Jump to content
Henry

International Ref Pay?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So you are admitting that passivity is more subjective than stalling or do you mean objective?

But when you just alternate who you call passivity on, I guess that could be considered more objective...

ugh...

i screwed that up...

shocking...

but...

you will never get it, so, it doesn't really matter... 

**shrug**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

Don’t passivity and the current no-tie rules make it more open for corruption?  Referees actually have the power to dictate who will be at a disadvantage by simply picking a color, and shocker of shockers the higher seed always gets called for passivity first.

higher seed always get called first?

you should put together some data that shows that because it sure seems like a total BS thing to throw out there just to try and sound knowledgeable...

but...

no... current rules do not make it more or less open for anything... bad refs are gonna be bad refs and good refs are gonna be good refs...

and wrestlers/coaches who don't understand how it works are always gonna whine about passivity when it isn't hard to navigate at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LJB said:

higher seed always get called first?

you should put together some data that shows that because it sure seems like a total BS thing to throw out there just to try and sound knowledgeable...

but...

no... current rules do not make it more or less open for anything... bad refs are gonna be bad refs and good refs are gonna be good refs...

and wrestlers/coaches who don't understand how it works are always gonna whine about passivity when it isn't hard to navigate at all...

No clue about the higher seed thing but I would bet the data would show that 75%+ of the time when one guy is called for passivity the other guy is the next time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

No clue about the higher seed thing but I would bet the data would show that 75%+ of the time when one guy is called for passivity the other guy is the next time...

the higher seeded thing is total BS... the refs are not gonna have a clue who the hell is higher seeded in 98% of the matches...

as far as one then the next, it does happen particularly in this country, but, it is not as per the rules and rather just because of poor refs, so, your constant mewling about it is entirely misplaced...

Share this post


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

the higher seeded thing is total BS... the refs are not gonna have a clue who the hell is higher seeded in 98% of the matches...

as far as one then the next, it does happen particularly in this country, but, it is not as per the rules and rather just because of poor refs, so, your constant mewling about it is entirely misplaced...

My man, do you watch any international wrestling actually wrestled by wrestlers from the top countries?  When Russia, Iran, Turkey, or other eastern european countries are on the mat, I assure you the referees know who is on the mat and who the coaches are, and it gives referees absolute control to dictate the pace of a match.  It is a mechanism they use to sweep higher seeds through in tournaments all the time.  If you are looking for an example, watch the all-Iran final from Poland.  Mohammadian did less in that match than a middle schooler in lazy shadow wrestling drill.

This may not apply to domestic refs, since it sounds like many don’t even know the rules of the sport.

The last score rule and passivity rule are signs that the sport is weak, poorly structured and poorly marketed on the international scene.  The only rule remotely close to this is home-away goal differential in some soccer leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Drew87 said:

My man, do you watch any international wrestling actually wrestled by wrestlers from the top countries?  When Russia, Iran, Turkey, or other eastern european countries are on the mat, I assure you the referees know who is on the mat and who the coaches are, and it gives referees absolute control to dictate the pace of a match.  It is a mechanism they use to sweep higher seeds through in tournaments all the time.  If you are looking for an example, watch the all-Iran final from Poland.  Mohammadian did less in that match than a middle schooler in lazy shadow wrestling drill.

This may not apply to domestic refs, since it sounds like many don’t even know the rules of the sport.

The last score rule and passivity rule are signs that the sport is weak, poorly structured and poorly marketed on the international scene.  The only rule remotely close to this is home-away goal differential in some soccer leagues.

you are going to use that match to make any kind of point?

it was a poorly wrestled match where neither wrestlers were very interested in doing anything... that is on them not the rules...

you have an axe to grind, i get it... i can barely stand to watch the stall fest of wrestling, so, when i try all i see is the glaring negatives...

this is what you are doing...

except you add in a shadow conspiracy of international corruption because that makes it more like a soap opera and satisfies your need for manufactured drama...

perhaps you should just stick to the view...

**shrugs**

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LJB said:

you are going to use that match to make any kind of point?

it was a poorly wrestled match where neither wrestlers were very interested in doing anything... that is on them not the rules...

you have an axe to grind, i get it... i can barely stand to watch the stall fest of wrestling, so, when i try all i see is the glaring negatives...

this is what you are doing...

except you add in a shadow conspiracy of international corruption because that makes it more like a soap opera and satisfies your need for manufactured drama...

perhaps you should just stick to the view...

**shrugs**

 

I will be pleasantly surprised if you actually engage in this with any form of rigor, as the lions share of your “reactions” are strictly ad hominem in nature. But here goes nothing.

If you’re not watching a lot of wrestling, how can you know what the trends are across years and rulesets?  

And if that particular IRI vs IRI match was a poorly wrestled match, what is a good match?  That was a BORING match, but rather technically sound.  Mohammadian is a serious medal contender who absolutely whooped up on all of Team America not too long ago. 

The current ruleset empowers referees to influence matches more than any ruleset that has existed in my lifetime.  I’m not saying that alone is a bad thing, but that power coupled with “last point wins” criteria is indeed a problem.  

Hopefully someone else has a more substantive response.

Also, if you believe this “drama” is Quixotesque in nature, I highly recommend you do some reading on the history of organized sports. Seriously, just pick a sport and start reading.  Rule bending, breaking, and otherwise flouting is the norm.  Across the sampleset, rules are to be dealt with, not followed.

To quote Louie Simmons, “it’s not illegal to [break the rules], it’s illegal to get caught [breaking the rules].”

 

Edited by Drew87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

I will be pleasantly surprised if you actually engage in this with any form of rigor, as the lions share of your “reactions” are strictly ad hominem in nature. But here goes nothing.

If you’re not watching a lot of wrestling, how can you know what the trends are across years and rulesets?  

And if that particular IRI vs IRI match was a poorly wrestled match, what is a good match?  That was a BORING match, but rather technically sound.  Mohammadian is a serious medal contender who absolutely whooped up on all of Team America not too long ago. 

The current ruleset empowers referees to influence matches more than any ruleset that has existed in my lifetime.  I’m not saying that alone is a bad thing, but that power coupled with “last point wins” criteria is indeed a problem.  

Hopefully someone else has a more substantive response.

Also, if you believe this “drama” is Quixotesque in nature, I highly recommend you do some reading on the history of organized sports. Seriously, just pick a sport and start reading.  Rule bending, breaking, and otherwise flouting is the norm.  Across the sampleset, rules are to be dealt with, not followed.

To quote Louie Simmons, “it’s not illegal to [break the rules], it’s illegal to get caught [breaking the rules].”

 

when the wrestlers refuse to do anything then they fall prey to the rule set... and that is on both of them...

if either did not want to get put on the shot clock then they should have actually wrestled...

it really is that simple...

the rules are what they are and you can try to game them or you can just wrestle in a manner where certain rules do not affect the outcome of your match...

neither did in that match...

the refs would not have had an opportunity to dictate anything in that match if either wrestler had chosen to wrestle instead of the feigned attempts that both "engaged" in...

if you want to use an excuse mentality then so be it... it is not a unique perspective...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LJB said:

when the wrestlers refuse to do anything then they fall prey to the rule set... and that is on both of them...

if either did not want to get put on the shot clock then they should have actually wrestled...

it really is that simple...

the rules are what they are and you can try to game them or you can just wrestle in a manner where certain rules do not affect the outcome of your match...

neither did in that match...

the refs would not have had an opportunity to dictate anything in that match if either wrestler had chosen to wrestle instead of the feigned attempts that both "engaged" in...

if you want to use an excuse mentality then so be it... it is not a unique perspective...

That was a wrestling match where the highest of highest stakes are on the line and two compatriots and training partners who probably know each others strengths and weaknesses inside out had 1 off final wrestling match which would determine who has the chance to represent their country in the Olympics. I can completely understand given the context, their familiarity with each other and what was at stake that was how the match was played out, it was a high intensity human chess match and both knew one mistake from either, the other could have capitalised and that is it, bye Olympics. Shabani may have pushed a bit more than he did with the final minute, but he did try to, easier said than done of course. Neither of these guys are guys that are passive in their generic style. Shabani is super strong. And Mohammadian techs some people like they have never stepped on a wrestling mat before, Nickal, Moore etc. It's scary.

 

But given the context, I am not surprised this is how it played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uwwdoc said:

That was a wrestling match where the highest of highest stakes are on the line and two compatriots and training partners who probably know each others strengths and weaknesses inside out had 1 off final wrestling match which would determine who has the chance to represent their country in the Olympics. I can completely understand given the context, their familiarity with each other and what was at stake that was how the match was played out, it was a high intensity human chess match and both knew one mistake from either, the other could have capitalised and that is it, bye Olympics. Shabani may have pushed a bit more than he did with the final minute, but he did try to, easier said than done of course. Neither of these guys are guys that are passive in their generic style. Shabani is super strong. And Mohammadian techs some people like they have never stepped on a wrestling mat before, Nickal, Moore etc. It's scary.

 

But given the context, I am not surprised this is how it played out.

all fair points, but, immaterial to the discussion at hand...

i have no issue with how the match was officiated... it was in accordance to how those wrestlers chose to wrestle and not some grand conspiracy by a ref or federation...

 

Share this post


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

when the wrestlers refuse to do anything then they fall prey to the rule set... and that is on both of them...

if either did not want to get put on the shot clock then they should have actually wrestled...

it really is that simple...

the rules are what they are and you can try to game them or you can just wrestle in a manner where certain rules do not affect the outcome of your match...

neither did in that match...

the refs would not have had an opportunity to dictate anything in that match if either wrestler had chosen to wrestle instead of the feigned attempts that both "engaged" in...

if you want to use an excuse mentality then so be it... it is not a unique perspective...

There, see, you almost completed a post strictly sticking to the points of a discussion.  It was a good attempt, I know old habits die hard.  Keep working at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew87 said:

There, see, you almost completed a post strictly sticking to the points of a discussion.  It was a good attempt, I know old habits die hard.  Keep working at it!

that match was on the wrestlers... not the refs...

keep looking for the boogie man around every corner and desperately searching for excuses to fit the narrative you have already entrenched in your mind...

confirmation bias is a real thing...

i can only try to help you, but, will not lose sleep while doing it...

**shrugs**

Share this post


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

all fair points, but, immaterial to the discussion at hand...

i have no issue with how the match was officiated... it was in accordance to how those wrestlers chose to wrestle and not some grand conspiracy by a ref or federation...

 

Yeah, I'm not getting involved in the overriding discussion. Just giving more context to this match which is being used as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uwwdoc said:

Yeah, I'm not getting involved in the overriding discussion. Just giving more context to this match which is being used as an example.

i get it and pretty much agree with you...

that match is a silly example to use to prove any point, but, peoples is peoples...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LJB said:

that match was on the wrestlers... not the refs...

keep looking for the boogie man around every corner and desperately searching for excuses to fit the narrative you have already entrenched in your mind...

confirmation bias is a real thing...

i can only try to help you, but, will not lose sleep while doing it...

**shrugs**

I agree with you on this, but in previous rule sets, somebody had to score a point to win.  I mentioned that match bc it is topical.  At least back in the day in the bodylock clinch era they had a coinflip, and then the oh so comedic ball grab.  Yes I will freely say that Rulon got handed a gold medal.

On principal I just dislike the notion that a wrestler who scored no offensive points, and scored just as many points as his/her opponent, can win a match.  That’s not superiority.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew87 said:

I agree with you on this, but in previous rule sets, somebody had to score a point to win.  I mentioned that match bc it is topical.  At least back in the day in the bodylock clinch era they had a coinflip, and then the oh so comedic ball grab.  Yes I will freely say that Rulon got handed a gold medal.

On principal I just dislike the notion that a wrestler who scored no offensive points, and scored just as many points as his/her opponent, can win a match.  That’s not superiority.  

 

i won't try to dissuade you from that opinion because it is reasonable...

personally, i do not mind the current passivity rule set because it still falls on the wrestlers and if they choose not to be hit with a passivity they can wrestle in  a manner where it will never come into play...

i have small issues with passivity at age level, but, that is more a function of UWW and their ridiculous 2 minute 16U periods...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I urge you all to slap the whistle around your neck and give it a go.  I remember when Major (Former Coach of USMC) Jay Antonelli came to Fargo and officiated the Juniors. After, he was done.  That's all I will say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, rod_frufit said:

I urge you all to slap the whistle around your neck and give it a go.  I remember when Major (Former Coach of USMC) Jay Antonelli came to Fargo and officiated the Juniors. After, he was done.  That's all I will say.

I don't remember the Major (although I think Captain then) reffing. He coached with us NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2021 at 12:37 PM, Drew87 said:

 Yes I will freely say that Rulon got handed a gold medal.

I gotta take issue with this.  Yeah it was a bad era as far as rule set goes.  In both styles, it was an era of look for one good scoring opportunity, and play really good defense the rest of the way.  I'll recall in one of the world championships right around there (can't remember exact year) but it was a freestyle final...Georgian vs Iraninan.  Georgian won on one scoring attempt the whole match.....arm throw out of the clinch.  Was clear as day that was the game plan for the whole match....get to the clinch, hit the arm throw, play defense for 5'50 seconds.  Made me sick.

So why do I take issue with your statement?  Because as much as we don't like the ruleset, it was the ruleset.  Karelin had 9 minutes to score.  Rulon was the first person in the history of Karelin's career to keep him from doing so.  And they were definitely giving Karelin his opportunities to do so. Regardless of what any of us think of the ruleset or the game plan,  Rulon wasn't handed anything. 

Edited by Lurker
Proofread before 'send', not after, dumbass

Share this post


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

I gotta take issue with this.  Yeah it was a bad era as far as rule set goes.  In both styles, it was an era of look for one good scoring opportunity, and play really good defense the rest of the way.  I'll recall in one of the world championships right around there (can't remember exact year) but it was a freestyle final...Georgian vs Iraninan.  Georgian won on one scoring attempt the whole match.....arm throw out of the clinch.  Was clear as day that was the game plan for the whole match....get to the clinch, hit the arm throw, play defense for 5'50 seconds.  Made me sick.

So why do I take issue with your statement?  Because as much as we don't like the ruleset, it was the ruleset.  Karelin had 9 minutes to score.  Rulon was the first person in the history of Karelin's career to keep him from doing so.  And they were definitely giving Karelin his opportunities to do so. Regardless of what any of us think of the ruleset or the game plan,  Rulon wasn't handed anything. 

He did wrestle Karelin better than anyone ever had, I on principle do not like the notion that a coinflip can decide anything definitively in wrestling, or that a wrestler can play goalie the entire match and win said match.  

In my mind wrestling is about proving that you are the superior individual on the mat within whatever criteria are set forth in that era.  Rulon didn’t prove that against Karelin.  He proved that they may be equals, but if the coinflip had gone the other way, Karelin wins that match and we don’t talk about Rulon that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

He did wrestle Karelin better than anyone ever had, I on principle do not like the notion that a coinflip can decide anything definitively in wrestling, or that a wrestler can play goalie the entire match and win said match.  

In my mind wrestling is about proving that you are the superior individual on the mat within whatever criteria are set forth in that era.  Rulon didn’t prove that against Karelin.  He proved that they may be equals, but if the coinflip had gone the other way, Karelin wins that match and we don’t talk about Rulon that much.

But your theory is flawed in that it wasn't the coin flip that decided the match, it was Rulon forcing Karelin to break position first that decided the match.  All the coin flip did was say who locks their hands first.  So in that particular match, he was superior.  By the smallest tiniest fractions of a margin.  But in that thirty seconds he was superior, he forced Karelin to break position first, and as that was the only 30 seconds where either performed at any level of superiority, that determined the winner, not a coin flip.  The fact that we don't like the ruleset or the gameplan employed does not change the facts.  And to say he was handed an Olympic gold medal truly cheapens a tremendous accomplishment.  But...that's not at all surprising around here.

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...