Jump to content
NJDan

The Yianni Challenge

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

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

I think that's a good point. Still I wonder (with no dog in the fight): how does the coach's challenge circumscribe what gets reviewed?

In this case: if Zain's corner challenged a possible exposure that occurred within the final 10 seconds (which I'm interpreting the challenge to be), why would the refs go back and reverse an earlier call, even if technically part of the same sequence? 

Maybe I'm not clear on where the points came from specifically. EG: if they came from that final/final flurry, then the timing of the brick seems well within reason. But, if they came from the earlier 2/2 flurry, and accepting the possibility of continuous action,I still would like to know what discretion refs have, beyond a specific challenge, to give/take points in that way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the letter of the rule, 5 seconds is a hard and fast rule per the UWW rules book (Article 32).

"No challenge can be requested after the end of the regular time of a period, except when the points are added to the scoreboard after the referee’s whistle or in case action occurred just before the time is over. The coach has 5 seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge."

The video I posted has Tucci discussing if more in the lines of spirit of the rule most likely from his experience with overseas officiating.  Perhaps that is why Koll made the comment of 2 officials having their day passed which he is obviously talking about the jury.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I think that's a good point. Still I wonder (with no dog in the fight): how does the coach's challenge circumscribe what gets reviewed?

In this case: if Zain's corner challenged a possible exposure that occurred within the final 10 seconds (which I'm interpreting the challenge to be), why would the refs go back and reverse an earlier call, even if technically part of the same sequence? 

Maybe I'm not clear on where the points came from specifically. EG: if they came from that final/final flurry, then the timing of the brick seems well within reason. But, if they came from the earlier 2/2 flurry, and accepting the possibility of continuous action,I still would like to know what discretion refs have, beyond a specific challenge, to give/take points in that way. 

 

Maybe NLWC asked them to review both calls. I have no idea. What I do know is that they had the top officials in the USA on this match review. They have their reasons which I believe they'd consider appropriate for what happened. 

I will say this. If it were stone cold clear to me (like it seems to be to others) that Yianni not Zain deserved those points then I would not post about this. I see it as Zain's two, and once I believe that I want them to get the result correct. 

NJDan posted a video in here somewhere of Match 2 of JB and Dake. The non exposure on a chest wrap from Dake was looked at. What was the main reason/ To get that call correct, which I think they did. That's how it should be. Get the call correct if it is at all reasonable given the circumstances. I think that happened here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rakkasan91 said:

By the letter of the rule, 5 seconds is a hard and fast rule per the UWW rules book (Article 32).

"No challenge can be requested after the end of the regular time of a period, except when the points are added to the scoreboard after the referee’s whistle or in case action occurred just before the time is over. The coach has 5 seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge."

The video I posted has Tucci discussing if more in the lines of spirit of the rule most likely from his experience with overseas officiating.  Perhaps that is why Koll made the comment of 2 officials having their day passed which he is obviously talking about the jury.

If it's not USAW but rather the USOC that takes over this case (Rich Bender discussed this in his Flo interview), do you think the nuances that Tucci refers to will rule the decision-making process or the actual rulebook? I don't know, but I'd guess the latter, not the former. "It's not breaking the rule if a lot of people do it" is a very, very weak argument to make to an objective panel.

Share this post


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

If it's not USAW but rather the USOC that takes over this case (Rich Bender discussed this in his Flo interview), do you think the nuances that Tucci refers to will rule the decision-making process or the actual rulebook? I don't know, but I'd guess the latter, not the former. "It's not breaking the rule if a lot of people do it" is a very, very weak argument to make to an objective panel.

I don't think that is a weak argument at all if that is how challenges are reviewed in practice. If this is routine practice, then the rule is not hard and fast at all. Tucci talks about this and I doubt that reasoning will change. 

Share this post


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

Maybe NLWC asked them to review both calls. I have no idea. What I do know is that they had the top officials in the USA on this match review. They have their reasons which I believe they'd consider appropriate for what happened. 

I will say this. If it were stone cold clear to me (like it seems to be to others) that Yianni not Zain deserved those points then I would not post about this. I see it as Zain's two, and once I believe that I want them to get the result correct. 

NJDan posted a video in here somewhere of Match 2 of JB and Dake. The non exposure on a chest wrap from Dake was looked at. What was the main reason/ To get that call correct, which I think they did. That's how it should be. Get the call correct if it is at all reasonable given the circumstances. I think that happened here. 

Fair enough--I support getting the calls right as well. That said, I do think it opens a can of worms given that coaches only get a select number of challenges and given that, in this case, the table overturned the call of a highly qualified official (which may or may not have been challenged). I'm not looking to belabor or argue the point really--I think there's some genuine gray area here worth thinking about.

Share this post


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

I don't think that is a weak argument at all if that is how challenges are reviewed in practice. If this is routine practice, then the rule is not hard and fast at all. Tucci talks about this and I doubt that reasoning will change. 

Again, to wrestling people, maybe. To a committee of people from the USOC (who likely don't hold wrestling in the highest regard to begin with), I seriously doubt that. They will look at the rule book first and foremost. The rules say what they say--no denying that. Then they'll look at the video evidence. It shows what it shows. Everything else will then be considered, but there are also cases that fly in the face of what Tucci says (e.g. Tony Ramos tweeting about his own very recent example). Whenever a group of outsiders looks at something like this, they will defer to the objective versus the subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they went back and reviewed that earlier call b/c they had not come to a concensus on it.

one ref was 2-2, the other two refs scored 2 for different guys.

this is why the 'initiated' stuff gets to be a joke.

the 3 best officials in the US can't determine what's in the minds of the wrestlers.

Share this post


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

i think they went back and reviewed that earlier call b/c they had not come to a concensus on it.

one ref was 2-2, the other two refs scored 2 for different guys.

this is why the 'initiated' stuff gets to be a joke.

the 3 best officials in the US can't determine what's in the minds of the wrestlers.

 

That's what facial reactions are for, or so I am told. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Again, to wrestling people, maybe. To a committee of people from the USOC (who likely don't hold wrestling in the highest regard to begin with), I seriously doubt that. They will look at the rule book first and foremost. The rules say what they say--no denying that. Then they'll look at the video evidence. It shows what it shows. Everything else will then be considered, but there are also cases that fly in the face of what Tucci says (e.g. Tony Ramos tweeting about his own very recent example). Whenever a group of outsiders looks at something like this, they will defer to the objective versus the subjective.

Not so sure about that. I think they will let the experts on the sport settle it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Again, to wrestling people, maybe. To a committee of people from the USOC (who likely don't hold wrestling in the highest regard to begin with), I seriously doubt that. They will look at the rule book first and foremost. The rules say what they say--no denying that. Then they'll look at the video evidence. It shows what it shows. Everything else will then be considered, but there are also cases that fly in the face of what Tucci says (e.g. Tony Ramos tweeting about his own very recent example). Whenever a group of outsiders looks at something like this, they will defer to the objective versus the subjective.

It may depend on what rule set the body that hears the protest is guided to.  The UWW rules have a specific time established.  The USAW rules do not.  Protected Competition (Section 9) of the USOC refers to National Governing Body (NGB) rules, not International (but I may be reading way more into this). 

A manual endorsed by USWOA states (kind of like the case manual in high school):

"ANNEX K - THE CHALLENGE (Figures K1A & K1B apply) When a challenge occurs and “the brick” is thrown onto the mat, do not immediately blow the whistle stopping the action. This becomes a Chairman’s decision and he/she will stop the bout at the appropriate time in order to review the action being challenged. When challenging an action; the coach has “APPROXIMATELY” five (5) seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge. The challenge timeframe is an approximation and “NOT A HARD TIMELINE.” However, a challenge may be accepted if it is made within a reasonable amount of time (longer than five seconds); especially, if the challenge will ultimately determine the winner of the bout.   Again, do not get fixated on five seconds, it is an approximation. Once a challenge is accepted, the jury of appeals will review the video and render a decision. It is not possible to request a “counter challenge” and there is no follow-on discussion. The jury of appeal’s decision is final."

https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/d1fb-1764411/2019_-_5th_Ed_-_THE_ART_OF_REFEREEING_FS-GR_WRESTLING.pdf?_ga=2.234359390.134440142.1560173269-1361780741.1553016222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rakkasan91 said:

It may depend on what rule set the body that hears the protest is guided to.  The UWW rules have a specific time established.  The USAW rules do not.  Protected Competition (Section 9) of the USOC refers to National Governing Body (NGB) rules, not International (but I may be reading way more into this). 

A manual endorsed by USWOA states (kind of like the case manual in high school):

"ANNEX K - THE CHALLENGE (Figures K1A & K1B apply) When a challenge occurs and “the brick” is thrown onto the mat, do not immediately blow the whistle stopping the action. This becomes a Chairman’s decision and he/she will stop the bout at the appropriate time in order to review the action being challenged. When challenging an action; the coach has “APPROXIMATELY” five (5) seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge. The challenge timeframe is an approximation and “NOT A HARD TIMELINE.” However, a challenge may be accepted if it is made within a reasonable amount of time (longer than five seconds); especially, if the challenge will ultimately determine the winner of the bout.   Again, do not get fixated on five seconds, it is an approximation. Once a challenge is accepted, the jury of appeals will review the video and render a decision. It is not possible to request a “counter challenge” and there is no follow-on discussion. The jury of appeal’s decision is final."

https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/d1fb-1764411/2019_-_5th_Ed_-_THE_ART_OF_REFEREEING_FS-GR_WRESTLING.pdf?_ga=2.234359390.134440142.1560173269-1361780741.1553016222

"The jury of appeal’s decision is final."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rakkasan91 said:

It may depend on what rule set the body that hears the protest is guided to.  The UWW rules have a specific time established.  The USAW rules do not.  Protected Competition (Section 9) of the USOC refers to National Governing Body (NGB) rules, not International (but I may be reading way more into this). 

A manual endorsed by USWOA states (kind of like the case manual in high school):

"ANNEX K - THE CHALLENGE (Figures K1A & K1B apply) When a challenge occurs and “the brick” is thrown onto the mat, do not immediately blow the whistle stopping the action. This becomes a Chairman’s decision and he/she will stop the bout at the appropriate time in order to review the action being challenged. When challenging an action; the coach has “APPROXIMATELY” five (5) seconds from the time the questioned score is posted on the official scoreboard to request a challenge. The challenge timeframe is an approximation and “NOT A HARD TIMELINE.” However, a challenge may be accepted if it is made within a reasonable amount of time (longer than five seconds); especially, if the challenge will ultimately determine the winner of the bout.   Again, do not get fixated on five seconds, it is an approximation. Once a challenge is accepted, the jury of appeals will review the video and render a decision. It is not possible to request a “counter challenge” and there is no follow-on discussion. The jury of appeal’s decision is final."

https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/d1fb-1764411/2019_-_5th_Ed_-_THE_ART_OF_REFEREEING_FS-GR_WRESTLING.pdf?_ga=2.234359390.134440142.1560173269-1361780741.1553016222

I believe what you are quoting is not the rulebook, but some kind of commentary on the rules. 

I also believe that the USAW goes by UWW rules. 

If I am wrong, I would love to be corrected.

 

Share this post


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

Who cares if they were the best officials or the worst? Even the best official can be wrong. The alleged quality of the official should have no bearing on an appeal.

i agree. the quality should not matter.

but can you see why people get frustrated with freestyle... b/c if the best can't get it right...

Share this post


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

I believe what you are quoting is not the rulebook, but some kind of commentary on the rules. 

I also believe that the USAW goes by UWW rules. 

If I am wrong, I would love to be corrected.

 

In some instances (probably most) they do. But USAW has made modifications in the past for team trials.  As an example, the Paulson/Hall match in the 2004 Olympic trials would have never lasted that long following International rules.  USAW made their own modifications to ending a bout for team qualifiers, essentially extending the overtime periods rather than the clinch deciding who made a World or Olympic team.  That is one instance that comes to mind.

While the quote above is not from the official USWOA rules book, it is endorsed by them and is used extensively throughout the USWOA Officials Education Program (OEP).  I would say it compliments USAW's rules book.  The author is the VP of USWOA and would not put something in that manual that differs from what the board wants to be taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting the manual you cited leaves itself open to this kind of scenario with the verbiage “reasonable time.” Obviously “reasonable time” is highly subjective and will be different to everyone involved on a literal match by match basis.

So would reasonable be doubling the amount of time in the rule book? Tripling it? Waiting an additional 40 seconds? As a coach, i would certainly take advantage of the ability to impact the match for my wrestler knowing the subjectivity of the rule but for the sake of consistency which is what I think we all try to strive for there should be some additional clarification. 

Another observation, if you are able to throw a challenge block after the whistle at the end of the match and review back as far as 40 seconds or longer depending on your definition of reasonable, as a coach I would be throwing that block as often as possible in close matches after they are finished to see if I could get a result changed. Not that it matters to the committee ruling any challenge after the fact but you would have to believe that a wrestlers strategy could change second by second based on how a match is going and if you believe you have a match won and whistle sounds ending the match only to find out after the fact you really didn’t score completely negates strategy in a match. We can all say everyone should wrestle at 100% all the time but that’s not what I’m referencing as anyone who has wrestled has probably been in a match where all they had to do was “hang on” to a leg to win and you better believe you are giving 100% effort to hang on for the win. 

Lastly, this ruling seems to have wide reaching implications setting a precedent on challenges. If they uphold the challenge and result, it indicates that 40 seconds is within a reasonable amount of time of continuous wrestling in a match. Does this mean 45 seconds/50/60 are also reasonable? While I know this isn’t a legal issue, one need only look at the Supreme Court as a governing body that has overturned what May have been illegal or legal based on past cases. Basically what Im saying is that if the highest court in the land can overturn past court decisions, couldn’t a committee fix an open ended rule in a rule book? 

 

Guess it just comes down to how seriously they want they want to take this protest and how far down the line they are looking or if this is just a decision being made in a vacuum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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...
 

Gamesmanship?... Carl?... Never!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rakkasan91 said:

In some instances (probably most) they do. But USAW has made modifications in the past for team trials.  As an example, the Paulson/Hall match in the 2004 Olympic trials would have never lasted that long following International rules.  USAW made their own modifications to ending a bout for team qualifiers, essentially extending the overtime periods rather than the clinch deciding who made a World or Olympic team.  That is one instance that comes to mind.

While the quote above is not from the official USWOA rules book, it is endorsed by them and is used extensively throughout the USWOA Officials Education Program (OEP).  I would say it compliments USAW's rules book.  The author is the VP of USWOA and would not put something in that manual that differs from what the board wants to be taught.

Yes, and USAW has allowed overtime in some recent trials matches. But they do this after they announce it so everybody knows. That's very different from ignoring a clear rulebook rule because of some commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 4 hours ago, NJDan said:
... 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...
 
this is what i am arguing against... once the scoring was made, once it was announced... b/c that is going to determine how i wrestle the match from that point....
that is when you should throw the brick... not waiting to see if you score from a position.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Take into account sometimes it takes 30 seconds to get the score up correctly, let alone finding the brick.  What if in excitement they drop the brick?  Are they SOL?   In a perfect world 5 seconds would be probably ok.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a meteor crashed through the ceiling and destroyed the brick?

I don't think its right to look for the one off scenarios on why a corner couldn't get the brick out in a timely fashion. If they drop the brick too bad... I rarely see it take 30 seconds to post the correct score but in the case of Zain v Yanni it was posted within seconds and no brick was thrown until after the match was over. Even if we doubled the time to throw to 10 seconds, I think most would agree that 43 seconds later and after the match had ended was probably way to late to challenge. If this is allowed thats fine, just know that now a ton of coaches will be throwing bricks after the match in the hopes of getting calls over turned a minute earlier which really negates the final minute of wrestling that took place after that sequence. 

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

×