Jump to content
VakAttack

In terms of actual on the mat scoring calls

Recommended Posts

I can't really imagine a worse call simply because not just the magnitude of the call (match deciding) but because it is so easy and objective. That really was akin to the missed pass interference call that send the Rams to the Super Bowl instead of the Saints. They were both easy calls that were blown that decided the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100%. There was at least ambiguity with the Yianni/Zain call where intent had to be judged. This was completely objective and they completely blew it. It'd be nice if these officials showed some humility/accountability and speak to the public about what they saw and thought at the time and whether they still stand by the call. 

Share this post


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

don't worry... they won't be able to do that...

 

So you are saying that there is no such rule, right? 

If there is not, it would look like Fix had a takedown as he was on top of Gilman and completely behind him.

Share this post


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

don't worry... they won't be able to do that...

 

People who have rooting interests will always cynically resort to rule book literalism with the full knowledge that the UWW rulebook is translated from a different language and is comically vague. For example, this is all that's given to define a takedown:

"To the wrestler who overcomes and then controls his opponent by passing behind (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or head)."

 The more rational thing to do is to observe how this common position is officiated consistently, which is why people are almost in unanimous agreement that the call was blown. It's never called a takedown anywhere else and it's even usually not given in the US either. The consensus interpretation is that you can't "pass behind" while your opponent still has your leg. Zach Errett didn't all of a sudden crack the code and come up with the correct interpretation against the entirety of the freestyle officiating community. He made a mistake.

Share this post


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

So you are saying that there is no such rule, right? 

If there is not, it would look like Fix had a takedown as he was on top of Gilman and completely behind him.

No, the rule book states you must pass behind: 

"To the wrestler who overcomes and then controls his opponent by passing behind (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or head)."

This definition is all that's given for takedowns and obviously doesn't cover the infinite possibilities of positions in wrestling which is why resorting to reductive literal interpretations of the rule book will lead you nowhere. This position occurs frequently in freestyle and is called very consistently. The general interpretation seems to be that you can't "pass behind" while your opponent still has your leg. Errett's call was completely against the grain of conventional freestyle officiating's interpretation of that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

People who have rooting interests will always cynically resort to rule book literalism with the full knowledge that the UWW rulebook is translated from a different language and is comically vague. For example, this is all that's given to define a takedown:

"To the wrestler who overcomes and then controls his opponent by passing behind (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or head)."

 The more rational thing to do is to observe how this common position is officiated consistently, which is why people are almost in unanimous agreement that the call was blown. It's never called a takedown anywhere else and it's even usually not given in the US either. The consensus interpretation is that you can't "pass behind" while your opponent still has your leg. Zach Errett didn't all of a sudden crack the code and come up with the correct interpretation against the entirety of the freestyle officiating community. He made a mistake.

^this...

i have been told by M1 refs that when the defending wrestler still has a leg, it is not full control... that is the way it is called in international wrestling... that is the way i see it called very consistently...

with that being said, at SO Plains i specifically asked a different M1 ref (on the chair at the time) why he awarded a takedown in that exact same scenario and he was too flustered to even acknowledge my question...

Share this post


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

2nd worst.  The worst was whichever Iowa coach, Perry or Brands, told him to shoot.

That was stupid only because the call was FUBARed so badly. It very well may have won him the match by chewing up a big chunk of clock. 

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


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

That was stupid only because the call was FUBARed so badly. It very well may have won him the match by chewing up a big chunk of clock. 

Not a bad point. By the third match, he had kind of figured out how to chew clock in that position by staying bellied down and successfully did so in this case (had the match been called properly). On the flip side, if the takedown isn't given, Fix would have continued to work hard for that score and may have eventually gotten it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

Not a bad point. By the third match, he had kind of figured out how to chew clock in that position by staying bellied down and successfully did so in this case (had the match been called properly). On the flip side, if the takedown isn't given, Fix would have continued to work hard for that score and may have eventually gotten it.

That goes without saying, but Gilman's D is very solid, Fix's offense against Gilman on a shot he initiates is suspect, and it's much harder to score with, say 15 or so on the clock unless you're JB, who is more dangerous with short time than with a whole period ahead of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents.  The UWW is pretty vague on defining a takedown.  I think most officials would not award a takedown in that situation.  But there are a lot of different interpretations in FS.  You won't read in the UWW rules book about locking up a cradle and busting your opponent to his hip, but that is interpreted as a takedown even though the offensive wrestler may not have passed behind.  That becomes an interpretation of "overcomes" or the buzz word now, "establishing the dominant position."  

Errett awarded the two and looked pretty confident when doing it and it was confirmed and re-confirmed by the jury so I have to wonder (and I don't know the answer) if there is some interpretation about this position and "establishing a dominant position".  While Gillman still had had his arms around a leg, Fix was on top with Gillman's leg trapped/foot to butt and his hands looked like they were locked around Gillman's waist.  If there is some other interpretation, Errett is a UWW instructor and is in the best position to know what is most current.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will bow to the better knowledge of UWW officiating of literally everyone else on the forum but if that position isn't a takedown what the hell are we doing here? gilman had the leg but was bellied out and not even trying to improve his position while fix was entirely wrapped around him. 

i don't even have a rooting interest because neither of them went to cornell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall Denis Tsargush being in the Gilman position against DT at Universities (I believe it was the year before the change to U23, but could be off on timing) and it was not a TD. Maybe someone has a link to the match or can dig it up from somewhere. I have seen this position so many times throughout the last few years alone and have never seen it called a TD until Fix "scored" off of it on Gilman.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


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

My 2 cents.  The UWW is pretty vague on defining a takedown.  I think most officials would not award a takedown in that situation.  But there are a lot of different interpretations in FS.  You won't read in the UWW rules book about locking up a cradle and busting your opponent to his hip, but that is interpreted as a takedown even though the offensive wrestler may not have passed behind.  That becomes an interpretation of "overcomes" or the buzz word now, "establishing the dominant position."  

Errett awarded the two and looked pretty confident when doing it and it was confirmed and re-confirmed by the jury so I have to wonder (and I don't know the answer) if there is some interpretation about this position and "establishing a dominant position".  While Gillman still had had his arms around a leg, Fix was on top with Gillman's leg trapped/foot to butt and his hands looked like they were locked around Gillman's waist.  If there is some other interpretation, Errett is a UWW instructor and is in the best position to know what is most current.

There are not a lot of interpretations of this position in freestyle. I have seen this position repeatedly in international wrestling and have never seen points given for it anywhere except the U.S.

Also, Errett didn't look confident to me. In fact, it took him a full 5 seconds of no change in position to award 2, not something that indicates confidence that he knows what he's looking at. I think the crowd calls for 2 (a crowd more familiar with folkstyle takedowns than freestyle) influenced him. On the flo broadcast, you can hear CP start the sentence of "Nothing. He's gotta get that leg..." followed by an exclamatory "oh, they gave 2?!?!"

IMO, the biggest reason they upheld the call was that had they overturned it, Fix would have only had 5 seconds to respond. If the match is stopped for review with a 1 min + to go, I think that gets overturned without much issue. The Yianni/Zain debacle has been one of the bigger blow ups in recent memory and Errett was personally involved in that and I don't think he wanted any part of that kind of controversy again.

Share this post


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

i will bow to the better knowledge of UWW officiating of literally everyone else on the forum but if that position isn't a takedown what the hell are we doing here? gilman had the leg but was bellied out and not even trying to improve his position while fix was entirely wrapped around him. 

i don't even have a rooting interest because neither of them went to cornell.

He was literally back into a low single position within 5 seconds of the call because he still had full control of Fix's leg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example I found in a Ramos-Rahimi match. Fast forward to 6:25ish and you will see Ramos get to a very similar position as Fix where he has the leg hooked and shoulder beaten, but Rahimi never lets go of the leg completely and so Ramos doesn't score until he's able to expose Rahimi 10 seconds later after giving up exposure himself. In freestyle, as long as the opponent is able to maintain an inside hold on the leg, no takedown is given.

 

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...