Anything from arbitration?

[Lurker 1,397]

Any little nuggets come out from today?

[gowrestle 636]

Should hear today, Friday, August 9.

[gowrestle 636]

On 8/9/2019 at 3:07 AM, gowrestle said:

Should hear today, Friday, August 9.

Obviously I was wrong. 

[Lurker 1,397]

Ha...just came on here to say, still nada?

[Perry 1,190]

Saw a post on FB saying that arbitration was rather long (longer than expected) and ongoing. I imagine that a long hearing would favor Yianno over Zain but certainly don't know anything actually being discussed. 

[Bigredcard 0]

in the mean-time, interesting throw-back Tucci interview: https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6551108-rick-tucci-explains-timing-of-challenge-rule

[speaking of challenge, coming 8 secs or so after points go up] 

-->  "It's not like it was 30 or 40 seconds later"

wonder what kind of evidence is admissible in arbitration... 

[Lurker 1,397]

I don’t think that would be helpful. The easy argument against that is “UWW rules/emphasis/areas of focus change on a monthly basis. We’re going to go to something from four years ago?”

[Lurker 1,397]

2 hours ago, Perry said:

Saw a post on FB saying that arbitration was rather long (longer than expected) and ongoing. I imagine that a long hearing would favor Yianno over Zain but certainly don't know anything actually being discussed. 

Was thinking the same thing when I searched this morning and found nothing. Longer means really contemplating and I think that favors Yianni. It’s easier to keep result. More challenging and takes more time to over turn. 

[Bigredcard 0]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I don’t think that would be helpful. The easy argument against that is “UWW rules/emphasis/areas of focus change on a monthly basis. We’re going to go to something from four years ago?”

Sure, in general--but what here, specifically, has changed in the last four years? Guidance around "approx. 5 secs"? Isn't he speaking about the exact same rule, implying himself that 30-40 seconds would clearly be too long to wait? 

[I actually don't know if anything has changed--honest question. But just pushing back against idea that "old" means "useless" in this context]

Edited August 10, 2019 by Bigredcard
added context

[Lurker 1,397]

3 minutes ago, Bigredcard said:

Sure, in general--but what here, specifically, has changed in the last four years? Guidance around "approx. 5 secs"? Isn't he speaking about the exact same rule, implying himself that 30-40 seconds would clearly be too long to wait? 

[I actually don't know if anything has changed--honest question. But just pushing back against idea that "old" means "useless" in this context]

No I agree with you, just trying to come from a legal perspective. We all know legal and logical don’t always jive. 

[Bigredcard 0]

amen

[red blades 246]

What is clear from Tucci's own comment - even he believes that a challenge 30-40 seconds after the fact is NOT reasonable.

[nom 849]

@TBar1977 - you’ve been arguing that Tucci says 5 seconds isn’t a hard and fast rule.  But here he is clearly getting across 30 sec+ is not ok.  Thoughts?

 

[TBar1977 3,827]

47 minutes ago, nom said:

@TBar1977 - you’ve been arguing that Tucci says 5 seconds isn’t a hard and fast rule.  But here he is clearly getting across 30 sec+ is not ok.  Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? Nothing has changed. The only thing that matters is whether it was reasonable given the circumstances.

Your emphasis (and Koll's) is on procedure. Mine is on making every reasonable effort to get the score correct.

Edited August 10, 2019 by TBar1977

[nom 849]

Nothing has changed?  You have posted many times that Tucci has said the 5 seconds is a guideline.  I’m betting you won’t use that anymore.  At least that has changed now that Tucci himself is recorded as getting across a challenge 30 sec+ after a call is not reasonable. LOL.

Your position is now no longer that the procedure followed was OK.  That also is a change.  

Now it seems to be ... procedure be damned, as long as the scoring turns out the way I want it to!  Chuckle.  Sorry, this one went too far.  But it is all amusing.

Edited August 10, 2019 by nom

[gimpeltf 1,528]

3 minutes ago, nom said:

Nothing has changed?  You have posted many times that Tucci has said the 5 seconds is a guideline.  I’m betting you won’t use that anymore.  At least that has changed now that Tucci himself is recorded as getting across a challenge 30 sec+ after a call is not reasonable. LOL.

So you think that 30 seconds is basically the same as 5?

[nom 849]

3 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

So you think that 30 seconds is basically the same as 5?

No.  I do not.  Nor does Tucci apparently.

[TBar1977 3,827]

4 hours ago, nom said:

Nothing has changed?  You have posted many times that Tucci has said the 5 seconds is a guideline.  I’m betting you won’t use that anymore.  At least that has changed now that Tucci himself is recorded as getting across a challenge 30 sec+ after a call is not reasonable. LOL.

Your position is now no longer that the procedure followed was OK.  That also is a change.  

Now it seems to be ... procedure be damned, as long as the scoring turns out the way I want it to!  Chuckle.  Sorry, this one went too far.  But it is all amusing.

My position hasn't changed one bit. And you are wrong, the 5 seconds was and remains a guideline. The test is whether the challenge was reasonable. That video doesn't speak to the match in question.

The Chair made a mistake, but imo Tucci acted entirely appropriately given the circumstances. 

Your position seems to be that you would accept a known wrong score and known wrong winner just so long as a strict unyielding interpretation of procedure is followed. I would place getting the score right as the higher priority.

[gimpeltf 1,528]

35 minutes ago, nom said:

No.  I do not.  Nor does Tucci apparently.

I know Tucci didn 't. Then why did you say that the 5 second being a guideline changed because he felt that 30 was too long? 

[red blades 246]

19 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Your position seems to be that you would accept a known wrong score and known wrong winner just so long as a strict unyielding interpretation of procedure is followed.

No - there is no consensus that the score was wrong in the first place.  But Tucci had apparently declared himself god and decided it was his place to ignore ANY rules or procedures to change the score to impose his own view.  

[TBar1977 3,827]

14 minutes ago, red blades said:

No - there is no consensus that the score was wrong in the first place.  But Tucci had apparently declared himself god and decided it was his place to ignore ANY rules or procedures to change the score to impose his own view.  

The scoring in this match is up for debate among us fans, but the Cornell position is that regardless of the scoring debate, strict adherence to procedure trumps the scoring.

By taking this position, you would have to accept future matches where everyone agrees on a certain score but said score can't be accepted because the procedure did not follow your strict timing protocol. 

You will set a precedent if the result is changed. The new precedent will be that procedure is more important than score.

[nom 849]

20 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

I know Tucci didn 't. Then why did you say that the 5 second being a guideline changed because he felt that 30 was too long? 

I didn’t say that.  ‘I’m betting you won’t use that anymore’ is the ‘change’ that preceded my statement.

TBar - so a minute or 90 seconds later to challenge is ok too right?  As long as there is a chance something 2 minutes ago could get overturned, and your wrestler might now win ... might as well throw the brick at the end of the match.  Right?  No need to throw the brick immediately.

And Red Blades is right - who says Tucci was right?  You, I know.   Chair might think differently.  It was a tricky position to score.  

[nom 849]

So this may set a precedent that a challenge 30+ seconds after a score is not ok.  

All good with that.

I think that is a precedent many will be happy with.  

 

[TBar1977 3,827]

6 minutes ago, nom said:

TBar - so a minute or 90 seconds later to challenge is ok too right?  

A challenge is "ok" to use your words if it is reasonable given the circumstances. Time is not the standard, reasonableness is the standard. 

Whether you agree with Tucci's interpretation of the score is irrelevant. He, not you, was the referee delegate.

[Perry 1,190]

I feel like I'm seeing the same commentary from the last three threads lol