Jump to content
Nushy

Illegal Maneuver Question

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nushy said:
 
@Lurker I didn’t realize that the proper safety area wasn’t in place. I’ve been to other tournaments where the mats are quite close to the bleachers. This event was run by a private school and the gym was small. I’m just glad they didn’t run into a child. 

It's kind of hard to tell in the video but it doesn't look like it.  It also looks like there was plenty of room on the other side of the mat that it could have been positioned a little more that way.  And yes there are many a tournament where those areas aren't what they should be.  But we have to keep in mind most HS gymnasiums are not build with wrestling really at the heap of priority, unless you are the AD and wrestling coach at a school that is building a new gymnasium ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

When did this forum turn into a forum for complaining about offficiating and unfairness?

Not complaining. Legitimate questions. I honestly don’t know who else to ask. I contacted the NFHS but their response was that they don’t interpret rules for parents. FHSAA answers are biased so the advice and opinions on this forum have been helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to tell what happened to the headgear, but I think that shot out of bounds could’ve been worthy of a penalty point although certainly not a DQ.  

Hard to tell how far back the bleachers are, but I’ve certainly seen them be even closer than that.  

Share this post


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

@Nushy, how’d it go?

Frustrating to say the least. The committee agreed that the referee made an error on the call and that his report didn't match up with what the video showed. They also agreed that the teeth marks on the boys arm were not intentional due to the fact that they had a letter from the opposing coach stating that neither he nor his wrestler felt that it was intentional due to the force of the open mouth crossface. We were asking for them to remove the unsportsmanlike conduct infraction from Brett's record but instead the reduced it from a level 2 to a level 1. If I'm not mistaken unsportsmanlike conduct as defined by the FHSAA is an act of malicious or hateful behavior. If there was no intent how is this unsportsmanlike? We will go in front of the board of directors next and hope that they have more understanding of the sport. The committee chair on the sectional appeals panel suggested that next time Brett "tap out" if he is in this situation. The leader of a committee who has the authority to determine an athletes fate doesn't even know the rules as it applies to a high school sport that she is ruling on? 

I know that I didn't do a very good job of explaining the original incident, so if you are interested I wrote my recount of events up to this point. My apologies in advance, it's about 4 pages long. 

fhsaa exp.pdf

Edited by Nushy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 11:12 PM, gimpeltf said:

I can't speak to your not seeing bite marks after the fact. They may or may not have been there briefly upon the call. The refs are supposed to look for both uppers and lowers. 

Intent is irrelevant to the call. You bit or you didn't.

Tooth contact with skin is not a bite.  Tightening of the jaw muscle is a bite.  Intent is not irrelevant - ever.

I once knocked out a kids' tooth with the top of my head.  I needed some stitches in my head.  We were both bleeding profusely.  No bite.  I initiated the contact and the fact that his mouth was open did not mean he bit me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Tooth contact with skin is not a bite.  Tightening of the jaw muscle is a bite.  Intent is not irrelevant - ever.

I once knocked out a kids' tooth with the top of my head.  I needed some stitches in my head.  We were both bleeding profusely.  No bite.  I initiated the contact and the fact that his mouth was open did not mean he bit me.

You need to read what I said. You wouldn't have had uppers and lowers showing with what you described.

Biting (Point of Emphasis): If, in the opinion of the referee, a wrestler bites his opponent, it will be deemed intentional biting and will be called fla grant misconduct (Rule 5-12-2c). Referees do not have to see the bite in order to call biting. Furthermore, any claim of biting must be brought to the attention of the referee immediately. One should not assume intentional biting has occurred if only one set of teeth marks is present on the skin. If the referee did not see the alleged bite, he/she should look for the presence of marks from both the upper and lower teeth. Incidental contact with an opponent's open mouth can result in what appears to be a bite; however, the presence of both upper and lower teeth marks is more likely to be the result of an intentional bite than from incidental contact with the teeth. Referees should pay close attention to a cross-face applied to the area of the mouth, especially when the mouth is open. If teeth marks are present after the cross-face is applied to the mouth, the referee should only call biting if he/she believes the wrestler actually bit down on his/her opponent.

Share this post


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

You need to read what I said. You wouldn't have had uppers and lowers showing with what you described.

Biting (Point of Emphasis): If, in the opinion of the referee, a wrestler bites his opponent, it will be deemed intentional biting and will be called fla grant misconduct (Rule 5-12-2c). Referees do not have to see the bite in order to call biting. Furthermore, any claim of biting must be brought to the attention of the referee immediately. One should not assume intentional biting has occurred if only one set of teeth marks is present on the skin. If the referee did not see the alleged bite, he/she should look for the presence of marks from both the upper and lower teeth. Incidental contact with an opponent's open mouth can result in what appears to be a bite; however, the presence of both upper and lower teeth marks is more likely to be the result of an intentional bite than from incidental contact with the teeth. Referees should pay close attention to a cross-face applied to the area of the mouth, especially when the mouth is open. If teeth marks are present after the cross-face is applied to the mouth, the referee should only call biting if he/she believes the wrestler actually bit down on his/her opponent.

Put your forearm in your open mouth, pull back as hard as you can for 6 seconds and tell me what you see. I guarantee it won’t be one set of teeth marks. 
After hearing that the FHSAA didn’t even attempt to contact the referee after his report stating that it was an “apparent bite” makes me even more infuriated. The report didn’t say that it was a bite. It said there were uppers and lowers. He also said that the wrestler said “he’s biting me, he’s biting me” which he didn’t and can he seen in the video. You CAN hear a parent in the background shout “he’s biting, he’s biting”. The FHSAA completely failed here. I wonder how many innocent kids they do this to. 
 

Refs Report:

 

Reason for Disqualification

Ejection

Moses Brett

Athlete

 

Lake Mary High School

During the 145 pound match between Lake Mary and Creekwood dual of the St Cloud Dual Team tournament day 2, I had penalized Lake Mary wrestler, Moses Brett, as a result of an apparent bite on his opponent’s  forearm. By rule, biting is an act of flagrant misconduct, under NFHS rule 5.2.2. The following is a recount of my observations and remediation that followed:

During the aforementioned match wrestler Brett was in a defensive down wrestling position, engaged in action with his opponent, in the advantage position. During action wrestler Brett’s opponent executed a legal right handed cross face maneuver, with the final position of the advantage wrestler’s hand stopping on wrestler Brett’s left shoulder, positioned on the deltoid muscle. The right forearm of the wrestler’s Brett was positioned across his face at the mouth area, which was open. At this point wrestler Brett’s opponent indicated to me that he was being bitten stating, “He’s biting me! He’s biting me!”. As the result of this observation I stopped the match by blowing the whistle and asked the opponent to show me his forearm. I observed the following:

An impression of teeth marks with clearly defined markings from both upper and lower jaws on the forearm of wrestler Brett’s opponent. As well, the area around the teeth impressions was coated with saliva.

As biting is a serious infraction that carries potential severe penalty, I asked for corroboration from a second official within the area to confirm the visible teeth marks. At this point I made the decision to enforce NFHS rule 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, and terminated the match and disqualified wrestler Brett from further competition as per the NFHS penalty chart on page 43 of the 2019 rule book and by rules, 7.5.5, 8.1.3 and 8.1.6.


Upon informing the Lake Mary Coach of my decision, the Lake Mary Head Coach gave opinion that the marks on the arm were a result of incidental contact. I again clarified my decision at that point per the rules stated. I further indicated my decision to the Head Coach of Creekwood, and reported my action to the Tournament Head Official Dev Doyno, so he was made aware of the situation as it resulted in a disqualification.

Your name:

Robert Peipert

Your Association (Please select one if you are an official)

Mid-Florida Wrestling Association, Inc.

Role/Position:

Official

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nushy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to the match in slow motion and in regular speed. The ref is standing directly in front of them. At no point does the wrestler on top indicate that he’s being bitten as the report states. His head doesn’t move from the down position and he doesn’t show a reaction until the whistle is blown after someone in the audience yells “he’s biting”. The ref should have reset them for a potentially dangerous situation. The crossface wasn’t even a crossface. His forearm was covering the mouth while he was pulling back on the head. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU7a076-arCyyKTtuGhv0lw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people have too much power and they abuse it. What are we teaching our kids if we don’t stand up to them? Let’s say something does happen where he’s actually at fault. They can take him out of wrestling indefinitely with that kind of infraction on his record. I’m advocating for my kid and won’t let it go. Hopefully, more people will stand up to them in the future. 

Edited by Nushy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the slowed down video, it doesn’t even really look like the mouth is really open much.  No way to tell what happened, although I do see that the other wrestler shakes off his arm after the whistle, which is a potential sign that he thought he was bitten.

Again, your issue should not be with the ref.  He thought it was a bite, he called it a bite.   Your issue is with the state association for having a rule that then caused your son to miss so many matches as a result.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

In the slowed down video, it doesn’t even really look like the mouth is really open much.  No way to tell what happened, although I do see that the other wrestler shakes off his arm after the whistle, which is a potential sign that he thought he was bitten.

Again, your issue should not be with the ref.  He thought it was a bite, he called it a bite.   Your issue is with the state association for having a rule that then caused your son to miss so many matches as a result.

Agreed. They didn’t take the time to look at everything thoroughly. The refs report is a big piece of the puzzle. Keep in mind we also submitted a letter from the opposing coach and athlete saying that they didn’t think the teethmarks were an intentional bite. 

Edited by Nushy

Share this post


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

Agreed. They didn’t take the time to look at everything thoroughly. The refs report is a big piece of the puzzle. Keep in mind we also submitted a letter from the opposing coach and athlete saying that they didn’t think the teethmarks were an intentional bite. 

So you're only issue with the ref's report is that he said the other wrestler said he was being bitten, correct?  Not saying it did, but just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean he didn't say it.

It seems odd to me that they would come back later and say they didn't think it was a bite.  If that was the case why didn't they say that when the ref (and another ref apparently) were inspecting his arm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went in front of a sectional appeals with this. The refs report didn’t say it was a bite, he said it was an apparent bite with teethmarks. The FHSAA head office decided it was a bite based on the report filed. They didn’t even speak with the referee or discuss the incident with him. They just handed down an 8-point suspension. The school appealed and the FHSAA head office said they were upholding the sanction. The sectional appeals committee said they didn’t think it was intentional and that the refs report didn’t coincide with the video. For some reason they said they didn’t have the authority to remove the penalty from the record so they downgraded the infraction from a level two to a level one. Now we have to go in front of the board of directors to get it removed completely. 

Share this post


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

You don’t have kids do you? 

I have two sons. Will all this lawyering and complaining get your son his matches back? Isn’t his suspension over? It’s a waste of time and money, but if you have both to expend, more power to you. The short of it is no one other than you cares about this.

So once again, let it go.

Share this post


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

We went in front of a sectional appeals with this. The refs report didn’t say it was a bite

Based on what you pasted above, yes he did.  If he didn't think it was a bite then your son wouldn't have been DQ'ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I’ve been following this and chatting with Nushy from the get go and this is what I see:

As stated above it was initially described as should have been an illegal cross face. When it was clarified by people here with ample experience that it was perfectly legal, it has evolved into the officials involved were wrong (and one lied), the State is wrong for following their procedures, and appeals section is wrong because they didn’t prioritize what we wanted them too. In other words, everyone is wrong.

Having now seen the video and report....first thing I see is that the opponent did immediately react, and just because he does not raise his head does not mean he’s not telling the ref he’s biting. Obviously because of their position the ref did not see the actual biting action (which is very common in biting situations), so he followed procedure and the rules. When he noticed the two bite marks, which is emphasized as what to look for, and is NOT caused by pressing your forearm against the top set of the teeth, he even took an extra step in consulting with another official in order to be sure. The other official agreed.  
 

So unfortunately this is a situation that we see far far too often these days.  Everyone up and down the line, from the opponent to the State’s executive director, is wrong....but not my kid.  The fact is there is ample evidence of a bite, it was confirmed by a second official, evidence was looked at and it was upheld, with the exception that was knocked down to a level 1.  The hard truth is, with everything you have presented, it appears the right call was made, and I say that being someone who always wants to error in favor of the kids.  The people in the state office are not bullies and are not looking to punish kids or abuse power.  I’ve had more than enough working and interacting with the FHSAA to know this to be absolutely true. Trust me when I tell you this is not at all their mindset.  Further, you talk about “if we don’t stand up to them.....”  Well lets talk accountability.  Again, everything lends to proof there was a bite.  But what are we teaching kids when they do something wrong, it doesn’t matter because mom and dad are going to fight tooth and nail to try and prove that everyone in the situation, except my kid, is actually wrong.  
 

Sorry Nushy, you know I’ve been trying to be completely open minded throughout this whole thread, but the fact of the matter is the right call was made by both the officials (plural is important there), the state, and the appeals committee.  You’re doing your boy more harm than good trying to erase his mistake.  Better off to let him own it, learn from it, and not make a similar mistake down the road  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HokieHWT said:

All this time and effort you could have been training your kid to get off bottom quicker or how to fight a cross face.

i can't read through this whole thread... or care...

but, if you are getting wrecked by a cross face you deserve it...

look into it... disregard a little discomfort... be a wrestler....  

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...