Jump to content
Lurker

Anything from arbitration?

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Bigredcard
added context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by nom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...