Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

Just now, cjc007 said:

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
 

And there it is folks. 

This is pathetic. 

Share this post


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

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.

When a three man crew has three different scores, they fail to correct the issue, a brick is thrown, and the match clock hits zero. What happens? 

They can decide to huddle all they want, but the brick was thrown and it is going to be reviewed at the table. Do you deny that? Honestly, you just sound like you are another fan trying to just muddy the waters. The challenge brick was thrown, they had failed to previously correct their error. It was going to be reviewed. You just can't accept the result. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, i've said this all along: if the timing of the brick was legit, Yianni is going to lose. I can live with that.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with clarifying that the rule is flexible enough to accommodate a challenge 40 seconds after the action. I think there are good reasons to force faster decisions. In this match, even though there was no actual stoppage before the final whistle, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that if a brick were thrown at, say, :30, the ref  would have found a reason to call a stalemate to keep the clock from running out before the review. Since the timing of the challenge influences how the ref acts, forcing a quick decision minimizes gamesmanship. But that's just my opinion.

If the arbitrator agrees that the timing of the challenge doesn't matter, so be it. If the timing is OK, it matters even less that I think 2+2 was the right call because the "jury" (however many people that meant) had a different reasonable opinion and the score absolutely should not be changed by the arbitrator for that reason.

I used to think the "failed" challenge of the sequence in the last 10 seconds might matter, in terms of Yianni getting a failed challenge point, but the audio has convinced me that the challenge was for the 2+2 and the coaches were waiting for the end of the sequence because Zain seemed so close to making the challenge moot. At the very least, I now believe the NLWC corner was acting in good faith when they waited for the end of the sequence rather than tossing a "f***-it" brick because there was no downside.

Honestly, TBar and TBert and I disagree about a lot here but most of it I don't care about - it's homerism on all of us. I don't even care that they hate Koll and Dake. The only part that bugs me is the idea that a good faith challenge to stand up for yourself is reduced to "bringing lawyers into it."

Share this post


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

. 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 what you just said could be the issue... instead of looking at everything as just a discussion, you look at it as an “argument” that has to be won. I find that if people continually engage with the mind set of “I am arguing because they disagree with me.” It makes middle ground impossible to find.

If I were you, I wouldn’t base the way I handle myself on the bar set by the bottom half of posters that may be immature and non-sensical at times. Sometimes rising above it, admitting to being wrong or just admitting that you didn’t know something isn’t so bad and it actually gives you more credibility. I don’t know you at all as a person but if this is how you approach every conversation in life when there is any kind of differing of opinion it must always feel like you’re being attacked and that probably sucks. 

Share this post


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

The only part that bugs me is the idea that a good faith challenge to stand up for yourself is reduced to "bringing lawyers into it."

My best friend since childhood is a lawyer - class valadictorian, was admitted to the Air Force Academy, and served in our country's armed forces before attending law school.  Without a doubt the most honorable and ethical person I know.

Just sayin...

Edited by red blades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ugarte said:

Look, i've said this all along: if the timing of the brick was legit, Yianni is going to lose. I can live with that.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with clarifying that the rule is flexible enough to accommodate a challenge 40 seconds after the action. I think there are good reasons to force faster decisions. In this match, even though there was no actual stoppage before the final whistle, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that if a brick were thrown at, say, :30, the ref  would have found a reason to call a stalemate to keep the clock from running out before the review. Since the timing of the challenge influences how the ref acts, forcing a quick decision minimizes gamesmanship. But that's just my opinion.

If the arbitrator agrees that the timing of the challenge doesn't matter, so be it. If the timing is OK, it matters even less that I think 2+2 was the right call because the "jury" (however many people that meant) had a different reasonable opinion and the score absolutely should not be changed by the arbitrator for that reason.

I used to think the "failed" challenge of the sequence in the last 10 seconds might matter, in terms of Yianni getting a failed challenge point, but the audio has convinced me that the challenge was for the 2+2 and the coaches were waiting for the end of the sequence because Zain seemed so close to making the challenge moot. At the very least, I now believe the NLWC corner was acting in good faith when they waited for the end of the sequence rather than tossing a "f***-it" brick because there was no downside.

Honestly, TBar and TBert and I disagree about a lot here but most of it I don't care about - it's homerism on all of us. I don't even care that they hate Koll and Dake. The only part that bugs me is the idea that a good faith challenge to stand up for yourself is reduced to "bringing lawyers into it."

I've actually found alot that I agree with you on.  You are very civil on here.  Koll and his antics just aren't one of them that I totally agree with you.  Mistakes were made in this match by officials.  Mistakes were also made in this match by wrestlers.  Leave it on the mat not in courtroom.   

Is it just a coincidence that the trials are being "held hostage" by Koll coached athletes?

Share this post


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

Is it just a coincidence that the trials are being "held hostage" by Koll coached athletes?

Yeah. We just keep getting hurt (Dake) or screwed (Yianni). Taylor would have postponed his match too, if there was any chance of timely recovery. You could have heard a pin drop at MSG when he came up limping against Foster.

Imagine how terrible the conversation on here would be if Dean escaped earlier against Foster in the finals and had been the guy who was wrestling when Taylor got hurt at BTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jmachinder said:

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.  

I'm personally of the belief that the mat chairman should always side with one of the two unless it is just an egregious error. However, the rules state that if he thinks there's a scoring error he does not have to side with one he can wait till there's a break in the action and call a consultation. That's what he did here but for some reason two was put up for each wrestler. Either the mat chairman told the operator to do so which he cannot do or the scoreboard operator did it on his own. Had the score not been put up on the board and they waited till the end of the period & had their consultation, then whatever they decided could have gone up on the scoreboard and then any challenge brick would have been okay. I'm not exactly sure how you can hold it against Penn State for the late challenge brick when the score should have never been up on the board to start with. That's something that I think needs to be addressed all the way up to uw-w although it doesn't seem to happen as often internationally is coaches should not have to used their challenge to fix a scoreboard error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask everybody this. Assuming that you're not allowed to throw the challenge brick 40 seconds later, should Penn State be held to that rule even though the score should have never been changed on the scoreboard to start with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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

You are the one bitching about [Cornell] lawyers, yet you never acknowledge that the approved appeals process naturally calls for lawyers.  As if Yianni should walk into the arbitration hearing by himself (or maybe with his mom), or should have checked out the approved appeals process by himself (maybe in the Cornell Law library) and filed the paperwork by himself (maybe with Mike Grey to help).

None of what you posted above reflects the reality of what I did, as even a cursory reading of that first post will reveal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugarte - good post.  I think I disagree with one point.  You mentioned that Cael and crew disagreed with the 2+2 but held the brick to see how it would all play out.  I think you are saying you are ok with that.  

I am not.  I believe the challenge needs to come very soon after the points go up.  If you feel strongly enough that something was wrong - put it in.   The brick should not also provide option value associated with letting things play out and see if my guy is good to go.  This leads to too much gaming in my opinion.

 

And about my stance - Tbar  - please read my posts without your defensive googles on.  I do not know what the outcome should be.  I just want it to be clearly decided with good communication.  

 

I have also clearly distinguished that Koll protesting is not liked by many and they are in their right to not like it.  But the fact that lawyers are involved is an integral part of the protest.  That is my point.  You can’t even simply acknowledge it.  DoubleHalf has captured your approach well. 

 

Share this post


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

When a three man crew has three different scores, they fail to correct the issue, a brick is thrown, and the match clock hits zero. What happens? 

They can decide to huddle all they want, but the brick was thrown and it is going to be reviewed at the table. Do you deny that? Honestly, you just sound like you are another fan trying to just muddy the waters. The challenge brick was thrown, they had failed to previously correct their error. It was going to be reviewed. You just can't accept the result. 

Nice to see you're finally coming around to the fact that the brick being thrown is why it was reviewed after repeating that it was automatic for lack of agreement for multiple posts, which was after you said the procedure that happened was what was "supposed" to happen by the rules.

This is why I stated in my original post in this thread whether the challenge was properly accepted is the key question.

Am I muddying the waters by spelling out the argument each side should make or do you just not like what I am saying?

Share this post


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

I've actually found alot that I agree with you on.  You are very civil on here.  Koll and his antics just aren't one of them that I totally agree with you.  Mistakes were made in this match by officials.  Mistakes were also made in this match by wrestlers.  Leave it on the mat not in courtroom.   

Why is there a documented appeals process, if it should be "left on the mat not in courtroom?"  Perhaps Koll should have just thrown a chair and called it a day.

If there is an appeals process and reasonable justification for following the process, a coach would be irresponsible to not appeal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize the appeal process is with USOC, not USAW, right?

If he would of just thrown a chair, wrestling would be better off in the long run.  

There is an appeal process "on the mat".  Obviously you do not think wrestling should be left on the mat.  In any other event other than world or Olympic competition selection, the results on the mat stay.

Share this post


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

Let me ask everybody this. Assuming that you're not allowed to throw the challenge brick 40 seconds later, should Penn State be held to that rule even though the score should have never been changed on the scoreboard to start with?

This where I find it hard for match 2 not needing to be re-wrestled should Yianni prevail.  The procedure for the score that was posted was incorrect and letting it stand because the challenge was too late seems overly harsh when re-wrestling the match is an option.

I tend to agree with nom that 40 seconds is too long to throw the brick because it can be thrown back by the wrestler and all action is still scored.  But a wrestler retains the right to challenge after the consultation that should have occurred and that consultation likely couldn't have occurred until time was up.  Does that make the challenge timely?  I don't know because the score was posted.

The rules state the time to challenge to be "immediately after" the points are awarded or failed to be awarded.  The specific point further clarifies the coach has 5 seconds from when the score is posted in which to challenge.

It is a mess and I look forward to reading the arbitrators decision to see how they sort through it all.

Share this post


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

Yeah. We just keep getting hurt (Dake) or screwed (Yianni). Taylor would have postponed his match too, if there was any chance of timely recovery. You could have heard a pin drop at MSG when he came up limping against Foster.

Imagine how terrible the conversation on here would be if Dean escaped earlier against Foster in the finals and had been the guy who was wrestling when Taylor got hurt at BTS.

So I guess your answer to the question is  "yes".  Out of the hundreds of athletes trying out, we are left with two Koll coached athletes prolonging the results to a simple process.  Just a coincedence.

Share this post


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

You do realize the appeal process is with USOC, not USAW, right?

If he would of just thrown a chair, wrestling would be better off in the long run.  

There is an appeal process "on the mat".  Obviously you do not think wrestling should be left on the mat.  In any other event other than world or Olympic competition selection, the results on the mat stay.

Again:  why is there an appeals process, if not to be used?

I'm guessing that if the arbitration ruling comes down in Yianni's favor, you won't accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ConnorsDad said:

Let me ask everybody this. Assuming that you're not allowed to throw the challenge brick 40 seconds later, should Penn State be held to that rule even though the score should have never been changed on the scoreboard to start with?

Penn State was not involved in this match. This is one of the places that fans really need to change perception. These are FS matches for national/world team. As fans we need to try to shed our own bias.

Share this post


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

Maybe what you just said could be the issue... instead of looking at everything as just a discussion, you look at it as an “argument” that has to be won. I find that if people continually engage with the mind set of “I am arguing because they disagree with me.” It makes middle ground impossible to find.

If I were you, I wouldn’t base the way I handle myself on the bar set by the bottom half of posters that may be immature and non-sensical at times. Sometimes rising above it, admitting to being wrong or just admitting that you didn’t know something isn’t so bad and it actually gives you more credibility. I don’t know you at all as a person but if this is how you approach every conversation in life when there is any kind of differing of opinion it must always feel like you’re being attacked and that probably sucks. 

I am not even trying to win. That would require that I care to win or think I can change anyone's mind. I don't believe that at all. The way I used the word argument it is simply a synonym for the word debate. Further, I don't start these things. It tends to come about when someone addresses me personally to either tell me how crazy my opinion is or to make just another ad hominem attack. 

Share this post


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

Again:  why is there an appeals process, if not to be used?

I'm guessing that if the arbitration ruling comes down in Yianni's favor, you won't accept it.

Oh, I will accept it, wont like it either way as it should not have come to this. Has nothing to do with Yanni personally.  If he would of actually won the second match, I would be just as against Sanderson lawyering up and appealing.  I would rather have Koll "man up" rather than " lawyer up".  So we are in disagreement.  

 

 

Share this post


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

This where I find it hard for match 2 not needing to be re-wrestled should Yianni prevail.  The procedure for the score that was posted was incorrect and letting it stand because the challenge was too late seems overly harsh when re-wrestling the match is an option.

I tend to agree with nom that 40 seconds is too long to throw the brick because it can be thrown back by the wrestler and all action is still scored.  But a wrestler retains the right to challenge after the consultation that should have occurred and that consultation likely couldn't have occurred until time was up.  Does that make the challenge timely?  I don't know because the score was posted.

The rules state the time to challenge to be "immediately after" the points are awarded or failed to be awarded.  The specific point further clarifies the coach has 5 seconds from when the score is posted in which to challenge.

It is a mess and I look forward to reading the arbitrators decision to see how they sort through it all.

 

The 5 second thing is not a rule. Honestly, this has been discussed ad nauseum. That is a "point" or "guideline", not a "rule". The brick can be thrown and accepted so long as the timing is "reasonable". 

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...