Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, FlyinLion said:

It is not a review when there is disagreement between referee, judge and chairman.  It is a "consultation" among the three to find a majority, with a wrestler able to challenge the decision that comes out of the consultation.  A review based on a challenge has different person(s) making the decision as to the correct call, the refereeing delegate (jury).  This is a key distinction that you keep missing.

Actually, I am not missing that at all. I know the three man crew had three different scores and that it was the table judges who reviewed it after the brick challenge. I get that. It was still handled within a reasonable period of time and before a winner had been decided upon. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, FlyinLion said:

The rules absolutely were not followed. No consultation occurred to find a majority.  A challenge was accepted. 

If arbitrator finds the challenge was properly accepted, the lack of consultation will not really matter as the jury's review seems to be de novo. They can decide on whatever call they want and their decision is final.  Whether the challenge was properly accepted has been belabored, but it is the major question.

If the challenge was not properly accepted, you have the rules not being followed but Yianni winning match 2.  You probably do not want Zain to have his attorneys get involved to argue that match 2 should be re-wrestled though.

The three man crew came up with three different scores. They never came to any majority prior to the brick toss. Once the brick was tossed it was kicked top the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brick toss was about whether or not there was exposure right at the end - you can hear that being discussed.  How does that lead back to the earlier sequence?  And if those are seperate items of review, why wasn't a point awarded for a failed challange?

Way too many ananswered questions here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, red blades said:

The brick toss was about whether or not there was exposure right at the end - you can hear that being discussed.  How does that lead back to the earlier sequence?  And if those are seperate items of review, why wasn't a point awarded for a failed challange?

Way too many ananswered questions here...

The brick toss was for the entire sequence. All 45 seconds of it. Reasonable given the continuous action. 

Share this post


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

Because Koll brought them up, and now instead of wrestling officials deciding an outcome we now have LAWYERS getting involved in wrestling matches. You don't want lawyers brought up, then don't bring them to the table. 

You seem pretty dang upset that lawyers get mentioned. Maybe you actually realize this isn't a good look. 

Again:  why does the process exist, if not to be used?  A good look, really?  Should appellants go through the process without legal representation?  Do you think USAW has lawyers involved?

Ah, I forgot:  they aren't Cornell lawyers, so it's okay.

Lawyers aren't involved in wrestling matches here:  they are involved in the appeals process, as well they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

Actually, I am not missing that at all. I know the three man crew had three different scores and that it was the table judges who reviewed it after the brick challenge. I get that. It was still handled within a reasonable period of time and before a winner had been decided upon. 

The three man crew came up with three different scores. They never came to any majority prior to the brick toss. Once the brick was tossed it was kicked top the table. 

So you admit that the rules were not followed?  The rules require a conference among the three to get a majority decision and then gives the wrestler the opportunity to challenge.  This was a challenge of decision that did not follow the rules. Whether it matters to the outcome that the rules were followed is a different question as I laid out.  Go back and look at the post I originally quoted.

Quote

When you have three different scores on the mat there MUST be a review per the rules ["they" being the referee, judge and chairman]. They reviewed and scored it [no they did not as you now posted it was the table judges]. That is how it is supposed top happen, again, per the rules [wrong] . And that IS what happened [again wrong].

There is no automatic review by the table judges, their only involvement in a match comes when a challenge is requested by the corner and confirmed by the wrestler.

You're finally getting to the correct argument that it all shouldn't matter because the challenge was proper and overrules it anyway, but you don't get claim you were right all along when your statements are easily shown to be incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple funny things here: one being the idea of throwing a chair at a ref “is what it is, but...” Good lord if that would have been anyone else Tbar would have been all over how dispicable that is. To even try to “understandable in the moment”, everyone knows better. Secondly that a sweaty mat can be arbitrated. The only thing more funny than that is if Cael had tried and after it got thrown out quickly, Tbar would not be here crying Cael shouldn’t have taken that route, but that a hearing should have been had over sweaty mats. That’s the truth, and everyone knows it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbar accusing Cornell fans of rooting for Yianni to win his appeal because they're Cornell fan is....a look.

Also, I appreciated the self-created virtue signalling on behalf of Cael re:Taylor/Cox.  He didn't file a lawsuit over a match his guy clearly lost because he didn't want to "take the sport thru that."

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, AnklePicker said:

Are they any Cornell fans who think Zain should win this appeal and conversely are there any PSU fans who think Yianni should win?  Funny how that works. 

I'd certainly LIKE to see the appeal decided in Yianni's favor, but that's not the same as saying it SHOULD be; I honestly don't know.  But that's sort of the issue here for most of us, the way this match was decided was so irregular, it certainly justifies having a higher authority review it.  If they agree with the chairman at the match, so be it, I just hope they will spell out why this was the correct ruling and what was the procedure that arrived at the decision.  I think other Cornell fans have said as much as well, not withstanding the fictional Cornell fans Tbar keeps inventing...

Share this post


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

Because Koll brought them up, and now instead of wrestling officials deciding an outcome we now have LAWYERS getting involved in wrestling matches. You don't want lawyers brought up, then don't bring them to the table. 

You seem pretty dang upset that lawyers get mentioned. Maybe you actually realize this isn't a good look. 

In this case, lawyers who dont even know wrestling could score it better than the officials did from matside, and on the mat that day.

Share this post


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

In this case, lawyers who dont even know wrestling could score it better than the officials did from matside, and on the mat that day.

I see you wrote that but doubt you believe it. Zain had Yianni's leg bent way over his head. The 2-0 score in favor of Zain seemed absolutely correct to me. To the tables judges too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you wrote that but doubt you believe it. Zain had Yianni's leg bent way over his head. The 2-0 score in favor of Zain seemed absolutely correct to me. To the tables judges too.
Then why didn't they award the points during the action? Why was there a need for a Hail Mary challenge?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cjc007 said:

Then why didn't they award the points during the action? Why was there a need for a Hail Mary challenge?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
 

One of them did. Upon review, more than one did. This is what bricks and the review process are for.

Share this post


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

I see you wrote that but doubt you believe it. Zain had Yianni's leg bent way over his head. The 2-0 score in favor of Zain seemed absolutely correct to me. To the tables judges too.

Actually judgeS is innacurate. Tucci goes 2 Zain and you can clearly hear and see Stecklein call out “that’s bull****”. So in reality, 3 of the five officials involved had a score that makes Yianni the winner. Tucci and the judge had it 2 Zain, Sammy had it 2 Yianni. Zach had 2-2 (Yianni wins), and Stecklein had it....well we know he didn’t have it just 2 Zain. Interesting dynamic. 

Share this post


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

Actually judgeS is innacurate. Tucci goes 2 Zain and you can clearly hear and see Stecklein call out “that’s bull****”. So in reality, 3 of the five officials involved had a score that makes Yianni the winner. Tucci and the judge had it 2 Zain, Sammy had it 2 Yianni. Zach had 2-2 (Yianni wins), and Stecklein had it....well we know he didn’t have it just 2 Zain. Interesting dynamic. 

So 2 judges/officials had it 2-0 Zain. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

Chair throw is what it is, but it doesn't take the sport thru legal manueverings behind closed doors ala Koll's Cornell based challenge. Cael probably regrets it, but in the moment it was understandable. Koll gave a legal challenge a lot of thought and took the sport down this road trashing some good people along the way. 

Throwing a chair because you are pissed and "in the moment" is NEVER understandable.  It is a childish temper tantrum.

Share this post


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

Or maybe Tucci just imposed his will on the others.  Nobody really knows.  Which is why the appeal is a reasonable request.

 

Actually watching the scene play out that looks like exactly what happens, neither Zach nor Bill seem to like the final decision. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


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

Actually watching the scene play out that looks like exactly what happens, neither Zach nor Bill seem to like the final decision. 

They know Yianni is the better chance of bringing home a medal for the USA 

Share this post


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

Or maybe Tucci just imposed his will on the others.  Nobody really knows.  Which is why the appeal is a reasonable request.

That's the way it works. When there's a challenge, the replay official can discuss the situation with the chairman, but the replay official makes the final call. The ref and judge are no longer part of the process.

Share this post


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

That's the way it works. When there's a challenge, the replay official can discuss the situation with the chairman, but the replay official makes the final call. The ref and judge are no longer part of the process.

I don’t know how this works and don’t pretend to.  IronChef - is this right?  The replay official is the only person who makes the decision?  You don’t need 2 of 3 or something like that?  TBar keeps insisting, over and over, that at least 2 have to have agreed with the final scoring decision. 

 

Can we get confirmation one way or another?

Edited by nom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I hate in sports is overly complicated rules and the NFL has that market cornered for the most part.  I will say that even the rules that don't make sense to the viewers are always well explained. Does anyone know the actual ruling in this match. We all know the outcome and everybody has an opinion on what it should be, but I don't think there was ever an in depth explanation for the decision made. Many times that solves a lot of the public perception of the situation. People will still disagree but there becomes a certain level of acceptance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhVPnYKY7I

 

Not a fumble by rule but...

 

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...