Anything from arbitration?

[scramble 151]

I think there has two be one of two things that needs to occur

1) there is a hard fast procedure regarding time. Such as 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or whatever, after the score is confirmed / posted. It can be anything really, it just needs to be set and with a short time span. 

Or

2) there is a more extended time.  30 seconds, end of period, etc. But if the rulling is overrurned, time goes back on the clock.  This would be a must because the score and time on the clock can in fact significantly change how the wrestlers wrestle the match.  

Either is fine, but one needs to be in place.  Here is an example of why.  

If there is not clarity on how much time to throw a challenge and a brick is thrown without time going back on the clock people can easily do a wait and see.  For example:

Let's say JB takes down I-mar and it goes 4-2 JB, but I-mars corner feels it should be 2-2. Also, in the 4-2 score scenario I-mar ends up on top with his roll through In the scramble. I-mar hits a gut making it 4-2 and goes for another gut. With time running out. He gets 2 exposure again, but JB coming out of the gut with a reversal.  Not sure if the math works out... Lol.  But the point is I-mars corner should not be allowed to wait and see how it all plays out before challenging the call.  Now the refs may still let the action go, but that brick should have been out there.  It should not be thrown at the end of all of that then the match be overturned without time being put on the clock.  Same reason you can't end a football game on a penalty.  If you could the last play of the game would have every player committing pass interference.  

Just my opinion.

[TBar1977 3,567]

8 hours ago, Perry said:

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

That is because you are seeing the same commentary from the last 7 threads. This whole thread was completely unnecessary. 

It's not like when they rule on the appeal we are not going to find out. 

[TBar1977 3,567]

8 hours ago, scramble said:

I think there has two be one of two things that needs to occur

1) there is a hard fast procedure regarding time. Such as 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or whatever, after the score is confirmed / posted. It can be anything really, it just needs to be set and with a short time span. 

Or

2) there is a more extended time.  30 seconds, end of period, etc. But if the rulling is overrurned, time goes back on the clock.  This would be a must because the score and time on the clock can in fact significantly change how the wrestlers wrestle the match.  

Either is fine, but one needs to be in place.  Here is an example of why.  

If there is not clarity on how much time to throw a challenge and a brick is thrown without time going back on the clock people can easily do a wait and see.  For example:

Let's say JB takes down I-mar and it goes 4-2 JB, but I-mars corner feels it should be 2-2. Also, in the 4-2 score scenario I-mar ends up on top with his roll through In the scramble. I-mar hits a gut making it 4-2 and goes for another gut. With time running out. He gets 2 exposure again, but JB coming out of the gut with a reversal.  Not sure if the math works out... Lol.  But the point is I-mars corner should not be allowed to wait and see how it all plays out before challenging the call.  Now the refs may still let the action go, but that brick should have been out there.  It should not be thrown at the end of all of that then the match be overturned without time being put on the clock.  Same reason you can't end a football game on a penalty.  If you could the last play of the game would have every player committing pass interference.  

Just my opinion.

If you make a hard and fast time limit then you'll have people parsing 10ths of 1 second to see if bricks came in on time. Then you will have to define what triggers the clock, the toss, the brick breaking the cylinder, the brick landing. Was there a delay in time between the toss and time stoppage. Stuff like that. 

Wrestlers have things in their own hands already with this one simple concept: wrestle thru every position until the action is stopped. 

[Lurker 978]

24 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

That is because you are seeing the same commentary from the last 7 threads. This whole thread was completely unnecessary. 

It's not like when they rule on the appeal we are not going to find out. 

Asking if anyone had heard anything is not unnecessary. For example, Perry filling us in that the hearing is longer than expected and still on going. Okay. That’s good to know as it is a change from what we were previously told. Obviously everyone knows there isn’t a ruling yet, or we’d hear about it.

Turning the topic in to same argument over and over is what’s unnecessary. Lighten up Francis. 

[Crotalus 314]

Yeah, this is obviously the same conversation from the other threads, but what else is there to talk about?

I wasn't rooting for one wrestler over the other, but it's clear to me that Cael et al. were trying to game the system. They obviously felt the score was wrong the moment the points were awarded, but they waited to throw the brick because they didn't want to risk giving up one point for a failed challenge if they didn't need to. That was not a "reasonable" amount of time. It just feels wrong to go back 45 seconds and re-score the match. That is why you have to throw the brick very shortly after the points are awarded. At least give the ref a chance to stop the match and get it right before the final whistle.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Crotalus

[tbert 560]

12 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

Yeah, this is obviously the same conversation from the other threads, but what else is there to talk about?

I wasn't rooting for one wrestler over the other, but it's clear to me that Cael et al. were trying to game the system. They obviously felt the score was wrong the moment the points were awarded, but they waited to throw the brick because they didn't want to risk giving up one point for a failed challenge if they didn't need to. That was not a "reasonable" amount of time. It just feels wrong to go back 45 seconds and re-score the match. That is why you have to throw the brick very shortly after the points are awarded. At least give the ref a chance to stop the match and get it right before the final whistle.

Challenging a call or non call is gaming the system?     In Cornell lingo that is sticking up for your wrestler.  

 

[AnklePicker 384]

So it all comes down to when the brick was thrown?  Can’t Zain just bring proof of this happening over and over again at the international level. A lot of coaches let a scenario play out before they throw the brick. This is not uncommon. I love Yianni, but this will easily be won by Zain imo. 

[Crotalus 314]

Challenging a call or non call is gaming the system?     In Cornell lingo that is sticking up for your wrestler.  
 

No, waiting until the end of the match to throw the brick because you don't want to risk giving up a failed challenge point is gaming the system.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tbert 560]

7 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

No, waiting until the end of the match to throw the brick because you don't want to risk giving up a failed challenge point is gaming the system.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

You must have listened to Koll lie about that.  Video shows The brick was thrown before the end of the match.  

 

[Crotalus 314]

You must have listened to Koll lie about that.  Video shows The brick was thrown before the end of the match.  
 

Ok, they waited until practically the end of the match to throw the brick. They could have thrown it much earlier, which would have made it possible to sort it all out before the final whistle, but they chose to wait, and here we are.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tbert 560]

22 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

Ok, they waited until practically the end of the match to throw the brick. They could have thrown it much earlier, which would have made it possible to sort it all out before the final whistle, but they chose to wait, and here we are.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

They can throw the brick whenever they want.  The officials have discretion  also to deny it if they want.

Would the the official outcome they came to change any if it was before or after the whistle?

[ThorsteinV 74]

1 hour ago, AnklePicker said:

So it all comes down to when the brick was thrown?  Can’t Zain just bring proof of this happening over and over again at the international level. A lot of coaches let a scenario play out before they throw the brick. This is not uncommon. I love Yianni, but this will easily be won by Zain imo. 

If it were to be easily won by Zain, this thing would’ve been resolved by now. 

[AnklePicker 384]

17 minutes ago, ThorsteinV said:

If it were to be easily won by Zain, this thing would’ve been resolved by now. 

Not when lawyers get involved. 

[Plasmodium 1,260]

18 minutes ago, AnklePicker said:

Not when lawyers get involved. 

Ah, the billable hour :)

I wish this were over.   It has drug on too long. If it goes in Yianni's favor it will impact training.

 

[jon 151]

Would be over by now (I assume?) if not for USA Wrestling's silly assertion of finality clause.

[scramble 151]

3 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

If you make a hard and fast time limit then you'll have people parsing 10ths of 1 second to see if bricks came in on time. Then you will have to define what triggers the clock, the toss, the brick breaking the cylinder, the brick landing. Was there a delay in time between the toss and time stoppage. Stuff like that. 

Wrestlers have things in their own hands already with this one simple concept: wrestle thru every position until the action is stopped. 

I can see that too.  And agree that would happen. There really isn't any perfect way and I don't think one exists.  In the end I think you can only have judgement or consistency.  There really isnt a right or wrong so to speak.  There is just a process and way that business will be conducted so to speak.  Someone will always end up on the short end. It sucks but it's reality.  Again I do agree with there those situations like you described will happen too. 

[TBar1977 3,567]

5 hours ago, Lurker said:

Asking if anyone had heard anything is not unnecessary. For example, Perry filling us in that the hearing is longer than expected and still on going. Okay. That’s good to know as it is a change from what we were previously told. Obviously everyone knows there isn’t a ruling yet, or we’d hear about it.

Turning the topic in to same argument over and over is what’s unnecessary. Lighten up Francis. 

The fact the hearing is taking longer than previously expected is self evident. We would have heard something if this were not true.

Lighten up? Pot, kettle, black.

[TBar1977 3,567]

2 hours ago, AnklePicker said:

Not when lawyers get involved. 

Not just any lawyers either. Cornell lawyers. Big-time geniuses. Those guys rarely lose from what I am told.

[MadMardigain 1,064]

13 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Not just any lawyers either. Cornell lawyers. Big-time geniuses. Those guys rarely lose from what I am told.

A farmer has yet to have lost a pig, plow, or grain bin on their watch.  

[Lurker 978]

45 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

The fact the hearing is taking longer than previously expected is self evident. We would have heard something if this were not true.

Lighten up? Pot, kettle, black.

I’m curious is the extension because the arbitrator taking longer to decide, did they not get through everything and are reconvening tomorrow, maybe arbitrator asked for rules book to review over the weekend before making a decision. I think these are all pretty legit inquiries being it was said there would be a decision Friday. Don’t you?

Edited August 11, 2019 by Lurker

[Crotalus 314]

5 hours ago, tbert said:

They can throw the brick whenever they want.  The officials have discretion  also to deny it if they want.

Would the the official outcome they came to change any if it was before or after the whistle?

Perhaps not. But if the brick was thrown quickly after the points went up, then the official could have looked for a break in action to get it resolved while there was still time on the clock. That is where I have an issue with how it all played out. If there wasn't an opportunity to stop the match, then that's one thing. But when you wait to throw the brick until (practically) the end, well after the points in question were put up, this is what you get.

[TBar1977 3,567]

3 hours ago, MadMardigain said:

A farmer has yet to have lost a pig, plow, or grain bin on their watch.  

I believe it!

[TBar1977 3,567]

3 hours ago, Lurker said:

I’m curious is the extension because the arbitrator taking longer to decide, did they not get through everything and are reconvening tomorrow, maybe arbitrator asked for rules book to review over the weekend before making a decision. I think these are all pretty legit inquiries being it was said there would be a decision Friday. Don’t you?

I think whatever portion of the rules the arbitrator gets stuck on is probably how the arbitrator will rule. His ruling will be cheered or ridiculed based mainly, if not solely, on partisanship.

[TBar1977 3,567]

1 hour ago, Crotalus said:

Perhaps not. But if the brick was thrown quickly after the points went up, then the official could have looked for a break in action to get it resolved while there was still time on the clock. That is where I have an issue with how it all played out. If there wasn't an opportunity to stop the match, then that's one thing. But when you wait to throw the brick until (practically) the end, well after the points in question were put up, this is what you get.

Here is a take I have never seen posted. What if NLWC coaches said between each other something like:

"that 2-2 score is not allowable, they will have to convene or review to fix that"

"You are right, the rules are going to require them to fix this, even without a challenge"

"You're right. We don't even need to throw the brick here"

"But the Chair already made an incorrect score, what if they don't huddle?????"

"You're right. Throw the brick!!!"

And the brick ends up being thrown after that conversation with 2 seconds remaining. 

Edited August 11, 2019 by TBar1977

[Lurker 978]

35 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I think whatever portion of the rules the arbitrator gets stuck on is probably how the arbitrator will rule. His ruling will be cheered or ridiculed based mainly, if not solely, on partisanship.

Do we know the arbiter is stuck on a portion of the rules? Is that why there’s a delay?