Jump to content
scribe

The DECISION (yianni v retherford)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ugarte said:

I guess that's right - he probably could have used the NCAA championship to chose his WTT weight class regardless of the US Open finish. That said, Nickal was at BtS, watching from matside. I think he knew as well as anyone else that Taylor was going to need surgery and wouldn't be at Final X. I hoped for the best but expected the worst.

The requirement is just that you qualify for trials. You could theoretically place 7th in the Open at 57kg and wrestle in trials at 70kg. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, that was some wait for DT. Not. That is ridiculous. Bo Nickal was already sitting in the finals of Team Trials a weight class above and had no intention of moving down. The timing of that announcement becomes meaningless because of those facts. Stop with the tin foil hat conspiracy theories. 

Btw, did not Kyle Dake announce his injury status way later than taylor? Pretty sure he did. Nice try though on the tin foil hat conspiracy. 

you missed the part where i said i could make stuff up as well as you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is no matter what the justification is, the refs didn’t follow the rules.

Either the refs allowed the Cael & crew to challenge well after the rules allow for, or the challenge was for the later sequence in which no change happened meaning Yianni should’ve been awarded a point. 

Either way Yianni got screwed.

Share this post


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

The reality is no matter what the justification is, the refs didn’t follow the rules.

Either the refs allowed the Cael & crew to challenge well after the rules allow for, or the challenge was for the later sequence in which no change happened meaning Yianni should’ve been awarded a point. 

Either way Yianni got screwed.

Take the challenge out of it and the review of that sequence still is supposed to happen by rule since there was no way to get to 2-2 from the ref scoring 2Blue and the side judge scoring 2Red. The Chair has to agree with one or the other and that did not happen, so even with no brick they still have to review it and they still come up with whatever score they were going to come up with if the brick was involved. Same outcome either way. 

Share this post


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

So did they review that on their own then, not because of the late brick throw?

I think on their own, but I also think Cody probably calculated they were going to be forced to review the 2-2 call since there was no way to get to that score from 2Red OR 2Blue. I think Cody probably threw the brick just to make sure the match wasn't called before properly reviewing that sequence. 

Share this post


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

Take the challenge out of it and the review of that sequence still is supposed to happen by rule since there was no way to get to 2-2 from the ref scoring 2Blue and the side judge scoring 2Red. The Chair has to agree with one or the other and that did not happen, so even with no brick they still have to review it and they still come up with whatever score they were going to come up with if the brick was involved. Same outcome either way. 

You can’t take the brick out of it. There was a brick that was accepted. That’s a fact. Which sequence was it for? The earlier one? Against the rules. The later one? It wasn’t changed and Yianni should’ve then been awarded a point.

Share this post


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

i didn't agree with you at first... but it has become crystal clear to me that you are correct.

You got me. I am a Zain/PSU fan ............................. just like some others are Yianni/Cornell fans. So what? This doesn't change anything that happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are right. 

the call and match were completely mishandled. we can't change that.

you keep saying the right thing was done. but this isn't correct. we can't change that either. and I realize your mind won't be changed either.

but we CAN make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Edited by GockeS

Share this post


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

You can’t take the brick out of it. There was a brick that was accepted. That’s a fact. Which sequence was it for? The earlier one? Against the rules. The later one? It wasn’t changed and Yianni should’ve then been awarded a point.

Tucci likely won't agree that it is against the rules since he doesn't believe the 5 second rule is hard and fast to begin with, just that the challenge is "reasonable" AND because he believed they had to review that sequence anyway. 

Share this post


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

Tucci likely won't agree that it is against the rules since he doesn't believe the 5 second rule is hard and fast to begin with, just that the challenge is "reasonable" AND because he believed they had to review that sequence anyway. 

sounds like the obama administration.

ah..that rule... dont mind it.

Share this post


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

Tucci likely won't agree that it is against the rules since he doesn't believe the 5 second rule is hard and fast to begin with

That’s fine, but it doesn’t matter that Tucci likely won’t agree. The rule is in writing and is specific. If taken to court it’s a pretty easy case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chair did not follow the rules to begin with.  2-2 is not an option based on procedures.  They aren't even challenging a call.  This would be like an NFL team kicking a field goal it goes through the uprights, only two points going on the scoreboard, the ensuing kickoff taking place and then having the officials reject a challenge flag because the next play had started.  Errors of this kind would get addressed even before video review was a thing.  A wrestler or coach would get the refs attention at a lull in the action or stoppage and ask "Is the score right?  He said 2B, he said 2R, he said 2R-2B, and 2R-2B went up on the board." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the score on the scoreboard is wrong which it was it said 8-6 the Chair went 2 and 2 and it was put on the board.Once the score on the board is wrong a challenge can come at anytime to question the score.So the scoring in question has the be scored again once a brick is thrown.So the 5 second rule doesnt matter in this situation.The Chair shouldve  never gone 2 and 2. The Chair did call 2 and 2 but couldnt call a  conference  because the scramble  never stopped until the buzzer. Im not saying 2 and 2 isnt a reasonable call but with that crew  the Chair dropped the ball hes gotta go 2 for someone.This isnt a Regional with Zach (Chair) and a few beginners ref and judge.With the crew they had no way should he have gone 2 and 2.Once he went 2 and 2 it was gonna end up in a Tucci review regardless.If  action did stop and the Chair calls a conference  either corner can challenge the outcome.Action never stopped and continued until the buzzer so youve to go back and score the 2 and 2 situation in question.I understand the people saying they shouldve stopped it with time left so Yianni had a chance to win but at no point did the action stop to warrant a stoppage both corners wouldve been screaming louder then theyre now if they wouldve stopped that scramble.If your not happy with the way Tucci scored it thats a different issue that was a judgement call and those dont change during a protest

Edited by justafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't wrestle 1 minute under the assumption he was winning.  Points went up on the web feed with 0:35 second left.  I think the priority should be to score the bout correctly and a flagrant procedural error like this needs to be addressed.  There ref, judge, and chair should have consulted one another to sort it out.  That most likely would have happened at the end of the sequence (0:00) and no matter what they decided it was going to the review panel.  2B - Zain challenges, 2R - Yianni challenges, 2B-2R - Zain challenges. 

If it had been something like the ref offering 2B and the judge confirming 2B then I'd agree that timeliness of the brick would be an issue, but that's not the case.  Perhaps rules should added to allow for time to be added back in some situations like this because it does feel unfair for Yianni to wrestle 0:35 with the incorrect score displayed, but the situation itself (chair doesn't follow procedure) is probably pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, simple said:

That’s fine, but it doesn’t matter that Tucci likely won’t agree. The rule is in writing and is specific. If taken to court it’s a pretty easy case.

Not so sure about that. Courts don't like hearing these types of cases. They would want to rely on experts because all sorts of things come into conflict in this case. Written rule and what they have been doing as a matter of practice are DIFFERENT. A court could just say that if in International competition they allow challenges "within a reasonable period of time" and that standard is not codified in the rules as to exactly what is reasonable, they could easily decide against Koll's challenge. 

Also, the court could decide the score had to be reviewed and re scored anyway, regardless of the brick. So then the score is whatever the three man team decided that night. Koll could get lawyers involved and drag all of wrestling into a court room and still lose on a slam dunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, justafan said:

Once the score on the scoreboard is wrong which it was it said 8-6 the Chair went 2 and 2 and it was put on the board.Once the score on the board is wrong a challenge can come at anytime to question the score.So the scoring in question has the be scored again once a brick is thrown.So the 5 second rule doesnt matter in this situation.The Chair shouldve  never gone 2 and 2. The Chair did call 2 and 2 but couldnt call a  conference  because the scramble  never stopped until the buzzer. Im not saying 2 and 2 isnt a reasonable call but with that crew  the Chair dropped the ball hes gotta go 2 for someone.This isnt a Regional with Zach (Chair) and a few beginners ref and judge.With the crew they had no way should he have gone 2 and 2.Once he went 2 and 2 it was gonna end up in a Tucci review regardless.If  action did stop and the Chair calls a conference  either corner can challenge the outcome.Action never stopped and continued until the buzzer so youve to go back and score the 2 and 2 situation in question.I understand the people saying they shouldve stopped it with time left so Yianni had a chance to win but at no point did the action stop to warrant a stoppage both corners wouldve been screaming louder then theyre now if they wouldve stopped that scramble.If your not happy with the way Tucci scored it thats a different issue that was a judgement call and those dont change during a protest

This is it. Well said. People may not be satisfied with it, heck the NLWC and Zain are probably not satisfied with all this, but this is what had to happen once the 2-2 score went up AND the action was never stopped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2/2 was the most cowardly call ever by the way.......makes no sense.

The really disgusting thing was that the first ref made the right call, the second ref probably gave the other call so they could bring in a third point of view, and the chair chickened out by throwing up a call he wasn't even allowed to make, then crowbarred in an incorrect call he had the chance to confirm in the first place. GROSS

Edited by hammerlockthree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting article 32 of UWW rules "The coach must request the challenge by pushing a button provided to him immediately after the refereeing body has awarded or failed to award points to the contested situation."  

The points were not properly awarded by the refereeing body.  It's not like they are challenging the unanimous/majority opinion of the refereeing body there was a clear error and the chair exceeded his authority.  The points went up on the feed at 0:35 and the NWLC clearly threw the brick before the final whistle.  Those extra 0:27 should not prohibit the error from being fixed.     

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

×