Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

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. 

This is a very reasonably thought out post and process. 

My thoughts in response. How long after the score went on the board do you think the coaches (both FLWC and NLWC) and wrestlers (both Yianni and Zain) noticed what the score was? Specifically, do you think it took until the end of the match for NLWC to realize they were losing and the 2-2 should be challenged or do you think they realized that earlier in the match? I think they probably watched all the officials and the scoreboard to see how it was scored immediately. Just my pretty educated guess.

You say it is a difficult decision - So? They made the decision not to challenge. That is their right to do so. Coaches have to make difficult decisions all the time. Sometimes they make the right one, sometimes the wrong one and hindsight is always 20/20.

So lets say they throw the brick within 10 seconds of the score going on the board. I am pretty sure they knew they might want to challenge 1 second after seeing the score go on the board but lets just say it takes them 10 to find the brick or whatever. So now we have 0:23 left and the brick is on the mat. The mat chairman would see it immediately and then it is his judgement call as to if and/or when to interrupt the match. That is his job and what he gets paid for. 

If he chooses to interrupt at 0:19, it gets reviewed and perhaps the ruling is it was Zain's points and now Yianni is down by 2. He has 0:19 knowing he is losing the match. Does he? who knows. I know i have scored to win in the last 0:19 of a match numerous times. I have also been scored on in the last 0:19 of a match to lose. We see it happen all the time.

If the mat chairman chooses not to interrupt, then it becomes a judgement call by the official, by the rules and no arbitration is needed. Sure, the score may have changed after the fact but the rules would have been followed. Of course, maybe Yianni sees the brick and knows the outcome could be in question and from one of his strongest positions, he works a little differently to score rather than run out the clock while winning. Is he able to? Who knows. At least the rules would have been followed and the outcome could not have been challenged.

The coaches knew the outcome of that scramble well before the end of the match and CHOSE not to challenge until they saw it was needed to win. That is not immediate and it is against the rules and the spirit of the rules. 

To make this debate even more fun: What if they lose this arbitration hearing because the challenge shouldn't have been accepted but then NLWC wants to appeal because there was never an officials conference on the score like the rule book says?

This is why I think the outcome of the arbitration SHOULD be one of two possible scenarios:

1. Match 2 is thrown out because the challenge should not have been accepted which would make Yianni the winner but a conference should have been held by the officials which would have allowed for the challenge that made Zain the winner. Therefore, neither is the winner and Zain is up 1 match to 0. Yianni needs to win 2 in a row.

2. The purpose of the best of 3 series is twofold. Make sure the best guy is the representative by: not allowing for 1 fluke win and the guy who can recover in a relatively short period of time against top notch opponents similar to how the world championships are. For this reason they determine the whole series needs to start from scratch and we are in a true best of 3 series on a single day.

I think either is a fine representative but selfishly, I just want to see them wrestle each other more!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Savage74 said:

This is a very reasonably thought out post and process. 

My thoughts in response. How long after the score went on the board do you think the coaches (both FLWC and NLWC) and wrestlers (both Yianni and Zain) noticed what the score was? Specifically, do you think it took until the end of the match for NLWC to realize they were losing and the 2-2 should be challenged or do you think they realized that earlier in the match? I think they probably watched all the officials and the scoreboard to see how it was scored immediately. Just my pretty educated guess.

 You say it is a difficult decision - So? They made the decision not to challenge. That is their right to do so. Coaches have to make difficult decisions all the time. Sometimes they make the right one, sometimes the wrong one and hindsight is always 20/20.

 So lets say they throw the brick within 10 seconds of the score going on the board. I am pretty sure they knew they might want to challenge 1 second after seeing the score go on the board but lets just say it takes them 10 to find the brick or whatever. So now we have 0:23 left and the brick is on the mat. The mat chairman would see it immediately and then it is his judgement call as to if and/or when to interrupt the match. That is his job and what he gets paid for. 

 If he chooses to interrupt at 0:19, it gets reviewed and perhaps the ruling is it was Zain's points and now Yianni is down by 2. He has 0:19 knowing he is losing the match. Does he? who knows. I know i have scored to win in the last 0:19 of a match numerous times. I have also been scored on in the last 0:19 of a match to lose. We see it happen all the time.

If the mat chairman chooses not to interrupt, then it becomes a judgement call by the official, by the rules and no arbitration is needed. Sure, the score may have changed after the fact but the rules would have been followed. Of course, maybe Yianni sees the brick and knows the outcome could be in question and from one of his strongest positions, he works a little differently to score rather than run out the clock while winning. Is he able to? Who knows. At least the rules would have been followed and the outcome could not have been challenged.

The coaches knew the outcome of that scramble well before the end of the match and CHOSE not to challenge until they saw it was needed to win. That is not immediate and it is against the rules and the spirit of the rules. 

To make this debate even more fun: What if they lose this arbitration hearing because the challenge shouldn't have been accepted but then NLWC wants to appeal because there was never an officials conference on the score like the rule book says?

 This is why I think the outcome of the arbitration SHOULD be one of two possible scenarios:

1. Match 2 is thrown out because the challenge should not have been accepted which would make Yianni the winner but a conference should have been held by the officials which would have allowed for the challenge that made Zain the winner. Therefore, neither is the winner and Zain is up 1 match to 0. Yianni needs to win 2 in a row.

 2. The purpose of the best of 3 series is twofold. Make sure the best guy is the representative by: not allowing for 1 fluke win and the guy who can recover in a relatively short period of time against top notch opponents similar to how the world championships are. For this reason they determine the whole series needs to start from scratch and we are in a true best of 3 series on a single day.

 I think either is a fine representative but selfishly, I just want to see them wrestle each other more!! 

I am not sure when everyone realized what was on the scoreboard.  Clearly some time between 0:33 and 0:02 all of them realized.  I think Zain may have been last to realize the score as his head was down coming out of the scoring sequence and Yianni started lifting him as it was put on the board.  I would be pretty confident that by 0:19 all parties would have been aware some much sooner.

Immediately isn't a definitive amount of time.  Given that challenges get accepted 0:10, 0:15, or sometimes longer after points have appeared on the board I would expect that Cael and the NLWC coaches would have felt that they had more than 0:05 to throw the brick and have it accepted.  What makes it feel like it wasn't too long even though 0:31 had passed was that there was continuous action without a restart or the wrestler returning to neutral (on their feet).  If the mat official considered that they weren't going anywhere at 0:19 or so and stopped action followed by a restart standing and then with 2 seconds left the NLWM throws the brick trying to challenge the roll then I think everyone would agree that it was way too long.  But had the stoppage occurred you may have had zain tell or motion to the corner for them to throw the brick.

At the same time what makes it feel unfair to Yianni was that these were the last 33 seconds of the match.  Had this happened in the last minute of the first period instead of the last minute of the second period I think it would be less controversial than if NLWC had thrown the brick at 0:30 and the officials let action continue before changing the score to 6-6 in favor of Zain after the final whistle. 

I think the only realistic outcomes of the arbitration are 1) result stands as is or 2) match 2 is re-wrestled with match 3 wrestled if necessary.  I don't think Zain will be able to appeal the arbitration decision or initiate a new arbitration for the same match.  Sieracki tried that  in the Lindlind case and it was ultimately thrown out.  Zain's only real option at that point is to accept it and wrestle whatever is prescribed not matter how stupid it is. 

 

Share this post


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

I am not sure when everyone realized what was on the scoreboard.  Clearly some time between 0:33 and 0:02 all of them realized.  I think Zain may have been last to realize the score as his head was down coming out of the scoring sequence and Yianni started lifting him as it was put on the board.  I would be pretty confident that by 0:19 all parties would have been aware some much sooner.

Immediately isn't a definitive amount of time.  Given that challenges get accepted 0:10, 0:15, or sometimes longer after points have appeared on the board I would expect that Cael and the NLWC coaches would have felt that they had more than 0:05 to throw the brick and have it accepted.  What makes it feel like it wasn't too long even though 0:31 had passed was that there was continuous action without a restart or the wrestler returning to neutral (on their feet).  If the mat official considered that they weren't going anywhere at 0:19 or so and stopped action followed by a restart standing and then with 2 seconds left the NLWM throws the brick trying to challenge the roll then I think everyone would agree that it was way too long.  But had the stoppage occurred you may have had zain tell or motion to the corner for them to throw the brick.

At the same time what makes it feel unfair to Yianni was that these were the last 33 seconds of the match.  Had this happened in the last minute of the first period instead of the last minute of the second period I think it would be less controversial than if NLWC had thrown the brick at 0:30 and the officials let action continue before changing the score to 6-6 in favor of Zain after the final whistle. 

I think the only realistic outcomes of the arbitration are 1) result stands as is or 2) match 2 is re-wrestled with match 3 wrestled if necessary.  I don't think Zain will be able to appeal the arbitration decision or initiate a new arbitration for the same match.  Sieracki tried that  in the Lindlind case and it was ultimately thrown out.  Zain's only real option at that point is to accept it and wrestle whatever is prescribed not matter how stupid it is. 

Flo's score bug is an approximation/mimic of the official score and like most score bugs runs slightly behind.  The Flo high def video shows the chairman awarding 2R and 2B at around 2:24 of the video.  Piecing together with the YouTube video you linked that happened around 6:28 of that video with approximately 0:37 left in the match.  Flo Arena has Zain's 2 coming at 0:35.  Likely the delay from the chairman holding up the "bats" (or "paddles" elsewhere in the rules) to it going on the official board.  Zain's best case scenario is the 0:33 shown by Flo's bug.  If we're going to be technical, might as well try to be as close as possible.

As for what time "immediately after" is tied to, here is some relevant language from the rules:

Art. 17 - General Duties, section g) - "All the points awarded by the judge must be announced to the public as soon as they are determined, either by means of bats or by an electric scoreboard."

Art. 20 - The Judge, section c) - "Following each action, and on the basis of the referee’s indications (which he compares with his own evaluation) or, failing this, on the basis of the mat chairman's indications, he records the number of points awarded to the action in question, and enters the results on a scoreboard placed beside him. This scoreboard must be visible to both the spectators and wrestlers."

Whether the Judge actually operated the scoreboard that night, I have no idea.  If Zain's argument is based on whether the brick came only 30 seconds after the points were awarded not 35 seconds, he's probably already lost. 

A coach's most important responsibility during the match is deciding whether or not to challenge.  If they don't realize what is on the board or get caught up in the action they are not doing their job.

Based on reviewing the recent Article 9 arbitrations, Zain is likely named as an affected athlete, given notice of the hearing and has a right to participate.  This procedure seems to have been a result of Sieracki/Linland, though I haven't taken the time to find if/when an actual change was made to the statute/USOC bylaws.

Share this post


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

Flo's score bug is an approximation/mimic of the official score and like most score bugs runs slightly behind.  The Flo high def video shows the chairman awarding 2R and 2B at around 2:24 of the video.  Piecing together with the YouTube video you linked that happened around 6:28 of that video with approximately 0:37 left in the match.  Flo Arena has Zain's 2 coming at 0:35.  Likely the delay from the chairman holding up the "bats" (or "paddles" elsewhere in the rules) to it going on the official board.  Zain's best case scenario is the 0:33 shown by Flo's bug.  If we're going to be technical, might as well try to be as close as possible.

 As for what time "immediately after" is tied to, here is some relevant language from the rules:

 Art. 17 - General Duties, section g) - "All the points awarded by the judge must be announced to the public as soon as they are determined, either by means of bats or by an electric scoreboard."

Art. 20 - The Judge, section c) - "Following each action, and on the basis of the referee’s indications (which he compares with his own evaluation) or, failing this, on the basis of the mat chairman's indications, he records the number of points awarded to the action in question, and enters the results on a scoreboard placed beside him. This scoreboard must be visible to both the spectators and wrestlers."

 Whether the Judge actually operated the scoreboard that night, I have no idea.  If Zain's argument is based on whether the brick came only 30 seconds after the points were awarded not 35 seconds, he's probably already lost. 

 A coach's most important responsibility during the match is deciding whether or not to challenge.  If they don't realize what is on the board or get caught up in the action they are not doing their job.

Based on reviewing the recent Article 9 arbitrations, Zain is likely named as an affected athlete, given notice of the hearing and has a right to participate.  This procedure seems to have been a result of Sieracki/Linland, though I haven't taken the time to find if/when an actual change was made to the statute/USOC bylaws.

I think Zain should try and involve himself in the arbitration in anyway possible or else .  I'd agree that arguing a few seconds either way would serve no purpose for him as it is an indefinite amount of time anyway. In the youtube video Pyles says 2 and 2 is the call with 0:37 left, but I think he was saying that based on the chairs paddles in the other one and not the scoreboard.  I'd accept that 0:35 is most likely for it to appear on the public scoreboard in the arena.

I would think that the operator of the public scoreboard would more likely be the chairman or someone in his vacinity.  From article 41 it says that the public scoreboard must conform to the chair's score and that the chairman's score sheet supersedes the judges in the event of a discrepancy. With the confusion regarding how the points were awarded it is possible the two score sheets were different.

"If the match lasts until the end of the allotted time, the mat chairman's score sheet will be taken into consideration when designating the winner. The public scoreboard must conform to the mat chairman’s score sheet at all times during the bout. If there is a difference of 1 or more points between the judge’s and mat chairman’s score sheets, only the score on the mat chairman’s score sheet will be considered."

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...