Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, nom said:

I've seen it written by a few folks that the Chair must side with either the ref or the judge.   I don't see that clearly written above.  

I'm thinking about a situation where a scramble occurs and the right score is 2 red and 2 blue.    Ref scores 2 red, judge scores 2 blue.  Chair says they are both right and scores 2 red and 2 blue.  I'm not talking about the Yianni / Zain match but I know it sounds like it.  I've seen matches where actual scrambles result in 2 and 2.  No issue.  Perhaps the Chair felt 2+2 was correct and decided to 'settle' the issue by so awarding those points.

Above, it simply says that if there is a disagreement in scores, the Chair is to settle the issue.  It does not say the Chair must side with only one or the other.  It does not rule out the Chair agreeing with both.

Perhaps this is made more clear in other sections but I'm not seeing it above.  Any help would be appreciated.

[Note, I really am not close enough, nor have read enough of the rules to know what side is right, I'm simply seeking clarity in the rules]

I know I have seen it written.The rules in this rule book seem a little open to interpretation on that issue, but I have seen it in other rule books. If you think the Chair can call it 2-2 after the ref ruled 2 Blue and judge 2 Red, then you must also think he can 1) create his own score 2) create a score without majority of the three man crew. I don't think this is the case at all. 

Regardless, it would not matter in the end anyway since the  Referee Delegate is the final decision after the Challenge. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it does matter a bit.  Some folks say that the sequence had to be reviewed since the 3 did not agree.  If it did not have to be reviewed, that means that the only way it could be reviewed is via the brick.  Right?  This does have relevance to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I've seen reference to certain things in the rule book being guidelines and not rules.  Is the entire document of "international wrestling rules" laying out guidelines and not actually rules?  Or is some of the document rules and other parts of the document guidelines?  How are these supposed to be distinguished?

Seems to be weird for things within a rule book to not actually be rules unless the item of interest is specifically identified and called out as a guideline.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nom said:

Also, I've seen reference to certain things in the rule book being guidelines and not rules.  Is the entire document of "international wrestling rules" laying out guidelines and not actually rules?  Or is some of the document rules and other parts of the document guidelines?  How are these supposed to be distinguished?

Seems to be weird for things within a rule book to not actually be rules unless the item of interest is specifically identified and called out as a guideline.

Pretty sure like every body that has authority over others, they have meetings where a consensus comes about as to what the procedures should be. This is how we get rule books, and yes, they are rules not just guides. The problem in general with rules for sport is that not every situation can be conceived of in advance. 

This situation in this match is one where the only time that would have made sense for the Chair to consult with the ref and judge is when the action was stopped at the end as time ran out. But that was also virtually the same time as the Referee Delegate saw the brick challenge. Brick Challenges are supposed to be reviewed by the referee delegate. I have not seen any evidence the Chair even called for a consultation with the ref and judge. But even had that happened, it would have had to precede the review by the Referee Delegate and the Referee Delegate would still have  to undertake a subsequent review and make the final ruling.

So suppose the three man crew consulted in advance of the review by the Referee Delegate and they came up with a score that favored Yianni, would Zain not be allowed to challenge to the Referee Delegate? Of course he could make that challenge, and the Referee Delegate could then rule in his favor. 

What about the opposite, suppose they consulted and came up with a score that favored Zain, would Yianni then not be able to challenge to the Referee Delegate? Again, yes, Yianni could have made that challenge. The score could have then been reversed by the Referee Delegate and Yianni could have won. 

I have said this a lot of times, given these exact circumstances, one way or another this was going to be reviewed by the Referee Delegate/Jury/Table of anything else you want to call Tucci and anyone else that was part of that review process. And this person/jury/delegate/table whatever you want to call him or them has the final say. That is the process for settling scoring disputes.

Suppose in the upcoming Ringer vs Dake match we get a scenario where everyone in the Austin, TX high school thinks a scramble should have been 4 Dake, but the three man crew rules 4 Ringer. Suppose further the three man crew huddles together, talks it over, and they STILL call it 4 Ringer.

Is Dake not allowed to throw the brick to challenge? Yes, of course he can throw the brick and challenge.

Is the Referee delegate obligated to uphold 4 Ringer because the three man crew huddled, consulted and came to a majority opinion of 4 Ringer? No. he is to review it with the Chair and hopefully they agree, but if they do not agree the Referee Delegate has the final word. The Referee Delegate/Jury/Review Committee or whatever you want to call him or them can reverse that score after video review. Their decision then is final. 

The fact a consult by the three did or did not happen or whether or not the Chair can create his own unique score with or without majority, all of that becomes moot in the end. The remedy for these errors or non errors is the brick challenge and subsequent review by the Referee Delegate, which is exactly what happened in this match. Tucci in fact did follow the rule book and he made the scoring call after review. 

At the end of the day this is really about Koll not liking the final score. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

Pretty sure like every body that has authority over others, they have meetings where a consensus comes about as to what the procedures should be. This is how we get rule books, and yes, they are rules not just guides. The problem in general with rules for sport is that not every situation can be conceived of in advance. 

This situation in this match is one where the only time that would have made sense for the Chair to consult with the ref and judge is when the action was stopped at the end as time ran out. But that was also virtually the same time as the Referee Delegate saw the brick challenge. Brick Challenges are supposed to be reviewed by the referee delegate. I have not seen any evidence the Chair even called for a consultation with the ref and judge. But even had that happened, it would have had to precede the review by the Referee Delegate and the Referee Delegate would still have  to undertake a subsequent review and make the final ruling.

So suppose the three man crew consulted in advance of the review by the Referee Delegate and they came up with a score that favored Yianni, would Zain not be allowed to challenge to the Referee Delegate? Of course he could make that challenge, and the Referee Delegate could then rule in his favor. 

What about the opposite, suppose they consulted and came up with a score that favored Zain, would Yianni then not be able to challenge to the Referee Delegate? Again, yes, Yianni could have made that challenge. The score could have then been reversed by the Referee Delegate and Yianni could have won. 

I have said this a lot of times, given these exact circumstances, one way or another this was going to be reviewed by the Referee Delegate/Jury/Table of anything else you want to call Tucci and anyone else that was part of that review process. And this person/jury/delegate/table whatever you want to call him or them has the final say. That is the process for settling scoring disputes.

Suppose in the upcoming Ringer vs Dake match we get a scenario where everyone in the Austin, TX high school thinks a scramble should have been 4 Dake, but the three man crew rules 4 Ringer. Suppose further the three man crew huddles together, talks it over, and they STILL call it 4 Ringer.

Is Dake not allowed to throw the brick to challenge? Yes, of course he can throw the brick and challenge.

Is the Referee delegate obligated to uphold 4 Ringer because the three man crew huddled, consulted and came to a majority opinion of 4 Ringer? No. he is to review it with the Chair and hopefully they agree, but if they do not agree the Referee Delegate has the final word. The Referee Delegate/Jury/Review Committee or whatever you want to call him or them can reverse that score after video review. Their decision then is final. 

The fact a consult by the three did or did not happen or whether or not the Chair can create his own unique score with or without majority, all of that becomes moot in the end. The remedy for these errors or non errors is the brick challenge and subsequent review by the Referee Delegate, which is exactly what happened in this match. Tucci in fact did follow the rule book and he made the scoring call after review. 

At the end of the day this is really about Koll not liking the final score. 

The last line simplifies this whole situation.    Koll and his appeal is nothing more than a sore loser who is pandering to a captive audience and intimidating officials though slandering interviews full of untruthful info.   Hopefully the officials wont be intimidated by his legal actions, and dont buy into his mind games in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have enjoyed reading this forum for years but never actually posted. 

Here is my take, and I am a huge fan of both wrestlers:

The issue is not that the final score is incorrect or that the procedure that would have occurred the right way did not ultimately end up happening. The issue comes down to timing.

The officials did not seem to think a conference was required. There was not a lot of time to see that though because the challenge from Penn State came immediately at the final whistle. Perhaps they would have consulted. I did not hear Penn State, or anyone else, say anything about the officials not agreeing, just that they believed it was scored wrong.

The rules state that the Mat Chairman must side with the referee or judge. Does this mean he can't side with both? I would think the answer is no but it is not actually clear.

The biggest issue is the timing of the challenge. The rules clearly indicate that the challenge must happen within 5 seconds of the score being posted and cannot be challenged after the final whistle unless the score is posted after the final whistle or the action occurs just before the final whistle. This is the crucial part.

Once a challenge is requested they must stop the match once the action is neutral. It does not say the challenge is to wait until the action stops, the officials are supposed to stop the action once they are neutral.

If Penn State wanted to challenge, they should have done so sooner and the action would have been stopped since the wrestlers were in neutral. This would have allowed the score to be corrected and the wrestlers would have known what the score was during the final 30-40 seconds of the match.

The only reason they did not challenge sooner was because they thought Zain had a chance to score and didn't want to stop the action. This is why it must happen within 5 seconds.

It is not fair to Yianni to believe he is winning the whole time and then a challenge that occurs against the clearly written rules (later than 5 seconds AND after the final whistle) changes something that happened almost a minute prior and he loses the match that he wrestled from a winning perspective for the last minute.

I have seen it posted that the 5 second rule is more of a guideline. I can accept that to a certain degree but I don't think it means 45 seconds is OK. Especially the last 45 seconds and after the final whistle.

In the end, we can argue who should have received the points. that can always be a debate. However, what cannot be argued is that the challenge was granted outside the rules that are clearly written. 

If I were the arbitrator, I would read the rules and then watch the procedure. I would see that the challenge happened after, not one, but two clearly defined deadlines. Later than 5 seconds and after the final whistle. Right then and there, the ruling should be in Yianni's favor.

With that said, I don't think it will go in Yianni's favor. I do think it will open up the rule book to more interpretation though. If these rules are just guidelines, what else is just a guideline?? We complain about the rules not being easy and too much interpretation but then we claim that some of the rules are guidelines and not really rules. Tough to have it both ways. If 5 seconds is too little time, change the rule don't just make it up as you go.

If Zain loses the arbitration, he has no one to blame but his coaches for trying to game the system and not challenge right away. 

Last thing, I feel bad for Zain. He dominated the first match. I think they ultimately got the score right in the 2nd match and I find it unlikely that Yianni would have been able to score on Zain in 30 seconds to win. It should have been a clear cut victory. BUT, his coaches did not follow the rules because they wanted to see if it would matter and it cost Zain some of the public opinion and quite possibly the match/world team.

Share this post


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

1. The first bolded part tells you the scoring of the Mat Chair must be either 2Red (Zain) or 2Blue (Yianni). 

2. The non bolded part immediately following talks about situations where the Mat Chair can stop the bout. One is for a "serious mistake" in scoring by the referee or judge. What is not in this section is what to do if the "serious mistake" is on the part of the Chair himself. It does state that any consultation that occurs does not alter the wrestler's right to challenge. 

3. The next part that is bolded deals with the wrestler's right or his coach's decision to challenge. The language becomes very clear. The referee delegate (formerly called the jury of appeals) solely renders its decision. Its decision is final and cannot be challenged. 

You did not even come close to addressing the question posed to you.  Here it is again.

12 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

2. The role of the jury of appeal - Tucci alone or Tucci and anyone else on that review team that night - is to settle disputes on the mat. Those that arise out of BOTH brick challenges AND those that arise out of "serious administrative or scoring mistakes". That's the language in the USA wrestling rule book. This is a moot point since a brick toss happened and triggers this, but it seems that either of the brick toss OR the "serious administrative or scoring mistake" could trigger the jury of appeals to review it and re score it. 

Please point me to any currently in force rule or procedure, whether linked above or otherwise, that supports the bolded statement.

I'm not asking about challenges, I've been consistent from the beginning that it's procedure is key.  Where is the refereeing delegate/jury authorized to get involved outside of a challenge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbert and Tbar (are they not really the same person?) keep trying to make this about Rob Koll (probably to deflect attention from the fact that there is very good reason for an appeal), but in fact Rob is doing what any good coach SHOULD do in a situation like this.  I would expect nothing less from any other coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Savage74 said:

I have enjoyed reading this forum for years but never actually posted. 

Here is my take, and I am a huge fan of both wrestlers:

The issue is not that the final score is incorrect or that the procedure that would have occurred the right way did not ultimately end up happening. The issue comes down to timing.

The officials did not seem to think a conference was required. There was not a lot of time to see that though because the challenge from Penn State came immediately at the final whistle. Perhaps they would have consulted. I did not hear Penn State, or anyone else, say anything about the officials not agreeing, just that they believed it was scored wrong.

The rules state that the Mat Chairman must side with the referee or judge. Does this mean he can't side with both? I would think the answer is no but it is not actually clear.

The biggest issue is the timing of the challenge. The rules clearly indicate that the challenge must happen within 5 seconds of the score being posted and cannot be challenged after the final whistle unless the score is posted after the final whistle or the action occurs just before the final whistle. This is the crucial part.

Once a challenge is requested they must stop the match once the action is neutral. It does not say the challenge is to wait until the action stops, the officials are supposed to stop the action once they are neutral.

If Penn State wanted to challenge, they should have done so sooner and the action would have been stopped since the wrestlers were in neutral. This would have allowed the score to be corrected and the wrestlers would have known what the score was during the final 30-40 seconds of the match.

The only reason they did not challenge sooner was because they thought Zain had a chance to score and didn't want to stop the action. This is why it must happen within 5 seconds.

It is not fair to Yianni to believe he is winning the whole time and then a challenge that occurs against the clearly written rules (later than 5 seconds AND after the final whistle) changes something that happened almost a minute prior and he loses the match that he wrestled from a winning perspective for the last minute.

I have seen it posted that the 5 second rule is more of a guideline. I can accept that to a certain degree but I don't think it means 45 seconds is OK. Especially the last 45 seconds and after the final whistle.

In the end, we can argue who should have received the points. that can always be a debate. However, what cannot be argued is that the challenge was granted outside the rules that are clearly written. 

If I were the arbitrator, I would read the rules and then watch the procedure. I would see that the challenge happened after, not one, but two clearly defined deadlines. Later than 5 seconds and after the final whistle. Right then and there, the ruling should be in Yianni's favor.

With that said, I don't think it will go in Yianni's favor. I do think it will open up the rule book to more interpretation though. If these rules are just guidelines, what else is just a guideline?? We complain about the rules not being easy and too much interpretation but then we claim that some of the rules are guidelines and not really rules. Tough to have it both ways. If 5 seconds is too little time, change the rule don't just make it up as you go.

If Zain loses the arbitration, he has no one to blame but his coaches for trying to game the system and not challenge right away. 

Last thing, I feel bad for Zain. He dominated the first match. I think they ultimately got the score right in the 2nd match and I find it unlikely that Yianni would have been able to score on Zain in 30 seconds to win. It should have been a clear cut victory. BUT, his coaches did not follow the rules because they wanted to see if it would matter and it cost Zain some of the public opinion and quite possibly the match/world team.

This is very well said.   Thanks Savage.

TBar I read your post but your points drift off from the rules and what happened it seems.

1.  Scramble occurred.   2 & 2 went up.

1A.  Is the situation that resulted in the 2+2 permitted?  I see nothing that says it is not.  As quoted in the rules, the chairman 'settles' the issue.  The rules are not incredibly precise here because they know that weird situations can arise and thus the Chairman appears to be given flexibility.  The Chairman settled the issue as he saw fit.    No one has presented anything, that I have seen, that says that the Chairman made an error here.

2.  Penn State disagreed with the call.  But they did not throw the brick by 5 seconds, by 10 seconds, by 15 seconds, by 20 seconds, by 25 seconds, by 30 seconds.   After about 40 seconds they throw the brick.  Some say it was about the scramble in 1.

2A.  The rules are explicitly clear, that the challenge must be immediate after points go up.  Later on it even provides a definition of what immediate means .. 5 seconds.  TBar, you are saying the rulebook was followed.  Surely you need to agree that accepting a challenge this late after the points go up is definitely not following the stated rule.  You may feel that it does not need to be followed to the letter.  That is fine.  But the FACT is that the rule WAS NOT followed.  How you can't acknowledge this is somewhat disturbing.  Instead you say the rules were followed.  Oi.

3.  The ref delegate reviewed the scramble even though the challenge was more than 7x later than what is explicitly defined in the rules.  

3A.  The ref delegate, from what I'm reading, cannot review anything unless it is being challenged by a wrestler / coach.  This was not a conference of the judge/chair/ref ....  let me know if I'm wrong on this.

TBar -- I read your hypothetical above (wow, you are allowed to do hypothetical but for some reason I'm not).  My answer .. Dake's side can challenge but the rules state that it must be immediate ... meaning within 5 seconds after the score goes up.   And if that challenge is accepted and the ref delegate awards the 4 to Dake, even though the ref, chairman, judge disagree, that is ok, that is the rule.  I agree on that point and never even hinted that I disagreed.  Wow, look at me, I answered your hypothetical directly.  Wish you could do the same.

The rules are very precise on this point.  Rulemakers get precise when they feel it is important to avoid people from gaming the system.   I do agree that they need to be careful since they don't know all situations ... in this circumstance they give flexibility in the rules.  Just as they did for the mat chairman to 'settle' the issue.

Edited by nom

Share this post


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

I've seen it written by a few folks that the Chair must side with either the ref or the judge.   I don't see that clearly written above.  

I'm thinking about a situation where a scramble occurs and the right score is 2 red and 2 blue.    Ref scores 2 red, judge scores 2 blue.  Chair says they are both right and scores 2 red and 2 blue.  I'm not talking about the Yianni / Zain match but I know it sounds like it.  I've seen matches where actual scrambles result in 2 and 2.  No issue.  Perhaps the Chair felt 2+2 was correct and decided to 'settle' the issue by so awarding those points.

Above, it simply says that if there is a disagreement in scores, the Chair is to settle the issue.  It does not say the Chair must side with only one or the other.  It does not rule out the Chair agreeing with both.

Perhaps this is made more clear in other sections but I'm not seeing it above.  Any help would be appreciated.

[Note, I really am not close enough, nor have read enough of the rules to know what side is right, I'm simply seeking clarity in the rules]

He doesn't HAVE TO. If there is a serious scoring error he can wait till a break and pitch his case to the other 2. If he then fails to get a majority, then he has to pick one of the 2 offered scores. It is my contention that unless it is really egregious, he should choose 1 of the 2 scores less we have the situation we have now.

Edited by ConnorsDad
Spell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, red blades said:

Tbert and Tbar (are they not really the same person?) keep trying to make this about Rob Koll (probably to deflect attention from the fact that there is very good reason for an appeal), but in fact Rob is doing what any good coach SHOULD do in a situation like this.  I would expect nothing less from any other coach.

Ive often wondered the same thing. But whether same person or not the mindset is the same. Axe to grind with Koll and nothing will stand in the way of that. There’s two things that make that very evident. 1) is the constant dragging of Koll through the mud for receiving consultation and going through the process, while at the same time brushing off throwing a chair at a ref and saying “it is what it is” and “understandable at the moment”. Its not like arbitration in a team trials is a first time happening here. You know what I hadn’t seen...a coach “just didn’t like the result” so pick up a chair and throw it at the ref. 

The second thing is that Koll is not solely bringing on this arbitration by himself. Yet his name is the ONLY one these two are constantly dragging through the mud. 

Kinda says a lot doesn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, red blades said:

Tbert and Tbar (are they not really the same person?) keep trying to make this about Rob Koll (probably to deflect attention from the fact that there is very good reason for an appeal), but in fact Rob is doing what any good coach SHOULD do in a situation like this.  I would expect nothing less from any other coach.

Nope not the same person, I'm not a Penn state fan, not that there is any thing against it.  I am a fan of wrestling who believes what is best for the sport is to leave it on the mat and if you dont like leaving the outcome in the hands of officials, then coach, prepare or train your athlete to leave it out of their hands. 

I do not think it sheds a positive light on an organization who encourages coaches to publicly slander refs in the name of sticking up for his athlete.  

I'm sure with enough money and the right "arbitrator" he can change the outcome of a match.  That should elevate his level to greatness among many fans.

 

Share this post


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

Nope not the same person, I'm not a Penn state fan, not that there is any thing against it.  I am a fan of wrestling who believes what is best for the sport is to leave it on the mat and if you dont like leaving the outcome in the hands of officials, then coach, prepare or train your athlete to leave it out of their hands. 

I do not think it sheds a positive light on an organization who encourages coaches to publicly slander refs in the name of sticking up for his athlete.  

I'm sure with enough money and the right "arbitrator" he can change the outcome of a match.  That should elevate his level to greatness among many fans.

 

The thing is, once the score went on the scoreboard and there was no challenge within 5 seconds and there was no consultation and the wrestlers were neutral, it was out of the officials hands.

If any of those 3 things were not true, your point is valid. 

The wrestlers were neutral. IF a consultation was required, the match is supposed to be stopped for that to occur.

if Penn State wanted to challenge that score, they could have done so in 5 seconds (even 10 seconds and we probably wouldn’t be having this debate) and the officials would have stopped the action since the wrestlers were neutral and the proper score could have been put on the board.

since neither of those things occurred, at that point, it is out of the officials hands and the wrestlers are competing based on the score on the board.

to clearly go outside the rules and get the score changed after the final whistle seems worse than using the legal means within the rules to challenge it.

to be clear, I think the final score was right. I just don’t know if that would have been the final score if the wrestlers knew the score with 30-40 seconds left.

That’s why the time limit is placed on challenges. That’s why it is a rule, in the rule book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brick wasn’t thrown anywhere close to five seconds after the score they wanted to challenge. I can’t see how USA wrestling can uphold this decision though I’m still not sure how I’d have scored the sequence.

If it’s overturned (which I hope it is) I hope and believe they’ll rewrestle match 2 rather than declaring Yianni the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wamba said:

The brick wasn’t thrown anywhere close to five seconds after the score they wanted to challenge. I can’t see how USA wrestling can uphold this decision though I’m still not sure how I’d have scored the sequence.

If it’s overturned (which I hope it is) I hope and believe they’ll rewrestle match 2 rather than declaring Yianni the winner.

Honestly they might as well use their Dogu match as the match 3 result.

Because that makes as much sense as this entire thread.

Too much politix in our sport make it so it isn't fun to follow.

No Lee at 57kg the last couple years? Politix.

Oliver essentially being banned 2 years due to a 1 year ban? Politix.

Bo going 92 instead of 86 and weighing in at 87? Politix.

The list goes on rather annoyingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Savage - your points seem fair and valid.  And I frankly do not know how the sequence should have been scored

But I do believe, based on all that I’ve read, from people on both sides of the debate, that if Zain’s side took more than 7x the rule permitted time to challenge a score, and that challenge was accepted, that is not within the spirit or the letter of the rules.  

How folks feel that a challenge more than 7x the permitted time frame later is ok, is a bit baffling.

Share this post


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

He doesn't HAVE TO. If there is a serious scoring error he can wait till a break and pitch his case to the other 2. If he then fails to get a majority, then he has to pick one of the 2 offered scores. It is my contention that unless it is really egregious, he should choose 1 of the 2 scores less we have the situation we have now.

I understand what you are writing but I’m not on board with the statement that he has to pick one of the 2.  Why can’t he agree with both.  Can you point out where it says it must be agreement with only one or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are back to the 5 seconds being a rule when it is not really a rule at all. Amazing how circular the argument has been.

Again, 5 seconds is not a rule. It's a guideline. Many many brick tosses happen outside of 5 seconds. The only timing requirement on the brick toss is whether it's reasonable given the circumstances. Reasonable test comes down to a judgment call. Tucci obviously felt it was reasonable given the circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nom said:

I understand what you are writing but I’m not on board with the statement that he has to pick one of the 2.  Why can’t he agree with both.  Can you point out where it says it must be agreement with only one or the other?

Here is one:

i) The referee will indicate the points. If the judge agrees, he will raise the bat bearing the colour and value 
in question (1, 2, 4 (or 5 points in GR). In the event of any disagreement between the referee and the judge, 
the mat chairman must make a decision in favour of one or the other of the wrestlers; he is not allowed to 
give a different opinion, except if he calls for a consultation and obtains majority. 
 

Here is from another article but it says the same thing:

h) He may also interrupt the bout if a serious scoring mistake is made by the referee and/or the judge. In such 
case, he must ask for a consultation. If the mat chairman does not obtain majority during the consultation, he 
must stand for either the referee or the judge. This consultation does not alter the wrestler’s right to the 
challenge. 
 

And even if those weren't true, no score should ever been put up on the scoreboard which to my mind hurt both wrestlers.

I keep going back and reading the specific point about the 5 second rule and I'm getting more convinced that it has to do with scores at the end of a period or match. If you read that paragraph it seems to deal with that situation only. I've gone back and watched literally a couple hundred matches on the uww site in the last month and I stopped counting at 20 something where the challenge during the match came more than 5 Seconds after the scoring issue in question. It certainly worded poorly if that's what it means but the certainly wouldn't be the first time uw-w has done something poorly.

Share this post


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

So we are back to the 5 seconds being a rule when it is not really a rule at all. Amazing how circular the argument has been.

Again, 5 seconds is not a rule. It's a guideline. Many many brick tosses happen outside of 5 seconds. The only timing requirement on the brick toss is whether it's reasonable given the circumstances. Reasonable test comes down to a judgment call. Tucci obviously felt it was reasonable given the circumstances. 

Tbar, I actually disagree about the 5-second "thing" not being a rule. I just think it's a rule pertaining to scores either at the end of the first period or at the end of the match. My reasoning for this is that under the heading SPECIFIC POINTS there is the 5 second rule and there is also the rule about only one challenge unless it's successful and others. Isn't the 1 challenge a rule that is used all the time and is not just a recommendation?  So I am of the belief that TR Foley is wrong and those specific points are actually guidelines that were not covered in the actual article and were put in there 2 give the referees some hard-and-fast rules. But hey I've been wrong before. I just know that listed under that heading specific points it says only one challenges allowed and that is a hard and fast rule so it only stands to reason that everything else in there is a hard and fast rule. I just think everybody else is interpreting the 5 Second thingamajig differently than what it was intended. Initiating a challenge in 5 seconds while not making a lot of sense during the middle of a match considering how the action may be going on the mat, would certainly seem to be reasonable once the match or the first period ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may have asked this before on this forum but I'm not sure. Does anybody think that a team or wrestler should have to use their challenge if a score has been put up on the scoreboard that should not be there? I don't mean a score that needs to be challenged but let's say all three referees score 2 pts. for a wrestler and the scoreboard operator put 6 pts. up by mistake. Is that something they should have to use their challenge for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ConnorsDad - thanks.  

In the most recent set of rules I read the following in Article 21 (page 20) when speaking of the duties of the Chairman.

https://unitedworldwrestling.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/wrestling_rules.pdf

>> d) In the event of any disagreement between the referee and judge, his task is to settle the issue in order to determine the result, the value of points and the falls.

[[This seems to give wide discretion with regards to how to 'settle the issue']]

Then in chapter 6, Article 35 - there is one of the passages you quoted where it gets more specific.

>> i) The referee will indicate the points. If the judge agrees, he will raise the bat bearing the color and value in question (1, 2, 4 or 5 points). In the event of any disagreement between the referee and the judge, the mat chairman must make a decision in favor of one or the other of the wrestlers; he is not allowed to give a different opinion, except if he calls for a consultation and obtains majority.

[[This does read like the Chair must decide in line with either the ref or the judge ... and if so, must do so with the same points that either the ref or the judge gave, depending on who the Chair is agreeing with.  Thanks for this.  It does seem like Chair acted incorrectly.]]

[[Now, about the 5 seconds]]

Article 32 ....

>>> 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.

[[  Immediate is the key term.  (Also, provision is made elsewhere in the rules to do something other than a button push).  I'd ask folks to pause for a moment and take out your phone, start the stop watch.  Let it run for 40 seconds.  40 seconds is NOT immediate.  I was able to sing the "Happy Birthday song' 3.5 times in that span of time.  :)  A new test!  haha. ]]

>> 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.

[[ I do see your point about the 5 seconds.  It is included in a paragraph that is talking about scores added to the scoreboard at the end of the period.  This is not necessarily defining 'immediate' as stated in the prior quoted rule. ]]

[[ OK, I won't agree that the 5 second piece is NOT a rule ... TBar seems to want to pick and choose what is written in the rule book as being a rule or a guideline.  But I can see that 'immediate' is not defined as clearly as I thought.]]

Thanks ConnorsDad.

 

Share this post


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

So we are back to the 5 seconds being a rule when it is not really a rule at all. Amazing how circular the argument has been.

Again, 5 seconds is not a rule. It's a guideline. Many many brick tosses happen outside of 5 seconds. The only timing requirement on the brick toss is whether it's reasonable given the circumstances. Reasonable test comes down to a judgment call. Tucci obviously felt it was reasonable given the circumstances. 

See post above.  The requirement is that it be 'immediate'.  Or is that a guideline too?

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...