Vito's match

[NJDan 1,066]

Didn't the ref and the announcer fail to credit a reversal and back points in the second period?

[hammerlockthree 2,582]

16 minutes ago, NJDan said:

Didn't the ref and the announcer fail to credit a reversal and back points in the second period?

I thought that too! 

[Mphillips 1,664]

The announcer was a train wreck. Sadly laughable.

[NJDan 1,066]

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.

[hammerlockthree 2,582]

1 minute 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.

that ref sucked

[DanGerMan 151]

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.

[NJDan 1,066]

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.

[ugarte 515]

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.

[lu1979 558]

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.

[OldGrappler 48]

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. 

[nom 1,186]

90 degrees is freestyle.  Folkstyle is 45 degrees.  No one could see the angle better then the ref.  

[lu1979 558]

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.

[Plasmodium 2,224]

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.

[NJDan 1,066]

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.