Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NJDan

Vito's match

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hammerlockthree said:

I thought that too! 

Went back and watched the second period. It looked like Vito got 4 back points, looked like the ref was counting. But the ref actually awarded no back points in that sequence. Weird call, but that was the call.

Share this post


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

Went back and watched the second period. It looked like Vito got 4 back points, looked like the ref was counting. But the ref actually awarded no back points in that sequence. Weird call, but that was the call.

The ref was awful but he never reached 2 swipes. It appeared (in person) that Vito was close to a pin but the ref only did ONE swipe on 2 different times. Everyone was as puzzled as you but no points were given because he never counted high enough.

The ref was inconsistent on stalling, stopping stalemates, starting from referee's position along with blatant mistakes.

Share this post


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

The ref was awful but he never reached 2 swipes. It appeared (in person) that Vito was close to a pin but the ref only did ONE swipe on 2 different times. Everyone was as puzzled as you but no points were given because he never counted high enough.

The ref was inconsistent on stalling, stopping stalemates, starting from referee's position along with blatant mistakes.

Thanks for the explanation. But it actually makes the call seem more bizarre. Did the ref see the Stanford guy on his back for one second, then get off his back, then get back on his back again for one second? Sure looked to me like Stanford was on his back for 4 seconds. But later the ref gestured as if he was never past 90 degrees, that is, he was never on his back. Anyhow, the coaches did not seem to argue so maybe the call was OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i was confused but it was also really hard to see. i think one of the officials was blocking some of the camera and i think vito himself was blocking a good view of his opponent's angle. i agree, though, that the ref clearly swiped once two times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NJDan said:

Thanks for the explanation. But it actually makes the call seem more bizarre. Did the ref see the Stanford guy on his back for one second, then get off his back, then get back on his back again for one second? Sure looked to me like Stanford was on his back for 4 seconds. But later the ref gestured as if he was never past 90 degrees, that is, he was never on his back. Anyhow, the coaches did not seem to argue so maybe the call was OK.

Well there's your problem - the criteria for awarding back points is being past 45 degrees - not 90 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a problem shared by a lot of people, including many refs, who call it like its 90 degrees when it isn't .   Someone can be effectively "on his back" for many seconds, but if he continually flops or moves so that he's never there (below45 degrees)  for a full two (or four) seconds there should be no back points awarded.    My personal observation is the ref's never call it that way,  and if a guy flops back and forth between 80 degrees one way and 80 degrees the other way, the opponent gets a cheap four points.

Bring back Sol Israel.  That stuff shouldn't count the same as two takedowns. 

Share this post


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

That is a problem shared by a lot of people, including many refs, who call it like its 90 degrees when it isn't .   Someone can be effectively "on his back" for many seconds, but if he continually flops or moves so that he's never there (below45 degrees)  for a full two (or four) seconds there should be no back points awarded.    My personal observation is the ref's never call it that way,  and if a guy flops back and forth between 80 degrees one way and 80 degrees the other way, the opponent gets a cheap four points.

Bring back Sol Israel.  That stuff shouldn't count the same as two takedowns. 

You are right OG - the refs often award bp when the guy on his back is more than 45 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OldGrappler said:

That is a problem shared by a lot of people, including many refs, who call it like its 90 degrees when it isn't .   Someone can be effectively "on his back" for many seconds, but if he continually flops or moves so that he's never there (below45 degrees)  for a full two (or four) seconds there should be no back points awarded.    My personal observation is the ref's never call it that way,  and if a guy flops back and forth between 80 degrees one way and 80 degrees the other way, the opponent gets a cheap four points.

Bring back Sol Israel.  That stuff shouldn't count the same as two takedowns. 

I see this as well.  I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lu1979 said:

Well there's your problem - the criteria for awarding back points is being past 45 degrees - not 90 degrees.

Yeah, I kinda knew that. I was thrown by the ref making a 90 degree motion when denying the back points.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...