Jump to content
Perry

Yianni/Zain Ruling

Recommended Posts

6 hours 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.

Very good post and it sounded like you were asking a rhetorical question so I'll give my rhetorical answer. Yes, I believe they still retain the right to challenge if a improper score was put up on the board or score that never should have been there. I think a distinction needs to be made between a legitimate score that may or may not be challenged and a score that is just put up there even though the chairman does not tell them to do so, the scorers hand hit it, etc. That's a reason I don't think coaches should have to use challenges to correct scoring "malfunctions". They've got enough to do to watch the match and everything and now we expect them to make sure somebody didn't accidentally add two points to a score. I mean if somebody accidentally added 10 points to a wrestler's score is that something that the coach should have to challenge? I agree with you that re-wrestling match 2 is a better option because I think the incorrect score harmed both wrestlers.

Share this post


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

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.

Really? I'm pretty sure Zane wrestles for the Nittany Lion Regional Training Center and Yianni for the Finger Lakes Wrestling Club which might as well be Penn State and Cornell. I get they are not the college teams. There's no bias here it's just easier to type Penn St. and Cornell as autofill works better. Now if you'll excuse me I'm headed to the Hair Splitters Convention.

Share this post


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

When will the ruling be announced?

From Yianni's Twitter feed. He posted this on Monday, July 29th, 2019. So it looks like the decision will come in the first or second week of August.

"Just to clarify... the arbitration process began today but a decision won’t be made for about a week or two. Thank you everyone for the good luck and the kinda wishes but that’s all I know for now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, skikayaker said:
What next, should McKenna get an arbitration because many people think he beat Yianni in the NCAA finals if it weren't for a bad call by the ref.

I believe (hope?) that Yianni et al. are arguing that the wrong procedure was followed in order to effectively overturn the result of the match. If so, he has a case. If the arbitrator(s) find that proper procedure was followed, he should lose the arbitration even if the final scoring was wrong. Bad calls happen and nothing can be done about that. It certainly shouldn't go to arbitration (it seems that PSU fans are arguing this will become the precedent if Yianni wins). But if Yianni was screwed over by improper procedure to change the result of the match, he should win his arbitration.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

 

Edited by Crotalus

Share this post


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


 

 


I believe (hope?) that Yianni et al. are arguing that the wrong procedure was followed in order to effectively overturn the result of your match. If so, he has a case. If the arbitrator(s) find that proper procedure was followed, he should lose the arbitration even if the final scoring was wrong. Bad calls happen and nothing can be done about that. It certainly shouldn't go to arbitration (it seems that PSU fans are arguing this will become the precedent if Yianni wins). But if Yianni was screwed over by improper procedure to change the result of the match, he should win his arbitration.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

 

The opposite should also be viewed as true. If the result is upheld then ultimately the proper procedure was followed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Crotalus said:


 

 


I believe (hope?) that Yianni et al. are arguing that the wrong procedure was followed in order to effectively overturn the result of your match. If so, he has a case. If the arbitrator(s) find that proper procedure was followed, he should lose the arbitration even if the final scoring was wrong. Bad calls happen and nothing can be done about that. It certainly shouldn't go to arbitration (it seems that PSU fans are arguing this will become the precedent if Yianni wins). But if Yianni was screwed over by improper procedure to change the result of the match, he should win his arbitration.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

 

Pretty much spot on

Share this post


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

The opposite should also be viewed as true. If the result is upheld then ultimately the proper procedure was followed. 

I don’t know that’s true, we all know the procedure was botched from the very beginning. There is no debating that. I think the question for the arbitrator is did the procedure botch directly result in the wrong winner. The only way I can see this happening is if they do rule the only thing that could have been legally challenged was the sequence at the very end in which case Yianni would receive one extra point for failed challenge. However I don’t see it going that way. But either way it’s ruled, there’s no debating proper procedure was not followed. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


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

The opposite should also be viewed as true. If the result is upheld then ultimately the proper procedure was followed. 

Well, I did state that "If the arbitrator(s) find that proper procedure was followed, he should lose the arbitration even if the final scoring was wrong."

I agree with Lurker that the way that it was handled was completely botched, but I'm not sure the procedure was. And if this thread is any indication, that remains very unclear. I would hope that at the end of this all, they make an announcement as to why they ruled one way or the other, as well as clarify what the proper scoring should have been. But I know that is highly unlikely.

Share this post


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

Well, I did state that "If the arbitrator(s) find that proper procedure was followed, he should lose the arbitration even if the final scoring was wrong."

I agree with Lurker that the way that it was handled was completely botched, but I'm not sure the procedure was. And if this thread is any indication, that remains very unclear. I would hope that at the end of this all, they make an announcement as to why they ruled one way or the other, as well as clarify what the proper scoring should have been. But I know that is highly unlikely.

When I say botched from the beginning, I’m referring to the chair not deciding between 2R or 2B (That’s procedural), then the scenario not going to conference between the three on the mat (again that’s proper procedure) and so on from there. So was literally botched from the beginning. 

Share this post


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

When I say botched from the beginning, I’m referring to the chair not deciding between 2R or 2B (That’s procedural), then the scenario not going to conference between the three on the mat (again that’s proper procedure) and so on from there. So was literally botched from the beginning. 

And if that's the case, Yianni could very well win this arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

And if that's the case, Yianni could very well win this arbitration.

The only way I see it going Yianni’s way is that. They rule the potential 2-2 sequence, procedure not followed and should have been conferenced. Challenge for sequence at end failed and should have resulted in point for Yianni. Even if that were to be the ruling I don’t see them overturning the result but a RE-wrestle. 

Share this post


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

When I say botched from the beginning, I’m referring to the chair not deciding between 2R or 2B (That’s procedural), then the scenario not going to conference between the three on the mat (again that’s proper procedure) and so on from there. So was literally botched from the beginning. 

I actually agree the Chair botched the score. I will even agree the while the Chair is not required to they could have called a consultation. Regardless of BOTH of those situations, Zain and NLWC would have still thrown the brick and the review panel would still review and re score that sequence. The result would have been the same.

Share this post


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

I actually agree the Chair botched the score. I will even agree the while the Chair is not required to they could have called a consultation. Regardless of BOTH of those situations, Zain and NLWC would have still thrown the brick and the review panel would still review and re score that sequence. The result would have been the same.

I wonder about that though.  And not trying to be argumentative but I do wonder if there was an agreement on the mat for 2R, if the review would have been enough to overturn, as opposed to the situation as it was where there was virtually no score on the mat and Tucci had to score it himself basically.  In other words if that call wasn't open, if they went into it with the pretense of going 2B would be overturning the call, would it have went that way.  There is always the caveat of indisputable evidence to overturn a call, and I don't think there is anyone who can say its indisputable either way.  No way to know just had me curious.

Oh and yes proper procedure for when there is question among the three regarding a score, it goes to conference, not review.  Review is only initiated by a coaches challenge, not by officials saying "lets take a look at this".  That what the procedure is supposed to be.

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


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

I wonder about that though.  And not trying to be argumentative but I do wonder if there was an agreement on the mat for 2R, if the review would have been enough to overturn, as opposed to the situation as it was where there was virtually no score on the mat and Tucci had to score it himself basically.  In other words if that call wasn't open, if they went into it with the pretense of going 2B would be overturning the call, would it have went that way.  There is always the caveat of indisputable evidence to overturn a call, and I don't think there is anyone who can say its indisputable either way.  No way to know just had me curious.

Oh and yes proper procedure for when there is question among the three regarding a score, it goes to conference, not review.  Review is only initiated by a coaches challenge, not by officials saying "lets take a look at this".  That what the procedure is supposed to be.

I think the problem you are going to have with this appeal is that the Chair made the original scoring "mistake" when he failed to confirm eithjer 2Red or 2Blue and instead went with his own score. That is not allowable. So once that mistake happens what are the remedies?

1. The Chair can call for a consultation between the referee and judge. He failed to do that. Even if we assume he could have done that, even should have done that, the brick is still thrown and once the brick is thrown this brings the jury into play. But let's assume the arbitrator asks the Chair what he would have done had he in fact called for a consult with the ref and judge, this will be problematic for the Yianni/Koll appeal. Here's why. That consult is supposed to happen without video. The Chair ultimately saw the video replay once the brick was thrown, so anything he says about how he may have theoretically scored the sequence has to be questioned because he did in fact see the video. 

2. The role of the jury of appeal - Tucci alone or Tucci and anyone else on that review team that night - is to settle disputes on the mat. Those that arise out of BOTH brick challenges AND those that arise out of "serious administrative or scoring mistakes". That's the language in the USA wrestling rule book. This is a moot point since a brick toss happened and triggers this, but it seems that either of the brick toss OR the "serious administrative or scoring mistake" could trigger the jury of appeals to review it and re score it. 

In any case, even had this hypothetical consult ending in 2 for Yianni occurred, Tucci would still have been within his right to review it and re score it if he believed the wrong score been applied to the match. If you doubt that, then just imagine any obvious scoring error where 100 percent of us believed a wrong score had been arrived at by any three man team, would the review process be prohibited from correcting such a glaring mistake? No, they would not be prohibited from correcting that mistake.

If the review jury can correct mistakes in scoring, then these mistakes will run the gamut from the obvious to the judgment calls. In this case Tucci would have been within his right and duty to correct any call, even a judgment call, he deemed incorrect. That is his very job to do just that. In doing so he does not deny either wrestler anything, he just re scores it. That's it. 

Share this post


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

2. The role of the jury of appeal - Tucci alone or Tucci and anyone else on that review team that night - is to settle disputes on the mat. Those that arise out of BOTH brick challenges AND those that arise out of "serious administrative or scoring mistakes". That's the language in the USA wrestling rule book. This is a moot point since a brick toss happened and triggers this, but it seems that either of the brick toss OR the "serious administrative or scoring mistake" could trigger the jury of appeals to review it and re score it. 

Here are to 2019 USA WTT procedures which state the UWW rules apply.  Here are the UWW rules.  Here is the 2019 USAW Rule Book even, which itself says the UWW rules supersede.

Please point me to any currently in force rule or procedure, whether linked above or otherwise, that supports the bolded statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lurker said:

When I say botched from the beginning, I’m referring to the chair not deciding between 2R or 2B (That’s procedural), then the scenario not going to conference between the three on the mat (again that’s proper procedure) and so on from there. So was literally botched from the beginning. 

I still don't understand how the guy made that error.

Share this post


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

Here are to 2019 USA WTT procedures which state the UWW rules apply.  Here are the UWW rules.  Here is the 2019 USAW Rule Book even, which itself says the UWW rules supersede.

Please point me to any currently in force rule or procedure, whether linked above or otherwise, that supports the bolded statement.

You know what? It doesn't!I don't know if TBar was guilty or anybody else, I know I was, but I was looking at an older version of the use rules. The most recent rules from January of 2019 do not mention the words jury of appeal anywhere in them. Instead of that it says refereeing delegate. While we're on the subject of the rules, I read the part in the specific points where it mentions the five second rule for the challenge. However, that line is in a paragraph dealing with challenges at the end of a period or after time is expired. Is it possible that that 5 seconds is only referring to challenges that happened as a result of scores that are added at the end of a period and does not pertain to challenges throughout the match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, leshismore said:

Anyone have brackets for the Poland tournament Yanni is in?

Yianni is in 1/4 so is Chakaev if they both win they will wrestle in the semis.The stream is live on youtube.Wrestlingnomad Twitter posted the bracket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went over the language issue already. The language "jury of appeals" is in an older rulebook that I have. I have used it to just stay consistent with that rule book. It corresponds to the referee delegate in the current rulebook. 

 

Share this post


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

Here are to 2019 USA WTT procedures which state the UWW rules apply.  Here are the UWW rules.  Here is the 2019 USAW Rule Book even, which itself says the UWW rules supersede.

Please point me to any currently in force rule or procedure, whether linked above or otherwise, that supports the bolded statement.

The language regarding the various duties and procedures of the referee, judge and Chair are basically the same in the UWW rulebook you linked and the older rulebook I have. Here is what the UWW rule book you linked states:

Article 21 – The Mat Chairman a) The mat chairman, whose functions are very important, shall assume all the duties provided for in the Wrestling Rules. b) He shall co-ordinate the work of the referee and the judge. c) He is obliged to follow the course of the bouts very carefully, without allowing himself to be distracted in any way, and to evaluate the behavior and action of the other officials according to the Rules. 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 value 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 in passivity, caution and 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/or the judge. In such case, he must ask for a consultation. If the mat chairman does not obtain majority during the consultation, he 21 must stand for either the referee or the judge. This consultation does not alter the wrestler’s right to the 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. The refereeing delegate (or his substitute) and the mat chairman must review the video evidence. If the refereeing delegate (or his substitute) agrees that 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 review of the video evidence, the refereeing delegate (or his substitute) solely renders its decision. Its decision is final and cannot be challenged.

 

1. The first bolded part tells you the scoring of the Mat Chair must be either 2Red (Zain) or 2Blue (Yianni). 

2. The non bolded part immediately following talks about situations where the Mat Chair can stop the bout. One is for a "serious mistake" in scoring by the referee or judge. What is not in this section is what to do if the "serious mistake" is on the part of the Chair himself. It does state that any consultation that occurs does not alter the wrestler's right to challenge. 

3. The next part that is bolded deals with the wrestler's right or his coach's decision to challenge. The language becomes very clear. The referee delegate (formerly called the jury of appeals) solely renders its decision. Its decision is final and cannot be challenged. 

 

Let's also look at the language in your WW linked rulebook regarding the duties of the Referee Delegate (Formerly known as the Jury of Appeals). The information in this UWW rulebook is less in volume but not any less clear than the older rulebook.  The referee delegate language is partly what you read above. The referee delegate is also mention in "Article 17 - General Duties" section "i". It reads: 

When a challenge is requested by a coach and confirmed by the wrestler, the refereeing delegate (or his substitute) and the mat chairman must watch the video evidence on the large screen. After a discussion together, the refereeing delegate (or his substitute) renders its decision solely without consultation with the refereeing body.

 

The referee delegate (Formerly the Jury of Appeals) is the final decision maker. I doubt anyone wants to suggest otherwise. Here is the problem Yianni faces. Tucci acted totally consistently with the above language. The coach and wrestler appealed. Indeed there was a mistake in scoring. Even had the three man crew consulted before Tucci and the Chair watched the video, Tucci would still be required to review the tape and then make his final decision. 

The Chair made a mistake, you can even believe the Chair made more than one mistake. The Yianni appeal is still problematic because there IS a process to correct mistakes made by the Chair, and that process is a review and final decision by the referee delegate. The referee delegate indeed made that review and made its final decision. The remedy for the first mistake by the Chair isn't a legal challenge 6 weeks after the fact, its a review by the referee delegate (formerly jury of appeals). That review occurred and the final decision was rendered. Properly rendered, imo.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it written by a few folks that the Chair must side with either the ref or the judge.   I don't see that clearly written above.  

I'm thinking about a situation where a scramble occurs and the right score is 2 red and 2 blue.    Ref scores 2 red, judge scores 2 blue.  Chair says they are both right and scores 2 red and 2 blue.  I'm not talking about the Yianni / Zain match but I know it sounds like it.  I've seen matches where actual scrambles result in 2 and 2.  No issue.  Perhaps the Chair felt 2+2 was correct and decided to 'settle' the issue by so awarding those points.

Above, it simply says that if there is a disagreement in scores, the Chair is to settle the issue.  It does not say the Chair must side with only one or the other.  It does not rule out the Chair agreeing with both.

Perhaps this is made more clear in other sections but I'm not seeing it above.  Any help would be appreciated.

[Note, I really am not close enough, nor have read enough of the rules to know what side is right, I'm simply seeking clarity in the rules]

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...