Zain - Yanni outcome?

[TBar1977 4,026]

16 minutes ago, ugarte said:

what i mean is i accept that there is a good faith dispute over the rules whereas you think the idea of challenging is itself improper 

I think challenge bricks are fine. I think reviews are fine, whether by the three man crew or the table with the benefit of replay video. Settle things on the mat. 

What I think crosses a line is getting lawyers involved, trying to get a new ruling on the sequence, trying to get the head official fired, verbally disparaging said head official implying he's working while hung over or he's just plain too damn old to do this anymore. That doesn't seem like its good faith to me, it seems tawdry. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by TBar1977

[ugarte 418]

24 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I think challenge bricks are fine. I think reviews are fine, whether by the three man crew or the table with the benefit of replay video. Settle things on the mat. 

What I think crosses a line is getting lawyers involved, trying to get a new ruling on the sequence, trying to get the head official fired, verbally disparaging said head official implying he's working while hung over or he's just plain too damn old to do this anymore. That doesn't seem like its good faith to me, it seems tawdry. 

some of the interview was ill-advised

[TBar1977 4,026]

18 minutes ago, ugarte said:

some of the interview was ill-advised

Yes, it was. 

[tbert 561]

1 hour ago, custom fitch said:

As a Yianni fan, I was sure that winning two matches against Zain would not be easy at all but I did think he would pull it off in 3. I actually think that Retherford's grinding style is the best antidote to what Yianni does so well, especially after Zain got familiar with some of Yianni's tricks/traps. 

And Zain's adjustments were successful..so now they have an opportunity for time to develop a new game plan to combat it.  Nothing to lose for Yanni.

[TBar1977 4,026]

LOL @ Koll's description in his Summer Newsletter of the Zain win over Yianni at team trials.

He wrote that the second match was over turned in protest. That is a whack description of what transpired. No match is certified until a wrestler's hand is raised in victory, and it was Zain's hand raised in victory. Claiming the match was overturned in protest is whack. No, that is what Koll is actually trying to do. 

 

[Perry 1,318]

I mean, it was? Challenge brick equals protest if the call as it stood previously, no?

[TBar1977 4,026]

11 minutes ago, Perry said:

I mean, it was? Challenge brick equals protest if the call as it stood previously, no?

Its a form of protest of the score, no doubt. What its not is an overturning of the match result. Until a hand is raised, the result has not yet been decided. Until the brick challenge causes review or is denied, the score is not final and no winner has been declared. In other words,the match remains in doubt until certified. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by TBar1977

[hammerlockthree 2,183]

Yianni says this thing is ongoing, Final X Austin might be a hot ticket....good chance for USAw to grab some money while only looking marginally more corrupt.

Edited July 2, 2019 by hammerlockthree

[BobDole 1,095]

There is about a 2% chance that the ruling requires a wrestle-off.

[TBar1977 4,026]

4 minutes ago, BobDole said:

There is about a 2% chance that the ruling requires a wrestle-off.

Agree. Reading the USA Wrestling rules/criteria/procedures basically state everything that happens on the mat is final. 

Zain won. 

[BobDole 1,095]

6 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Agree. Reading the USA Wrestling rules/criteria/procedures basically state everything that happens on the mat is final. 

Zain won. 

The crutch of the Cornell group's argument is the 5 second brick "rule." However according to UWW the 5 second rule is basically a guideline and not a hard 5 seconds. There are numerous instances of bricks being allowed longer than 5 seconds afterward. 

This will get shot down and Rob Koll will cry some more, then use this as some sort of vendetta against USAW. He will push for NUWAY to become the Olympic governing body and then he'll be the president and run all of wrestling.

[TBar1977 4,026]

55 minutes ago, BobDole said:

The crutch of the Cornell group's argument is the 5 second brick "rule." However according to UWW the 5 second rule is basically a guideline and not a hard 5 seconds. There are numerous instances of bricks being allowed longer than 5 seconds afterward. 

This will get shot down and Rob Koll will cry some more, then use this as some sort of vendetta against USAW. He will push for NUWAY to become the Olympic governing body and then he'll be the president and run all of wrestling.

That would be par for the course. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by TBar1977

[TBar1977 4,026]

I found a great answer from Koll this year, just on April 6, 2019, that helps explain his mentality. Andy Hamilton is interviewing him and asks him about a past match that sticks with him the most. 

Which match in your past sticks with you the most?

Losing to Greg Elinsky in the semifinals of nationals my sophomore year. I was winning by two or three with about 10 seconds to go and it was like (Daton) Fix. I had double boots in and I think he had about given up and they stopped it for a stalemate and they shouldn’t have because the match was going to be over. Got a restart and I was tired and tried to take a shortcut. I could’ve just pushed him away and ran and I tried to crab him and Greg hit a really nice explosive standup. Back then a one-count was a two-point turn and I heard at the buzzer, ‘One’ and I was like, ‘Oh my God.’ I appreciate you bringing that up. It’s always good to revisit that match.

https://www.trackwrestling.com/PortalPlayer.jsp?videoId=1421705132

 

Shocking, Koll thought he got screwed. Not his fault for letting down a little, not his fault for bad tactics. Its the officials fault for stopping the match!

Funnier still is the absolute assertion from Rob Koll that they should not have stopped the match ...........because the match was going to be over!

Well, they didn't stop the Zain-Yianni match either and when the brick came out and there was no time left for Yianni to come back now its all of a sudden they should have stopped the match, or they should re start the match with 45 seconds left. I guess with Koll his position depends really on which side of the issue he or his guy is on. Sometimes they should stop the match for Koll, sometimes they shouldn't stop the match for Koll. It just really all depends. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by TBar1977

[Lurker 1,791]

Perspective is a huge thing. While he mentions the stalemate, ultimately he takes responsibility for making a mistake, and credits his opponent for hitting an explosive technique. Didn’t appear to blaming the official at all. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Lurker

[TBar1977 4,026]

12 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Perspective is a huge thing. While he mentions the stalemate, ultimately he takes responsibility for making a mistake, and credits his opponent for hitting an explosive technique. Didn’t appear to blaming the official at all. 

Really?

"And they stopped it for a stalemate and they shouldn't have......."

He didn't blame them at all. Nothing to see here, move along already. Lol. 

[tbert 561]

3 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

I found a great answer from Koll this year, just on April 6, 2019, that helps explain his mentality. Andy Hamilton is interviewing him and asks him about a past match that sticks with him the most. 

Which match in your past sticks with you the most?

Losing to Greg Elinsky in the semifinals of nationals my sophomore year. I was winning by two or three with about 10 seconds to go and it was like (Daton) Fix. I had double boots in and I think he had about given up and they stopped it for a stalemate and they shouldn’t have because the match was going to be over. Got a restart and I was tired and tried to take a shortcut. I could’ve just pushed him away and ran and I tried to crab him and Greg hit a really nice explosive standup. Back then a one-count was a two-point turn and I heard at the buzzer, ‘One’ and I was like, ‘Oh my God.’ I appreciate you bringing that up. It’s always good to revisit that match.

https://www.trackwrestling.com/PortalPlayer.jsp?videoId=1421705132

 

Shocking, Koll thought he got screwed. Not his fault for letting down a little, not his fault for bad tactics. Its the officials fault for stopping the match!

Funnier still is the absolute assertion from Rob Koll that they should not have stopped the match ...........because the match was going to be over!

Well, they didn't stop the Zain-Yianni match either and when the brick came out and there was no time left for Yianni to come back now its all of a sudden they should have stopped the match, or they should re start the match with 45 seconds left. I guess with Koll his position depends really on which side of the issue he or his guy is on. Sometimes they should stop the match for Koll, sometimes they shouldn't stop the match for Koll. It just really all depends. 

Pretty much vintage Rob Koll right there. The guilt he carries must be overwhelming with him.  Just cant accept outcomes as being in his control.

The ref was probably an old drunk and rob shouldnt of woke him up. It startled him into calling a stale mate.  Definitely not Robs fault.

[hammerlockthree 2,183]

4 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

Agree. Reading the USA Wrestling rules/criteria/procedures basically state everything that happens on the mat is final. 

Zain won. 

Zain actually lost, then they went back and changed it. So much for that logic.

[Lurker 1,791]

32 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Really?

"And they stopped it for a stalemate and they shouldn't have......."

He didn't blame them at all. Nothing to see here, move along already. Lol. 

I clearly pointed out he mentioned the stalemate, why did you feel the need to highlight it?  Are we ignoring  the rest of the statement you quoted?  That one sentence was the only one of matter? 

Simple questions. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Lurker

[ConnorsDad 596]

4 hours ago, BobDole said:

The crutch of the Cornell group's argument is the 5 second brick "rule." However according to UWW the 5 second rule is basically a guideline and not a hard 5 seconds. There are numerous instances of bricks being allowed longer than 5 seconds afterward. 

This will get shot down and Rob Koll will cry some more, then use this as some sort of vendetta against USAW. He will push for NUWAY to become the Olympic governing body and then he'll be the president and run all of wrestling.

Specific Points

...

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what T R Foley from Intermat said and that may well be true. However, there are a couple paragraphs under the section titled "Specific Points" where there is wording that is taken by everybody as a rule. These concern the one challenge per match and loss of a point for a failed challenge. If these are only supposed to be guidelines, it's very poorly marked and at no place does it say these are only guidelines and not actual rules. Another point is that this is the only place in the entire rule book where the words "specific points" are used and have a section like that. Also, if you look up at the part above that was pasted in from the rulebook, this is the part that deals with the 5 second part in the specific points section. As you can see from that paragraph, it deals with challenges at the end of a period. So it's possible that the 5-second guideline is only for challenging something that occurs at the end of a period. In any case, the uww rulebook should  list the rules that are to be followed and, if it is not a rule, then leave it out.

As far as the match itself, I thought the move was Zain's the first time I watched it but I can see how any interpretation is reasonable. I can also see how reading this that people would say that you must challenge within 5 seconds. Again it is very poorly worded and, if it's only a guideline, why are there some things in there that are always accepted as rules all of the time.

[TBar1977 4,026]

20 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I clearly pointed out he mentioned the stalemate, why did you feel the need to highlight it?  Are we ignoring  the rest of the statement you quoted?  That one sentence was the only one of matter? 

Simple questions. 

The blame comment isn't the stalemate, its the "they shouldn't have". Pretty simple concept.  

[Lurker 1,791]

1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

The blame comment isn't the stalemate, its the "they shouldn't have". Pretty simple concept.  

Well it’s all the same sentence,. I guess if we’re gonna...I mean...okay...  

 

You answered my question though. No we’re not only going to pay attention to that one sentence and ignore the rest of the whole. We’re going to narrow it down to one particular part of that one sentence, and nothing else matters. Fair enough. 

[TBar1977 4,026]

18 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Well it’s all the same sentence,. I guess if we’re gonna...I mean...okay...  

You answered my question though. No we’re not only going to pay attention to that one sentence and ignore the rest of the whole. We’re going to narrow it down to one particular part of that one sentence, and nothing else matters. Fair enough. 

Yes, very fair since the only point is that Koll blamed the ref by saying he shouldn't have stopped the action, ostensibly depriving him of riding Elinsky out. 

[red blades 284]

T-Bar's got an incredible hard-on for Rob.  Makes you wonder?

Edited July 3, 2019 by red blades

[hammerlockthree 2,183]

3 minutes ago, red blades said:

T-Bar's got an incredible hard-on for Rob.  Makes you wonder?

He hates all threats to PSU. He hates Brands because he challenges in recruiting and Koll cause he is the only one who probably out coaches cael. 

[ConnorsDad 596]

16 minutes ago, hammerlockthree said:

He hates all threats to PSU. He hates Brands because he challenges in recruiting and Koll cause he is the only one who probably out coaches cael. 

I'm no Penn State fan or apologist but I don't believe anybody out coaches Cael.