Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

After reading the 5 second “rule” that way, I can see how that is not a rule during regulation. Not sure I agree with it but I can see the interpretation.

what is the interpretation of the rule that says no score can be challenged after the final whistle unless the score is posted after the whistle or immediately prior to. That seems to be a pretty hard and fast rule. Probably the rule they put in place to avoid this exact scenario: Coach thinks he wants to challenge but decides to wait it out to see how the match ends and then only challenge if needed.

Unless one interprets that 45 seconds is immediate and the rule about challenging after the whistle is not a rule... it is a fairly easy case to determine.

the challenge should have been denied, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been following this discussion here with great interest, and of course been following the whole situation since the match itself. What a mess!

Gary Berkowitz is a very well known (especially here in Ohio) HS and NCAA official, and a trainer of officials. A few years ago he wrote an excellent article, much reprinted and read, about fixing scoring errors. It's written using everyday, commonsense language, not "officialese".

I fully realize that the main thrust of the article is HS wrestling, a far, far cry from Zain/Yanni. But much of what he says is applicable in this situation, and I hope that some of you will take a few minutes and read it and share your reactions.

Correctable Errors in Wrestling: A Journey Through the Process
By Gary Berkowitz on November 18, 2016
Edited by fightingsioux
spelling

Share this post


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

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.

I hear what you are saying, but Tucci himself, long before Yianni vs Zain, was being interviewed and this 5 second rule topic was addressed.

Tucci stated that it is not a rule. I think he called it a point, but what is clear is he was emphatic that it was not a hard and fast rule. He also sited the fact bricks are tossed well after 5 seconds with regularity. In his own words, long b4 Yianni v. Zain, he said it just had to be reasonable given the circumstances. Getting the score correct superseded the length of time for the brick toss.

 

Share this post


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

@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.

 

nom, I am not saying the 5 second rule is not a rule because of the rulebook language. I am repeating what Tucci said in an interview that was posted here in the days following the match. This was discussed at that time.

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a trackwrestling interview Koll said (well, implied - all of the language was pretty informal) that the arbitration last week was a preliminary hearing on whether the case was arbitrable at all. USA Wrestling apparently argued that a rule regarding finality (unspecified, so I don't know the rule it is based on) precluded Yianni from challenging the result. Team Yianni won that decision, so the arbitrator will decide the case on the merits (as in, was the challenge/review process proper). I think he said that the hearing on the merits will be August 8 with a decision expected within a day or so. He said he was "cautiously optimistic."

Share this post


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

@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.

 

NP. One thing I think most everybody will agree is, and I realize it's hard to write rules because you can't dream up every eventuality, but there's way too much room for interpretation in freestyle and Greco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ugarte said:

In a trackwrestling interview Koll said (well, implied - all of the language was pretty informal) that the arbitration last week was a preliminary hearing on whether the case was arbitrable at all. USA Wrestling apparently argued that a rule regarding finality (unspecified, so I don't know the rule it is based on) precluded Yianni from challenging the result. Team Yianni won that decision, so the arbitrator will decide the case on the merits (as in, was the challenge/review process proper). I think he said that the hearing on the merits will be August 8 with a decision expected within a day or so. He said he was "cautiously optimistic."

I don’t think this bodes well for NLWC, apparently they are singularly focused on the review process (good call on their part), and I think most agree that it could easily determined the review procedure was botched. 

I’m curious if they will view the video (have to think it’s a certainty but don’t know). There’s been a lot of talk on here that even if the brick had been thrown immediately, as it is supposed to be via the rule book, that there still wouldn’t have been the opportunity to stop the match until the clock went zero, because it was all one continuous action. That’s just simply not true. If you watch again, there’s a good lag/stalemate situation right after that initial sequence. If the brick had been thrown immediately Sammy could have, and most likely would have, stopped there. There are then two completely different potential scoring situations, one for each athlete, and one that was challenged and upheld. (The point to Yianni for failed challenge potentially comes in to play here). But that last 45 seconds was not one non stop continuous action. I dont know that those arguments will hold water when it comes down to the hearing. Will be interesting. And if they also include that the sequence should have been conferenced and decided upon, as is procedure, that can add to it. 

I still think it’s a big uphill battle FLWC and still favors NLWC, but it’s certainly going to be interesting. I want transcripts when it’s all over. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbar, the issue with not throwing the brick when the sequence happened, is that there is literally no risk and all reward for psu. You wait till the match is over, zain didn't score, so lets throw the brick now. That is gamesmanship, there needed to be some risk, ie if zain scores, then they go back to the challenge and maybe yianni gets the points. Being able to wait until the match is over to see if your wrestler could score, then challenging is a bit ridiculous, because worst case you still lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Molsen said:

Tbar, the issue with not throwing the brick when the sequence happened, is that there is literally no risk and all reward for psu. You wait till the match is over, zain didn't score, so lets throw the brick now. That is gamesmanship, there needed to be some risk, ie if zain scores, then they go back to the challenge and maybe yianni gets the points. Being able to wait until the match is over to see if your wrestler could score, then challenging is a bit ridiculous, because worst case you still lose.

I know what you are saying. At this point let's just see what happens. It has been debated to death. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Molsen said:

Tbar, the issue with not throwing the brick when the sequence happened, is that there is literally no risk and all reward for psu. You wait till the match is over, zain didn't score, so lets throw the brick now. That is gamesmanship, there needed to be some risk, ie if zain scores, then they go back to the challenge and maybe yianni gets the points. Being able to wait until the match is over to see if your wrestler could score, then challenging is a bit ridiculous, because worst case you still lose.

I would say that the chair botching the score disincentivized either side from throwing the brick.   Had the chair ruled 2 blue there more likely would have been am immediate challenge from NLWC - zain would have been down 4 with about 0:38 left.   Had the chair ruled 2 red there likely would have been an immediate challenge from FLWC - match would have been 4-4 with Yianni needing to score even if he lost the challenge (5-4) he have the tie breaker should he score hitch he would have had to anyway.  The chair splitting the difference and not calling for a conference just made it less likely that the sequence would get the second look it deserved. 

Also an immediate challenge wouldn’t prevent gamesmanship.  If the brick was thrown and action was allowed to continue because there was continuous action and Zain scored in that time to take the lead then he could just tell the ref that he doesn’t agree with the challenge and it doesn’t get reviewed.  

Finally the challenge brick was thrown before the end off the match.  It can be seen in the video before the final whistle is heard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fishbane said:

I would say that the chair botching the score disincentivized either side from throwing the brick.   Had the chair ruled 2 blue there more likely would have been am immediate challenge from NLWC - zain would have been down 4 with about 0:38 left.   Had the chair ruled 2 red there likely would have been an immediate challenge from FLWC - match would have been 4-4 with Yianni needing to score even if he lost the challenge (5-4) he have the tie breaker should he score hitch he would have had to anyway.  The chair splitting the difference and not calling for a conference just made it less likely that the sequence would get the second look it deserved. 

Also an immediate challenge wouldn’t prevent gamesmanship.  If the brick was thrown and action was allowed to continue because there was continuous action and Zain scored in that time to take the lead then he could just tell the ref that he doesn’t agree with the challenge and it doesn’t get reviewed.  

Finally the challenge brick was thrown before the end off the match.  It can be seen in the video before the final whistle is heard.  

I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule.

what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” 

the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. 

Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do.

It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. 

I still think it comes down to gamesmanship.

Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario.

we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. 

Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? 

Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him.

we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds.

Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.

Share this post


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

I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule.

what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” 

the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. 

Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do.

It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. 

I still think it comes down to gamesmanship.

Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario.

we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. 

Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? 

Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him.

we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds.

Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.

And I think it is important to note, for arbitration, that the brick not only came in just before the buzzer, it was “immediately” after the last potential scoring sequence for Zain, which was accepted and viewed but not overturned....before they went back to the potential 2-2 scenario. As you said there was ample opportunity to stop and review had the brick been thrown immediately. Don’t know what it all means but have to think not in NLWC favor. 

Share this post


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

I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule.

what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” 

the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. 

Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do.

It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. 

I still think it comes down to gamesmanship.

Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario.

we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. 

Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? 

Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him.

we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds.

Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.

And I think it is important to note, for arbitration, that the brick not only came in just before the buzzer, it was “immediately” after the last potential scoring sequence for Zain, which was accepted and viewed but not overturned....before they went back to the potential 2-2 scenario. As you said there was ample opportunity to stop and review had the brick been thrown immediately. Don’t know what it all means but have to think not in NLWC favor. 

Share this post


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

And I think it is important to note, for arbitration, that the brick not only came in just before the buzzer, it was “immediately” after the last potential scoring sequence for Zain, which was accepted and viewed but not overturned....before they went back to the potential 2-2 scenario. As you said there was ample opportunity to stop and review had the brick been thrown immediately. Don’t know what it all means but have to think not in NLWC favor. 

The challenge was accepted and the officials reviewed.  The NLWC coaches can be heard in one of the videos asking specifically for the first exchange (the 2-2) to be reviewed.  Why the review panel looked at the final sequence first I have no idea, but that could have been confusion. 

 

1 hour ago, Savage74 said:

I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule.

 what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” 

the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. 

Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do.

It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. 

 I still think it comes down to gamesmanship.

Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario.

 we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. 

 Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? 

Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him.

we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds.

Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.

It could have been gamesmanship, but it could have also been that the coaches got caught up in the match as there was continuous action with the match on a knife edge.  You say immediate but then reference the last 0:45 or 0:40.  In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuvEanuBok) Yianni's 2 points go on the board with 0:33 left. That should be the time that immediately references.  How long after 0:33 should NLWC have thrown the brick?  By not picking 2R or 2B the chair has made this a difficult decision for NLWC.  It is reasonable to expect it thrown exactly at 0:33? Not really.  Do they have 5 seconds? 0:28 left?  How long for the ref to notice?  At 0:28 Yianni is trying to lift Zain.  At 0:26 he has him in the air.  He subsequently nearly exposes him.  At maybe 0:19 they are both laying on their sides maybe in a position that doesn't obviously favour either wrestler - is this what the rules mean where it says "When a challenge is requested by a coach, the mat chairman interrupts the bout when the action is back to neutral."  Or does back to neutral mean the standing neutral position, because it clearly wasn't neutral in that sense.  The  announcers can be heard talking about how there could be a reversal here, so that's clearly not the case, but neither is sure who scored last.  Things start to change at 0:13 and from that point there is no clear time to stop the match.  

 

I think their should be some time limit on challenging a call, but 5 sec I feel is unreasonably short and putting any strict time limit on points that went on the board creates an asymmetry in the rules where challenging points awarded has a strict time limit and challenging points not awarded does not.  I do think there would have been controversy regarding this match had any situation occurred where the score on the public scoreboard at the end of the matches changed from one wrestler winning to the other.  That could have happened with an immediate brick throw and probably is a possibility to happen in the future no matter how they change the rules. 

Share this post


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

And I think it is important to note, for arbitration, that the brick not only came in just before the buzzer, it was “immediately” after the last potential scoring sequence for Zain, which was accepted and viewed but not overturned....before they went back to the potential 2-2 scenario. As you said there was ample opportunity to stop and review had the brick been thrown immediately. Don’t know what it all means but have to think not in NLWC favor. 

The challenge was accepted and the officials reviewed.  The NLWC coaches can be heard in one of the videos asking specifically for the first exchange (the 2-2) to be reviewed.  Why the review panel looked at the final sequence first I have no idea, but that could have been confusion. 

 

1 hour ago, Savage74 said:

I had to go back and watch the video again, you are right, the brick comes in before the final whistle. So they did not break that rule.

 what we are left with is the interpretation of “immediate” 

the challenge is to occur immediately after the score is posted. It is the officials job, not the coach, to determine the best time to stop action and accept the challenge. I see at least 2 stalemate scenarios (that they ultimately wrestled through) where I think a whistle could have stopped action and challenge could have been accepted if the brick had been thrown. 

Maybe they don’t stop the action and that is OK because that is the officials judgement. But maybe they do.

It is not the coaches job to determine the best time for a challenge to happen. Their job is to throw the brick immediately and let the officials decide the best time to accept it. Cale and co. Screwed up here. 

 I still think it comes down to gamesmanship.

Had the coaches thrown the brick immediately, we would not be having this debate. They didn’t because they wanted to see if Zain scored. That is the reason the rule is in place, to not allow exactly this scenario.

 we have all seen Yianni do magical stuff from the position they were in for the last 40 seconds. Had he known he was losing, he may have scored. 

 Yianni is pretty savvy in freestyle, if he sees the challenge brick, does he work a little harder or different in case the action doesn’t get stopped and he loses those 2 points? 

Of course, if the challenge stopped the action, they would have started back on their feet. Would Yianni have been able to initiate his own score? I don’t know, but I doubt Zain is shooting on him.

we just don’t know what happens if everyone knew the situation of the match for the last 45 seconds.

Again, exactly why the rule says immediately.

It could have been gamesmanship, but it could have also been that the coaches got caught up in the match as there was continuous action with the match on a knife edge.  You say immediate but then reference the last 0:45 or 0:40.  In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuvEanuBok) Yianni's 2 points go on the board with 0:33 left. That should be the time that immediately references.  How long after 0:33 should NLWC have thrown the brick?  By not picking 2R or 2B the chair has made this a difficult decision for NLWC.  It is reasonable to expect it thrown exactly at 0:33? Not really.  Do they have 5 seconds? 0:28 left?  How long for the ref to notice?  At 0:28 Yianni is trying to lift Zain.  At 0:26 he has him in the air.  He subsequently nearly exposes him.  At maybe 0:19 they are both laying on their sides maybe in a position that doesn't obviously favour either wrestler - is this what the rules mean where it says "When a challenge is requested by a coach, the mat chairman interrupts the bout when the action is back to neutral."  Or does back to neutral mean the standing neutral position, because it clearly wasn't neutral in that sense.  The  announcers can be heard talking about how there could be a reversal here, so that's clearly not the case, but neither is sure who scored last.  Things start to change at 0:13 and from that point there is no clear time to stop the match.  

 

I think their should be some time limit on challenging a call, but 5 sec I feel is unreasonably short and putting any strict time limit on points that went on the board creates an asymmetry in the rules where challenging points awarded has a strict time limit and challenging points not awarded does not.  I do think there would have been controversy regarding this match had any situation occurred where the score on the public scoreboard at the end of the matches changed from one wrestler winning to the other.  That could have happened with an immediate brick throw and probably is a possibility to happen in the future no matter how they change the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

The challenge was accepted and the officials reviewed.  The NLWC coaches can be heard in one of the videos asking specifically for the first exchange (the 2-2) to be reviewed.  Why the review panel looked at the final sequence first I have no idea, but that could have been confusion. 

 

 

You can hear them ask for the last sequence, I don't know if it was a different video or longer video or what the case....  it was "okay the last one, two exposure"

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lurker said:

You can hear them ask for the last sequence, I don't know if it was a different video or longer video or what the case....  it was "okay the last one, two exposure"

In the slow motion video Flo posted (https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6516970-yianni-zain-scramble-sequence-hi-def) it sounds like they say "it wasn't 2-2 just 3 red the first one" at 3:09.  This was a different angle from the original broadcast.  Maybe there is another video still with a different angle where they say "okay the last one, two exposure."  Also in the video Zain is going around holding up two with his fingers.  I'm not sure if he was indicating he thought he got two at the end and overruled the coaches in the challenge, but from the slow motion video posted by flo it seems clear to me that at least initially the NLWC coaches wanted the 2R 2B reviewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

In the slow motion video Flo posted (https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6516970-yianni-zain-scramble-sequence-hi-def) it sounds like they say "it wasn't 2-2 just 3 red the first one" at 3:09.  This was a different angle from the original broadcast.  Maybe there is another video still with a different angle where they say "okay the last one, two exposure."  Also in the video Zain is going around holding up two with his fingers.  I'm not sure if he was indicating he thought he got two at the end and overruled the coaches in the challenge, but from the slow motion video posted by flo it seems clear to me that at least initially the NLWC coaches wanted the 2R 2B reviewed. 

Yeah I'm pretty sure this was different video, like somone's cell phone or something.

But that really has me wondering, just out of curioustiy, where could they be getting three red???? Not even an option.

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

In the slow motion video Flo posted (https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6516970-yianni-zain-scramble-sequence-hi-def) it sounds like they say "it wasn't 2-2 just 3 red the first one" at 3:09.  This was a different angle from the original broadcast.  Maybe there is another video still with a different angle where they say "okay the last one, two exposure."  Also in the video Zain is going around holding up two with his fingers.  I'm not sure if he was indicating he thought he got two at the end and overruled the coaches in the challenge, but from the slow motion video posted by flo it seems clear to me that at least initially the NLWC coaches wanted the 2R 2B reviewed. 

In Zain's post match interview he talks about the scramble at the 45 second mark where he thought they were his points. He goes on to say 'obviously throwing the brick was the right thing to do". Seemed clear he was referring to the first part of the sequence. 

Also, that slo-motion video shows just how hard Zain pushed off with his leg to start that roll thru for exposure. 

Share this post


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

Yeah I'm pretty sure this was different video, like somone's cell phone or something.

But that really has me wondering, just out of curioustiy, where could they be getting three red???? Not even an option.

I haven't seen that video.  Was it the NLWC coaches saying that or the officials in the review?

I am not 100% sure he said 3 red.  It is something red.  That's really the only portion I can't make out.  My best guess is 3, but as you point out that isn't a scoring option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 6:56 PM, ConnorsDad said:

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?

I don't think they should.  I think this kind of stuff used to get fixed in high school or college all the time before there was a formal challenge procedure.  A coach noticed the scoreboard was wrong got the refs attention and the ref would stop the match and they would go over to the scorers table and pow wow with the official scorer to get it straight.  There was no challenge of the officials judgement just in recording properly what he had awarded.  Now that there is an official challenge rule Ian Miller loses a match he was awarded more points than his opponent because they weren't recorded properly by the official scorer and the team didn't have a challenge left. 

In football if a team kicks a field goal and only two points go up on the scoreboard and ensuing kickoff takes place before a challenge flag is thrown is that scoring error not correctable?  Should a challenge flag even be necessary?  Certain mistakes should just be corrected.

Share this post


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

I haven't seen that video.  Was it the NLWC coaches saying that or the officials in the review?

I am not 100% sure he said 3 red.  It is something red.  That's really the only portion I can't make out.  My best guess is 3, but as you point out that isn't a scoring option. 

The coaches, if I remember right it was when Sammy came over to ask what they were challenging, couldn't hear much till the end.  Saw it on twitter or FB.  Like I said I think it was a cell phone video.  I was about to say not really important but I guess for the purpose of the arbitration, that short conversation about what they wanted reviewed could be very important.  More to the point what Zain said he wanted reviewed, since the athlete has the final say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

In football if a team kicks a field goal and only two points go up on the scoreboard and ensuing kickoff takes place before a challenge flag is thrown is that scoring error not correctable?  Should a challenge flag even be necessary?  Certain mistakes should just be corrected

No, in this case, it would be more like the field goal was ruled no good, but after the game was over,  the challenge flag was thrown; and the original call was over ruled and the field goal ruled good after all.

Share this post


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

No, in this case, it would be more like the field goal was ruled no good, but after the game was over,  the challenge flag was thrown; and the original call was over ruled and the field goal ruled good after all.

I wasn't attempting to use the field goal as an analogy for this situation.  I think more analogous case would be if the official on the left of the upright signaled no good, the one on the right signaled good and two points went on the board.  These two points would be the difference in the game.  The ensuing kickoff is allowed to happen without correcting the error.  The receiving team nearly returns the kick for a touchdown but as is about the be dragged down by several opposing players with two seconds left and defeat inevitable the coach throws the challenge flag. Officials confer and determine after review the field goal was no good and take the two points off the board. 

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...