Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

On 7/30/2019 at 12:12 PM, 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. 

Yep, right here. American and Cornell. Here's my thoughts on the situation. By the way USA Wrestling has not done themself any service by not releasing what actually happened and how the scoring was determined. We know the outcome but the process would be nice to know for now and for the future.

1. I personally see the score as two for Zane. In the video one of Yianni's legs is above his head and he's struggling to even get his left foot in contact with the mat in a position to push off. You expect me to believe with that little bit of contact his left foot has with the mat it is Yianni's two? Not in my opinion. However, I think it's a lot more feasible than 2 + 2. In my mind there is only one move there and one of the two should get credit for two points

2. Regardless what you believe here is where it turns to s***. The referee scored two for Y and the judge had 2 for Z. I know he's an outstanding official but here is where I believe Zach E. who I think was the chairman messed up. He is either to confirm one of the two scores or if he thinks there's an error in scoring he can call a consultation. At no point can he say the score is 2 + 2 and it should have never gone up on the board. Obviously he didn't want to stop the match for the consultation because of the position they were in. Once the match was over which was the first break in the action then a conference could have been ensued and they could have decided what they wanted for the score. Then either one of the teams could have thrown the brick which is what Penn State did. The chairman has to obtain a majority to his way of thinking and if not then he has to decide on one of the two offered scores. They should have had the consultation and then either put the score up. At that point the brick could have been thrown and then that is when Tucci and the jury gets involved. They should never have been involved for the initial score. Therefore, in my opinion, both wrestlers were harmed somewhat but not enough to change anything.

3. Problem I have with all of this in as I mentioned with an incident in Fargo is the referees are human and are going to make mistakes. When they do, let's tell everybody what they did that was wrong so they and other officials can learn by it and not make the same mistake them self rather than running and hiding behind a wall of secrecy and nothing good ever comes out of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the mat chairman made the first mistake during the sequence as he was supposed to either side with the referee or the judge.  The second mistake was that whomever was actually working the scoreboard put points on the board when they weren't supposed to. 

The five seconds to throw the brick rule is a good one, for instances like this.  You don't want a corner to be able to have their cake and eat it to.  If Zain had been able to score after the sequence in question, team Zain wouldn't have needed to challenge.  You want a corner to either stop the match if they disagree or take their chances and let the score stand.  If you allow that, the situation becomes no better than Kolat-Barzakov in 98 (well, maybe not quite that bad)  

So the question becomes in this situation, how to fix a "scoring error" when it occurs.  It really needs to be stopped immediately, regardless of scrambling.  You simply can't have wrestlers wrestling thinking the score is something it isn't.  

And, as far as I can tell, even in a review, the mat chairman is supposed to side with either the ref or the judge, not continue to disagree with them when he made a mistake earlier.  The whole point of having three officials is for one to be a tiebreaker.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Yianni-Zain situation seems like a really complicated issue and I'm not sure what I think is the right result under the rules as they are, but I want to raise a bigger picture issue, which is that this is an example of why I am starting to question the use of replay in all sports.  

I wonder if most sports would be, on the whole, more enjoyable to watch without replay.  It may be that replay doesn't add more than it takes away.  There are certainly bad calls that get overturned, and those situations are improvements. 

But the results are often unsatisfying -- frequently the replay judges get it wrong,  frequently they are unable to change calls that are probably wrong, and frequently the rules prevent them from even reviewing the worst calls.  And frequently, like in this instance, replay arguably actually makes the result seem more illegitimate due to disputes over what can and can't be reviewed, which the rules don't and can't always clearly control.  And of course, like any "improvement," the system can be abused (such as in wrestling when coaches use it for lung breaks instead of legit challenges).  Furthermore, I wonder if it is making the live officials worse because they have the replay in the back of their minds (for instance, I saw a baseball game recently where the first base umpire made a delayed and half hearted call on an important game ending play where I thought he was influenced by his knowledge that replay would sort it out).

Worst of all are the long delays in live action.  This is bad in all sports.  It's particularly bad in wrestling, where one of the best selling points for a spectator is the continuous action, which is exciting and which also puts a premium on the athletes' conditioning and focus. 

I think that the delays aren't worth it unless replay brings substantial clarity and legitimacy to the results, which my gut tells me it hasn't in most sports on the whole.  For instance, the delays in the 133 and 141 championship matches at NCAAs did not produce good, clear results, to say nothing of the earlier dual meet fiasco involving the 133 finalists.  

I won't go on about all the unsatisfying examples of replay failing to resolve tough situations in wrestling and other sports (honk if you know what a "football move" is on a disputed catch).  Obviously this is a difficult question and there are athletes who have won games and matches where a call was properly overturned who would not have gotten victories they earned without replay, so I can't say that I'm sure about my position. 

But, again, I think you have to ask yourself if replay adds more to the experience of watching live sports than it takes away.  I think that it might not.

Share this post


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

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. 

The rules give the chairman the authority to settle the disputes.  There is nothing in the rules to suggest the refereeing delegate settle a situation like this on their own, as it would be nonsensical to provide for a situation not allowable under the rules.  The refereeing delegate is only involved in a match if there is a challenge requested. The refereeing delegate either has to give approval the referee to throw the brick back and refuse to hear the challenge, or hear the challenge and make a ruling. If there is no challenge, the refereeing delegate is not involved in a match.  

It was not "always" going to get bounced to the refereeing delegate and he did not "have" to decide it.  There was a challenge granted so the refereeing delegate only then had the authority to review.  If Zain had previously lost his brick the refereeing delegate would not have reviewed. In this scenario a consultation could potentially have occurred if they had realized the error.

The argument for Zain is that any errors weren't "prejudicial errors" against Yianni in that the challenge was proper and corrected any mistakes, so the previous errors do not matter.  The argument for Yianni is that there were errors and that the challenge was improperly granted likely because it was too late.

It is impressive how much your Penn State homerism allows you to read the rules and still get the process wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scramble said:

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. 

Im almost certain that if escobedo or MSU's coach was doing the challenge, yianni would have wrestled in a 3rd match. Calls go for cael pretty regularly in the us in folkstyle and freestyle.  It is not because they always deserve it, there is bias

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBar - oh, ok, you are looking at an older rule book.  Do you now agree with IronChef and there was only one person, not the match officials, that made the final scoring decision?

I’ve asked a few times but you can’t seem to answer simple questions.

Share this post


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

TBar - oh, ok, you are looking at an older rule book.  Do you now agree with IronChef and there was only one person, not the match officials, that made the final scoring decision?

I’ve asked a few times but you can’t seem to answer simple questions.

Tbar doesn't respond to questions whose answers challenge hisher world view.

Share this post


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

The rules give the chairman the authority to settle the disputes.  There is nothing in the rules to suggest the refereeing delegate settle a situation like this on their own, as it would be nonsensical to provide for a situation not allowable under the rules.  The refereeing delegate is only involved in a match if there is a challenge requested. The refereeing delegate either has to give approval the referee to throw the brick back and refuse to hear the challenge, or hear the challenge and make a ruling. If there is no challenge, the refereeing delegate is not involved in a match.  

It was not "always" going to get bounced to the refereeing delegate and he did not "have" to decide it.  There was a challenge granted so the refereeing delegate only then had the authority to review.  If Zain had previously lost his brick the refereeing delegate would not have reviewed. In this scenario a consultation could potentially have occurred if they had realized the error.

The argument for Zain is that any errors weren't "prejudicial errors" against Yianni in that the challenge was proper and corrected any mistakes, so the previous errors do not matter.  The argument for Yianni is that there were errors and that the challenge was improperly granted likely because it was too late.

It is impressive how much your Penn State homerism allows you to read the rules and still get the process wrong.

The Chair got himself boxed in. I will explain. Yes, the rules allow the Chair to call in the referee and judge to discuss the action and scoring of it. But the Chair is not supposed to arbitrarily stop the action, but rather wait for it to stop naturally. And if they do huddle, they can't use review and the huddle does not remove Zain's ability to challenge. 

Once the brick was thrown, since the Chair had not called the huddle, the review jury at the table had to review the sequence since there were 3 different scores. So yes, this was going to the jury because the score had not been agreed upon. 

Share this post


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

TBar - oh, ok, you are looking at an older rule book.  Do you now agree with IronChef and there was only one person, not the match officials, that made the final scoring decision?

I’ve asked a few times but you can’t seem to answer simple questions.

nom, I don't know who was with Tucci doing the reviews but the number does not matter. In an ideal world there are probably 3 members of that video review team, but even if there were only 1 this isn't about the number but rather the process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, klehner said:

Tbar doesn't respond to questions whose answers challenge hisher world view.

Here is what you do klehner. You run to another board to cry about what is happening here on themat.com. As if you are somehow being wronged when people disagree with you. 

http://wrestlingreport.com/current_news/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=63360&sid=cbf1a2fa4de347239ff4532a164ca9db

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBar - earlier you were getting across that judges (plural) made the final call.  Just making sure you now understand it was one person.  

Klehner does make a good point - you do not answer simple questions is you feel it doesn’t match with the narrative you are spinning.  It is common for those not interested in actual fruitful debate.  It is the hallmark of someone that has no interest in having an open mind and instead aim to defend their perspective regardless of it’s merits.

 

Share this post


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

TBar - earlier you were getting across that judges (plural) made the final call.  Just making sure you now understand it was one person.  

Klehner does make a good point - you do not answer simple questions is you feel it doesn’t match with the narrative you are spinning.  It is common for those not interested in actual fruitful debate.  It is the hallmark of someone that has no interest in having an open mind and instead aim to defend their perspective regardless of it’s merits.

And had the Chair called a huddle to consult with the judge and referee, one who called 2 Red and one who called 2 Blue, and made a ruling on the scoring it would have been one person that way as well. What's your point? 

Also, what evidence exists on themat.com that either you or klehener has an open mind about this arbitration? Just remember, it takes two to tango in any debate and you and klehner have been just as one sided in this as anyone, nom. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

Also, what evidence exists on themat.com that either you or klehener has an open mind about this arbitration? 

Actually there is plenty of evidence if you actually read Nom's posts - he' one of the most circumspect and even handed posters on this forum.  You comparing yourself to him is just laughable.

I would also add to that - while it is clear that both Nom and Klehner, whom you cite, are Cornell fans, neither one appears to be especially AGAINST other teams, wrestlers, or coaches - an important distinction I would make between them and certain other posters, including you.

Edited by red blades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drag it said:

This Yianni-Zain situation seems like a really complicated issue and I'm not sure what I think is the right result under the rules as they are, but I want to raise a bigger picture issue, which is that this is an example of why I am starting to question the use of replay in all sports.  

I wonder if most sports would be, on the whole, more enjoyable to watch without replay.  It may be that replay doesn't add more than it takes away.  There are certainly bad calls that get overturned, and those situations are improvements. 

But the results are often unsatisfying -- frequently the replay judges get it wrong,  frequently they are unable to change calls that are probably wrong, and frequently the rules prevent them from even reviewing the worst calls.  And frequently, like in this instance, replay arguably actually makes the result seem more illegitimate due to disputes over what can and can't be reviewed, which the rules don't and can't always clearly control.  And of course, like any "improvement," the system can be abused (such as in wrestling when coaches use it for lung breaks instead of legit challenges).  Furthermore, I wonder if it is making the live officials worse because they have the replay in the back of their minds (for instance, I saw a baseball game recently where the first base umpire made a delayed and half hearted call on an important game ending play where I thought he was influenced by his knowledge that replay would sort it out).

Worst of all are the long delays in live action.  This is bad in all sports.  It's particularly bad in wrestling, where one of the best selling points for a spectator is the continuous action, which is exciting and which also puts a premium on the athletes' conditioning and focus. 

I think that the delays aren't worth it unless replay brings substantial clarity and legitimacy to the results, which my gut tells me it hasn't in most sports on the whole.  For instance, the delays in the 133 and 141 championship matches at NCAAs did not produce good, clear results, to say nothing of the earlier dual meet fiasco involving the 133 finalists.  

I won't go on about all the unsatisfying examples of replay failing to resolve tough situations in wrestling and other sports (honk if you know what a "football move" is on a disputed catch).  Obviously this is a difficult question and there are athletes who have won games and matches where a call was properly overturned who would not have gotten victories they earned without replay, so I can't say that I'm sure about my position.  

But, again, I think you have to ask yourself if replay adds more to the experience of watching live sports than it takes away.  I think that it might not. 

Nailed it! This is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBar- no one cares that your are 100% in bed with Zain and PSU....

it’s just your constant unwillingness to admit your total and complete bias that gets people annoyed and when confronted with contradictory facts, you play the “what about this” game or give a pass if the unfavorable circumstance is against PSU. 

From my short time on this forum most posters actually seem very well thought out and generally want to get down to facts regardless of the side they fall on as a fan. It just seems your name is always the one to pop up on here in which people continually and repeatedly get frustrated with because your unwillingness to have an open mind or not express blind loyalty to one side of an argument based on your rooting interests. That being said, you still seem knowledgeable as well, just tough to engage with on a a variety of topics. 

Edited by DoubleHalf

Share this post


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

The Chair got himself boxed in. I will explain. Yes, the rules allow the Chair to call in the referee and judge to discuss the action and scoring of it. But the Chair is not supposed to arbitrarily stop the action, but rather wait for it to stop naturally. And if they do huddle, they can't use review and the huddle does not remove Zain's ability to challenge. 

Once the brick was thrown, since the Chair had not called the huddle, the review jury at the table had to review the sequence since there were 3 different scores. So yes, this was going to the jury because the score had not been agreed upon

These contradict each other.  Is it the brick or the lack of agreement that sent it to the jury? (Hint: it's the brick)  Saying the brick caused it to go to the jury despite no agreement, fine.

You constantly repeating factually incorrect statements to support the outcome in favor of Zain doesn't make them true.

Share this post


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

Here is what you do klehner. You run to another board to cry about what is happening here on themat.com. As if you are somehow being wronged when people disagree with you. 

http://wrestlingreport.com/current_news/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=63360&sid=cbf1a2fa4de347239ff4532a164ca9db

Only looked at the first link, Koll is a proven liar and  also slandered a USAW official.  All this can be validated in watching a couple videos.  People can defend it with whatever reasoning they prefer but can not change his words.

Share this post


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

Only looked at the first link, Koll is a proven liar and  also slandered a USAW official.  All this can be validated in watching a couple videos.  People can defend it with whatever reasoning they prefer but can not change his words.

Any possibility he had a role in 9/11 or the Kennedy Assassination?

Share this post


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

Actually there is plenty of evidence if you actually read Nom's posts - he' one of the most circumspect and even handed posters on this forum.  You comparing yourself to him is just laughable.

I would also add to that - while it is clear that both Nom and Klehner, whom you cite, are Cornell fans, neither one appears to be especially AGAINST other teams, wrestlers, or coaches - an important distinction I would make between them and certain other posters, including you.

The main thing I am against is the rank hypocrisy of fans who take potshots at other teams. And since there is no end in sight to that, I enjoy handing it back to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main thing I am against is the rank hypocrisy of fans who take potshots at other teams. And since there is no end in sight to that, I enjoy handing it back to them. 
lol. You just happened to be a discipline of Joe. Sick, demented, win at all costs.

And to think of how Penn State fans thought Paterno was a gift from heaven. The moral authority of the entire NCAA.

We Are!!!!! Retards!

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

TBar- no one cares that your are 100% in bed with Zain and PSU....

it’s just your constant unwillingness to admit your total and complete bias that gets people annoyed and when confronted with contradictory facts, you play the “what about this” game or give a pass if the unfavorable circumstance is against PSU. 

From my short time on this forum most posters actually seem very well thought out and generally want to get down to facts regardless of the side they fall on as a fan. It just seems your name is always the one to pop up on here in which people continually and repeatedly get frustrated with because your unwillingness to have an open mind or not express blind loyalty to one side of an argument based on your rooting interests. That being said, you still seem knowledgeable as well, just tough to engage with on a a variety of topics. 

I have acknowledged that I am a PSU fan many times. I don't need to say that anymore because everyone knows it. They go after me because I don't back down from an argument. Simple as that. I defend my position, but they do the exact same thing and you don't seem to have a problem with that. Maybe because there are more of them, but it isn't going to change anything. 

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...