The definition of control

[jross 521]

Please explain the definition of control in greater detail.

Section 2. Takedowns

• Art. 1. Match Takedowns. A takedown shall be awarded when, from the neutral position, a competitor gains control of the opponent by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds and beyond reaction. Exception: Rule 4.2.2.
• Art. 2. Hand-Touch Takedown. To award a takedown, reaction time is not required in instances in which a wrestler has rear-standing neutral control of their opponent and from the standing position the defending wrestler's hand comes in contact with the mat. (See Illustrations.)
• Art. 3. Neutral Danger Zone Takedown. When in the neutral position, the referee shall announce a neutral danger signal (NDS) anytime a wrestler exposes their shoulders to the mat at any angle less than 90 degrees (neutral danger zone). The danger zone utilizes near fall criteria outlined in Rule 4.5.1, but replaces 45 degrees with any angle less than 90 degrees. The NDS announcement shall occur anytime a wrestler is voluntarily or involuntarily in the neutral danger zone, beyond reaction time, and will continue until the wrestler is out of the danger zone or a takedown is awarded.
• Art. 4. Neutral Danger Signal. The NDS is a verbal announcement of the word "danger," followed by a verbal three count. Whenever possible, the referee also should include a visual indication of the count. If the referee reaches the third count and the wrestler is still in the danger zone, the opposing wrestler is awarded a takedown.

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WR23.pdf

[jross 521]

Shane did not have control; no takedown!

Hips to the side, hip to hip, hips behind... all that is 2 pt takedown to me.  But hips in front of the other man's hips?  Nah!  We need better rulebook guidance on "control."  As ambiguous as it was 2 years back.    
 

 

[nom 1,186]

Shane didn’t have two.  He was way out to side, no where near the hips.  Yes he had hands behind armpits but that is the case for double overhooks too.    His body was nowhere near being behind Ramirez’s left armpit.  No 2.

[jross 521]

31 minutes ago, nom said:

Shane didn’t have two.  He was way out to side, no where near the hips.  Yes he had hands behind armpits but that is the case for double overhooks too.    His body was nowhere near being behind Ramirez’s left armpit.  No 2.

So we agree but seem to be the minority on Twitter.

[D White 13]

Agree, it wasn't 2, behind the arms but nowhere near covering the hips.  Think about it this way, put them both in the same position in the center of the mat, no one would expect 2 to be called until his hips come behind his arms. 

[Mphillips 1,668]

7 hours ago, jross said:

So we agree but seem to be the minority on Twitter.

That's probably a decent place to be...

[IronChef 1,077]

Not the easiest call, but I think it's pretty clearly not a takedown.

[hammerlockthree 2,587]

What did he have to do to make it a takedown?

[1032004 1,420]

It kinda looked like he prevented himself from getting behind the hips because he was trying to keep his foot in bounds.  But he didn’t even need to because Ramirez was in.

[jross 521]

I cut my Rokfin subscription loose.  What new perspective does this show?  https://rokfin.com/post/61101

[jross 521]

9 hours ago, hammerlockthree said:

What did he have to do to make it a takedown?

Gain control.  Shane had no leverage with that hold to restrain, break down, ride, initiate pinning combination, anything.  Same hold + hips to side, hip to hip, hip behind… is a controlling position.   Their hips are facing each other ~ straight on.

[wrestlingnerd 3,000]

2 hours ago, jross said:

Gain control.  Shane had no leverage with that hold to restrain, break down, ride, initiate pinning combination, anything.  Same hold + hips to side, hip to hip, hip behind… is a controlling position.   Their hips are facing each other ~ straight on.

I was in the 2, he got screwed camp. But you made me rethink my position. Not sure nowThis makes sense, as subjective as it all is. The rules aren’t black/white in this situation, it appears. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by wrestlingnerd

[wrestlingnerd 3,000]

2 hours ago, jross said:

 I cut my Rokfin subscription loose.  What new perspective does this show?

Tirapelle equates hands behind the armpit to a locked hands (gut wrenching) position. Therefore, must be a TD. He said that if those two wrestled from that “hands locked” position for hours, Ramirez would never get out of it. I don’t agree, although I do think if they were in the middle of the mat and OOB was not a consideration, Shane would be the overwhelming favorite in that position. That said, it was almost OOB and Shane couldn’t move himself to a better position, and therein lies the problem for me. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by wrestlingnerd

[gimpeltf 2,045]

I haven't seen more than the one still which doesn't look like control. But did Shane have a slightly better angle prior to that such that Stanford might be able to argue a hand down call prior to going out?

[wrestlingnerd 3,000]

9 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

I haven't seen more than the one still which doesn't look like control. But did Shane have a slightly better angle prior to that such that Stanford might be able to argue a hand down call prior to going out?

No. He was keeping his legs still to ensure they were still in bounds. That’s why it’s so hard for me to be as definitive as the Tirapelles who are screaming home cooking. The position in the middle of the mat would result in a TD a majority of the time and probably a vast majority of the time. But they were still and almost out of bounds, and that Shane couldn’t improve from there changes things for me. It’s a very tricky situation, and I’m still not sure what the right call is. If the rules were amended so that opponent on the mat and hands behind armpits is 2 (similar to hand down from rear standing change a few years back), it would be 2 for sure. That’s not what the rules say now though. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by wrestlingnerd

[Sheerstress 168]

On 11/22/2021 at 6:47 AM, jross said:

Please explain the definition of control in greater detail.

 

The definition of control and a takedown are both pretty straightforward:

 

NFHS Wrestling Rule Book  (Rule 5-6) Definitions: Control

Article 1:  Control occurs when an individual has gained restraining power over an opponent.  A wrestler who has control of an opponent is in a position of advantage.

Article 2:  Control is gained when a takedown occurs, and changes when an escape or reversal is scored.

Article 3:  Control determines the awarding of points.

 

NFHS Wrestling Rule Book  (Rule 5-25) Definitions: Takedown

Article 1:  It is a takedown when, from the neutral position, a wrestler gains control of the opponent down on the mat and a total of two supporting points of either wrestler are inbounds.  The total of two supporting points could be two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point each wrestler that are in bounds.  When the defensive wrestler's hand(s) touch the mat, it is considered a supporting point(s).

Article 2:  A takedown shall be awarded when one or both knees of the wrestler are touching the mat beyond reaction time or when the wrestler's legs or torso our control and the majority of the wrestler's weight is supported by the hands.

Article 3:  In awarding a takedown at the edge of the mat, control must be established while a total of two supporting points of either wrestler are in bounds. The total of two supporting points could be two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point of each wrestler that are in bounds or while at least the feet of the scoring a contestant finish down on the mat inbounds.

[Sheerstress 168]

However, actually determining when control occurs is not always black and white, and may sometimes depend on the knowledge and experience of the official.  Such is often the case at higher levels.

 

NFHS Wrestling Casebook (Section 4 - 4)

Control in wrestling determines the awarding of points. A wrestler who has control of the opponent and can maintain restraining power over him/her is in a position of advantage. When control changes, there is a takedown (gaining control), and escape (losing control), or a reversal (changing control). Often it is difficult for spectators and inexperienced referees to determine when control has been gained, lost or changed. Control is felt as well as observed; therefore experience as a wrestler is advantageous. In order to gain a "feel" for control, a referee may attend practice sessions and actually get on the mat with coaches or wrestlers.

There are certain guidelines that may be helpful.  In a takedown situation with a legal headlock and the wrestlers down on the mat, control is gained when the defensive wrestler places a foot on the mat in an attempt to stay off the back. In a double leg, when the countering wrestler is seated on the mat, a takedown can be awarded as soon as this wrestler is no longer able to use the legs as a means of support. In a standup situation, when the defensive wrestler turns and faces the opponent, there is no loss of control, provided the offensive locks the hands and controls his opponent in an upright position. However, if the defensive wrestler, while facing his opponent, is able to break this lock by bending at the waist, there is definite loss of control.

Many questions arise as to when there is a change of control when the defensive wrestler uses a shoulder roll. The guideline offered is: is there a change of control when the wrestler, who is in the offensive position, is more concerned about avoiding being pinned rather than controlling an opponent? When defensive wrestler is able to pick up his opponents lower leg and control and arm and leg, there has been a change of control. Anytime either a leg and one arm is trapped, the referee should be looking for signs of a change in control. In a whizzer situation, change of control is not always easy to determine. When the defensive wrestler uses the whizzer and is able to turn so that the body is at a right angle to the opponent and bend at the waist, the referee should be alert to loss of control by the offensive wrestler. In the neutral position, the wizard is often used as a counter and can result in the wrestler gaining control over the opponent. The use of the whizzer and far arm is a good example. Again control is felt as well as observed in these situations.

[jross 521]

In your understanding of the high school definition for "control," does Shane's hold and body position provide enough restraining power to warrant 2pts?  

[Sheerstress 168]

I couldn't say - I didn't see the match.  

There's probably no difference between the high school and collegiate definitions of control; you've just got guys at the collegiate level who are much better at defending and stalemating.  Tough calls.

[Schuteandscore 167]

It was control, but I said this in another post, doesn’t matter now, he lost.  The fact he was maintaining that position while keeping himself in bounds shows he was controlling the position, right?

[red blades 364]

2 minutes ago, Schuteandscore said:

It was control, but I said this in another post, doesn’t matter now, he lost.  The fact he was maintaining that position while keeping himself in bounds shows he was controlling the position, right?

But he couldn't improve the position - which would by definition be stalemate, right?

[Schuteandscore 167]

I’m not sure I follow completely, I’ve seen a lot of takedowns on the edge that couldn’t be improved, but they were still awarded

Edited November 23, 2021 by Schuteandscore
Double

[Schuteandscore 167]

1 minute ago, red blades said:

But he couldn't improve the position - which would by definition be stalemate, right?

I’m not sure I follow completely, I’ve seen a lot of takedowns on the edge that couldn’t be improved, but they were still awarded

[Schuteandscore 167]

Just now, Schuteandscore said:

I’m not sure I follow completely, I’ve seen a lot of takedowns on the edge that couldn’t be improved, but they were still awarded

Also, you can still have a stalemate after control 

[NJDan 1,070]

28 minutes ago, Schuteandscore said:

I’m not sure I follow completely, I’ve seen a lot of takedowns on the edge that couldn’t be improved, but they were still awarded

The problem was not being on the edge; it was failure to control the hips. It's possible that Grif did not spin behind b/c that would have taken him out of bounds. Of course, we don't know that. Anyway, they made the correct call, reviewed it and confirmed the call.