Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lurker said:

When you bring in the two review officials yes two of them did. Three of them did not. 

The three officials had different scores. The Mat Chair is supposed to confirm either the ref or the judge, but he didn't confirm either. He made up his own different score. So 3 different scores.

The brick sent this to the table jury. As I understand it, there they are all supposed to watch the replay and the jury, without consultation of the three man crew, The jury decides. Zain had a majority or unanimity of the jury depending on number in jury. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

"After having reviewed the action and after a consultation with the mat chairman, the refereeing delegate (or his substitute), renders its decision. He intervenes and renders its decision in all cases. His decision will be final and may not be discussed."

This is from page 26 of the UWW rules: https://unitedworldwrestling.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/wrestling_rules.pdf

Share this post


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


"After having reviewed the action and after a consultation with the mat chairman, the refereeing delegate (or his substitute), renders its decision. He intervenes and renders its decision in all cases. His decision will be final and may not be discussed."

This is from page 26 of the UWW rules: https://unitedworldwrestling.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/wrestling_rules.pdf

And what actually happened was the brick came in for the sequence right at the end of time.  They reviewed, then went back to the sequence around :45, which should have been a conference among the three officials first since there was no agreement to the score, and Tucci then made the decision on what the sequence would be scored.  That's pretty obvious and I think this is the one leg I see Yianni possibly having to stand on, because as such, Yianni should be awarded one point for the failed challenge at the end of time.  As I've said I don't know I believe that is how its going to go down, but I see that as a possibility.

Share this post


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

And what actually happened was the brick came in for the sequence right at the end of time.  They reviewed, then went back to the sequence around :45, which should have been a conference among the three officials first since there was no agreement to the score, and Tucci then made the decision on what the sequence would be scored.  That's pretty obvious and I think this is the one leg I see Yianni possibly having to stand on, because as such, Yianni should be awarded one point for the failed challenge at the end of time.  As I've said I don't know I believe that is how its going to go down, but I see that as a possibility.

No. Once the brick is thrown it goes to the jury, not back to the 3 man crew. The 3 man crew had their chance to get it correct and they failed. Once that happens and a brick is thrown it is out of their hands and in the review jury's hands. As posted above, the table or review jury reviews and comes to a decision. They can consult with the mat chair, but it's their decision. 

Share this post


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

No. Once the brick is thrown it goes to the jury, not back to the 3 man crew. The 3 man crew had their chance to get it correct and they failed. Once that happens and a brick is thrown it is out of their hands and in the review jury's hands. As posted above, the table or review jury reviews and comes to a decision. They can consult with the mat chair, but it's their decision. 

 

Tbar, you seem to be failing to understand something. Knowing that the brick was thrown and the first sequence reviewed as asked for by the coaching staff was the action right at the end of the match. 

Even if the score stands from the action around 45 seconds, Zains corner still lost the challenge for the sequence that they threw the brick for which results in 1 point for Yianni making the score 7-6. I’m not sure how you can possibly justify that a brick throw can count for multiple scoring sequences and reviews as that is certainly not how it is intended. It seems the blind lotalty, while appreciated by PSU I’m sure, results in your inability to even acknowledge that there was a failed challenge that did not result in a point. 

Share this post


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

 

Tbar, you seem to be failing to understand something. Knowing that the brick was thrown and the first sequence reviewed as asked for by the coaching staff was the action right at the end of the match. 

Even if the score stands from the action around 45 seconds, Zains corner still lost the challenge for the sequence that they threw the brick for which results in 1 point for Yianni making the score 7-6. I’m not sure how you can possibly justify that a brick throw can count for multiple scoring sequences and reviews as that is certainly not how it is intended. It seems the blind lotalty, while appreciated by PSU I’m sure, results in your inability to even acknowledge that there was a failed challenge that did not result in a point. 

Didn't they throw it for the sequence that was reversed?  In the slow motion video flo posted you can see the brick comes in before the final whistle and as the ref walks over you hear someone off camera say "it wasn't 2-2 it was 3? red.  The first one."  I'm not sure if he says 3 red that's kind of hard to make out but the rest is clear.  I assumed that was one of the NLWC coaches maybe it was just some onlooker close to the mic, but I doubt it.  If it was a NLWC coach then a failed challenge claim does not hold merit.  Was this not the finding in the arbitration?

Also since the score was changed after review I don't think the 1 point penalty would normally get assessed.  If you request a review you don't get to limit the officials review to a precise thing.  They can rescore the whole sequence.  Supposing some action near the edge was scored 2 red and blue challenges saying a step out by red preceded the action and it should be 1-0 blue and the points scored by red taken off the board.  They review it and find that there was no red step out, and also that it should have been 4 red for that action.  It gets rescored 4 red. The score changed from the review and red would not receive an additional point for a failed challenge. 

The view where you can hear someone reference the 2-2 is here.  Brick comes in at 2:59

https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6516970-yianni-zain-scramble-sequence-hi-def

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DoubleHalf said:

 

Tbar, you seem to be failing to understand something. Knowing that the brick was thrown and the first sequence reviewed as asked for by the coaching staff was the action right at the end of the match. 

Even if the score stands from the action around 45 seconds, Zains corner still lost the challenge for the sequence that they threw the brick for which results in 1 point for Yianni making the score 7-6. I’m not sure how you can possibly justify that a brick throw can count for multiple scoring sequences and reviews as that is certainly not how it is intended. It seems the blind lotalty, while appreciated by PSU I’m sure, results in your inability to even acknowledge that there was a failed challenge that did not result in a point. 

That is not true either. There is audio where you can hear NLWC team wanted the action at 45 seconds reviewed.

Share this post


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

No. Once the brick is thrown it goes to the jury, not back to the 3 man crew. The 3 man crew had their chance to get it correct and they failed. Once that happens and a brick is thrown it is out of their hands and in the review jury's hands. As posted above, the table or review jury reviews and comes to a decision. They can consult with the mat chair, but it's their decision. 

Correct, but what the brick is being thrown for, what is being requested to be reviewed, must be very specific.  In this case, what was requested to be reviewed was the sequence at the end of time.

Share this post


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

The three officials had different scores. The Mat Chair is supposed to confirm either the ref or the judge, but he didn't confirm either. He made up his own different score. So 3 different scores.

The brick sent this to the table jury. As I understand it, there they are all supposed to watch the replay and the jury, without consultation of the three man crew, The jury decides. Zain had a majority or unanimity of the jury depending on number in jury. 

What new information are you presenting here?

Share this post


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

Also since the score was changed after review I don't think the 1 point penalty would normally get assessed.  If you request a review you don't get to limit the officials review to a precise thing.  They can rescore the whole sequence.  Supposing some action near the edge was scored 2 red and blue challenges saying a step out by red preceded the action and it should be 1-0 blue and the points scored by red taken off the board.  They review it and find that there was no red step out, and also that it should have been 4 red for that action.  It gets rescored 4 red. The score changed from the review and red would not receive an additional point for a failed challenge. 

 

 

Actually yes they would, its been done.

Share this post


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

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

That’s stupid to say, if Yianni was that much better he would have won. He didn’t, Zain did and he will represent the USA at the world championships. Deal with it or let it ruin your year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ogalthorpe Haywood said:

That’s stupid to say, if Yianni was that much better he would have won. He didn’t, Zain did and he will represent the USA at the world championships. Deal with it or let it ruin your year

Yianni should have won the second match, but yes, with that second match being that close, and yianni getting beat the first match, oh well, yianni needed to be more definitive. But Yianni did win at the open, won at dogu, and has better international results, so for people to find Yianni the more likely to medal, isnt stupid, there are international results that show hes been better. Hopefully Zain will perform well. Yianni has shown he can get it done internationally, so look forward to next year, hopefully Zain shows he can too, all college affiliation aside, its better for the country if we have multiple contenders. Thats what makes russia crazy, their depth.

Edited by Molsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, IronChef - thank you.  Seems like it was one person only - not any of the officials that were scoring the match live, that made the final call.  I didn't realize it works like this.  Thanks for this info.

TBar - I see you are now referring to a Jury.  Looks like you may agree with IronChef -- you have switched your language to now refer to a 'jury.'   Do you agree that this was a 'jury' of 1?  There were no 'judges' that agreed with the final decision. It was simply one person that made the ruling.  Fair?  Making sure I'm not missing something.

And there seems to be multiple videos floating around -- anyone have links?  TBar, the one you are referencing seems to be new to the table.  Have a link?

 

Share this post


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

OK, IronChef - thank you.  Seems like it was one person only - not any of the officials that were scoring the match live, that made the final call.  I didn't realize it works like this.  Thanks for this info.

TBar - I see you are now referring to a Jury.  Looks like you may agree with IronChef -- you have switched your language to now refer to a 'jury.'   Do you agree that this was a 'jury' of 1?  There were no 'judges' that agreed with the final decision. It was simply one person that made the ruling.  Fair?  Making sure I'm not missing something.

And there seems to be multiple videos floating around -- anyone have links?  TBar, the one you are referencing seems to be new to the table.  Have a link?

 

He uses the term jury, because it makes it sound like multiple refs all agreed that Zain should have scored, but thats not what it seems like.

Edited by Molsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a question.  If the challenge were made by a memeber of the CalPoly, Purdue, or Northern Colorado coaching staff would it have been over turned.  Heck even the likes of Branch or Humphrey.  Would it have been over turned? I only ask because you have to consider the intentional or unintentional biases of refs when the matside coaches are figure heads like Sanderson, Koll, J. Smith, Ryan, and Brands.  When head to head you have to consider where does the biggest potential if bias between them lie?   I feel if it were a less represented program or coach matside that the call would not have been reversed in the first place.  Not because I think the initial score was right or wrong, but because I don't think they would have changed it regardless. 

Share this post


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

He uses the term jury, because it makes it sound like multiple refs all agreed that Zain should have scored, but thats not what it seems like.

No, I used the term jury because I have a rule book here that calls the review panel the jury of appeal. The rule book is a few years old and ironically has Bender and Tucci listed as the USA Executive Director and President. 

Share this post


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

OK, IronChef - thank you.  Seems like it was one person only - not any of the officials that were scoring the match live, that made the final call.  I didn't realize it works like this.  Thanks for this info.

TBar - I see you are now referring to a Jury.  Looks like you may agree with IronChef -- you have switched your language to now refer to a 'jury.'   Do you agree that this was a 'jury' of 1?  There were no 'judges' that agreed with the final decision. It was simply one person that made the ruling.  Fair?  Making sure I'm not missing something.

And there seems to be multiple videos floating around -- anyone have links?  TBar, the one you are referencing seems to be new to the table.  Have a link?

 

 

Share this post


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

OK, IronChef - thank you.  Seems like it was one person only - not any of the officials that were scoring the match live, that made the final call.  I didn't realize it works like this.  Thanks for this info.

TBar - I see you are now referring to a Jury.  Looks like you may agree with IronChef -- you have switched your language to now refer to a 'jury.'   Do you agree that this was a 'jury' of 1?  There were no 'judges' that agreed with the final decision. It was simply one person that made the ruling.  Fair?  Making sure I'm not missing something.

And there seems to be multiple videos floating around -- anyone have links?  TBar, the one you are referencing seems to be new to the table.  Have a link?

 

IronChef has quoted the UWW rule book. Here is similar langauge in an older USA rulebook I am reading. Where IronChef's language copied from UWW uses the term refereeing delegate the USA rulebook I have uses the term "jury of appeal". In the Zain-Yianni match I believe both terms basically refer to Tucci and anyone else handling challenges. 

I will give you a bunch of quotes that I think apply here to this match, but I will bold the one that is similar with Iron Chef's UWW language. Keep in mind this is an older USA book and the rules have changed somewhat, but I think the spirit of the rule is basically the same. 

The refereeing body shall make all decisions unanimously or by majority of two on one, except in fall situations where the mat chairman’s approval must be obtained. It cannot use video evidence to make its decisions (except in the case of challenge shared with the Jury of Appeal).

Jury of Appeal The Jury of Appeal is a group of refereeing experts whose function is to make sure that the wrestling rules are strictly applied during all major FILA events.

When a challenge is requested by a coach and confirmed by the wrestler, the referereeing body must watch the video evidence on big screen at same time as the jury of appeal, without leaving their seats. After having reviewed the action once, the refereeing body announces its decision that will be confirmed or corrected by the Jury of Appeal.

Article 21 - The mat chairman .............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 number of points and the falls. e) In no case may the mat chairman be the first to give an opinion. He must wait for the opinion of the referee and judge. He is not entitled to influence the decision. f) The mat chairman’s approval must absolutely be sought before granting a fall. g) The mat chairman may decide to interrupt the bout in case of a serious mistake made by the referee. h) He may also interrupt the bout if a serious scoring mistake is made by the referee and 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 judge. This consultation does not alter the wrestler’s right to challenge.......i) During a bout, when the coach considers that a blatant refereeing mistake has been made against his wrestler and calls for a challenge, the mat chairman must wait for the action to go to neutral and stop the match. He must review the video evidence at the same time as the referee, judge, and Jury of Appeal. If the refereeing body was right, the mat chairman must make sure that no other challenge will be granted to the wrestler in question during the remaining of the match. After the single review of the video evidence, the Jury of Appeal solely renders its decision. If the Jury of Appeal panel agrees unanimously, its decision is final and cannot be challenged. If there is disagreement among the Jury of Appeal, there may be one final review.

Article 22 - The Jury of Appeal The Jury of Appeal is formed by FILA’s Refereeing Commission or its substitute. It is comprised of three (3) persons selected among the Instructors or knowledgeable refereeing people according to the different matches and wrestlers’ nationality. One member of the Jury of Appeal will be appointed as coordinator and will be in charge of announcing the Jury’s decisions on behalf of all. There is one Jury of Appeal per mat. The Jury of Appeal is responsible for controlling that all rules governing a wrestling match have been applied by the refereeing body before the winner of the match can be declared by the mat chairman. If the Jury of Appeal notices that a serious administrative, timing, or scoring mistake has been made, the coordinator must bring it to the mat chairman’s attention and ask for rectification. If the Jury of Appeal notices that the mat chairman did not stop the match further to a challenge request, the coordinator must ask him to do so immediately after the action is completed. During the video review, the Jury of Appeal will render its decision without consulting the refereeing body. If the Jury of Appeal reaches a unanimous agreement it will be considered final and irrevocable. No further appeal will be possible. If the Jury of Appeal unanimously overturns the decision of the refereeing body, the referees who rendered the incorrect score will be warned. A second warning will result in the suspension for the remainder of the competition and the referee(s) will be relegated. The decision of the Jury of Appeal is final.

 

I believe if you accept that the intent of the rule is to have the referee delegate or jury of appeal or video judge or whatever you want to call him/them settle scoring errors or disagreements among the 3 man officiating body then you have to accept that this is basically what happened. You don't have to agree with how it was scored, nobody would suggest that, but you'd have to acknowledge the 3 man body - the ref, the judge and the chairman - all had different scores. That ain't allowed. The chair was to agree with either the ref or the judge, but he did neither. It was always going to get bounced to the table for the referee delegate/jury/video review to deal with it. It got dealt with and can not be changed at a later date. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They no doubt challenged the first exchange you can hear Cody .I was fortunate enough to be 10 feet away and heard the whole thing live.It was mass confusion and one continuous scramble with coaches trying to coach there guys and pay attention to the points that were given and it took sometime before the 2 and 2 from the first exchange went up on the board.The only way to handle it was to rescore the last 43 seconds.They did that so I don't see the outcome changing.You can argue with the scoring but thats a judgement call

Share this post


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

They no doubt challenged the first exchange you can hear Cody .I was fortunate enough to be 10 feet away and heard the whole thing live.It was mass confusion and one continuous scramble with coaches trying to coach there guys and pay attention to the points that were given and it took sometime before the 2 and 2 from the first exchange went up on the board.The only way to handle it was to rescore the last 43 seconds.They did that so I don't see the outcome changing.You can argue with the scoring but thats a judgement call

This is it. You hit this nail right square on the head. 

Share this post


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

This is it. You hit this nail right square on the head. 

To me it's not that confusing or difficult.The issue is in America we don't understand freestyle at all.I have said it numberous times if this happens in another country it's a none story.The reason being everyone understands protocol and how 3 man mechanics work and that the main thing is to get it right when the brick is thrown is irrelevant in most international events it's about scoring the situation correctly.Watching Cadet Worlds many bricks came in way late never once did the crew think about giving the brick back they always review it

Edited by justafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from the same page 26 in the same rulebook that Iron Chef quoted:

"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." 
 

Or are these just "Guidelines"?  And if so, is the entire rest of the rulebook Iron Chef has quoted just "Guidelines"?

Good thing we're getting the lawyers to sort all of this out...

Share this post


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

And from the same page 26 in the same rulebook that Iron Chef quoted:

"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." 
 

Or are these just "Guidelines"?  And if so, is the entire rest of the rulebook Iron Chef has quoted just "Guidelines"?

Good thing we're getting the lawyers to sort all of this out...

Guess I disagree I don't believe letting lawyers decide this is a good thing.Yianni being in Poland should tell you how his camp feels his chances are.The 5 seconds is rarely followed watched Fargo and saw bricks way after 5 seconds.And at Cadet Worlds samething it's about getting the call right.When it's 2,4 and 2 and the block comes after 5 seconds you might not get it but when all 3 score it differently everytime you get a review no matter when the block is thrown as long as time is left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bricks get thrown in a majority of matches, so we can know with absolute certainty that there is a point in time in most matches where one coach or another thinks his wrestler got jobbed on the scoring of one sequence or another. Rarely, rarely, rarely does anyone decide to elevate the issue to bring in lawyers to settle a wrestling match. 

And justafan is 100 percent correct. Bricks come in after 5 seconds with absolute regularity. Its a total non issue. UWW does not think timing of bricks is an issue anyway. 

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...