I'm missing the point.  

This is a fair point as there was confusion about what was being challenged. But since the result was to take two points AWAY from Yianni (cutting him from 8 to 6) rather than to award two to Zain, it's clear the committee reviewed the score that was 20 or 30 seconds before the brick.

Also, the "continuous action" theory is not an excuse. That theory might justify the ref waiting to whistle the action dead despite a brick being thrown. It does NOT justify a late brick.

 

Share this post


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

Waiting until the match is over and your guy lost and there is not risk of a lost challenge point hurting you is not a reasonable time frame. 

Koll will probably tell the committee the same thing, now let's see how that works out for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have wishy washy criteria that will not be enforced consistently like "a reasonable time" . The brick needs to be thrown within a set amount of time on the match clock.

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

×