Jump to content
jross

The definition of control

Recommended Posts

No I understand what the issue is with what people are arguing about,  but he did control the hips.  Even if he wasn’t on the hips or behind the hips, he was in control of that situation.  They just didn’t call it and that’s fair.  My response was to the question they posed, and it doesn’t matter if it was a stalemate.  And again, a stalemate can occur even after control:  he had  the criteria of a takedown…but… it wasn’t called, so the end result is the same

Share this post


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

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.

I realized I didn’t reply directly to your post, it’s above

Edited by Schuteandscore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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?

No, most stalemate situations could be described as you just did above. That alone does not prove control at all. 
To be clear, I’m not saying it wasn’t a TD. I keep going back and forth. It is not an obvious call/no-call as many are claiming. 

Share this post


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

Also, you can still have a stalemate after control 

Much more likely to be in a stalemate without control, though, so being in a stalemate isn’t a case for control. Also, I really don’t think it was a stalemate. I’ve never seen a stalemate in that position. It was either 2 and Shane was holding on to prove it (i.e. give the ref time to recognize it) or it wasn’t and the ref was looking for more before awarding 2. I don’t think there’s anything in between. I am very confident it would’ve been a crystal clear 2 eventually with more mat space. Alas, they were almost OOB, which sucks for Shane and the ref forced to make a very tough judgment call. 

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Much more likely to be in a stalemate without control, though, so being in a stalemate isn’t a case for control. Also, I really don’t think it was a stalemate. I’ve never seen a stalemate in that position. It was either 2 and Shane was holding on to prove it (i.e. give the ref time to recognize it) or it wasn’t and the ref was looking for more before awarding 2. I don’t think there’s anything in between. I am very confident it would’ve been a crystal clear 2 eventually with more mat space. Alas, they were almost OOB, which sucks for Shane and the ref forced to make a very tough judgment call. 

I didn’t bring up the stalemate.  I didn’t think it was a stalemate either.  I was responding to the person who brought up a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

No, most stalemate situations could be described as you just did above. That alone does not prove control at all. 
To be clear, I’m not saying it wasn’t a TD. I keep going back and forth. It is not an obvious call/no-call as many are claiming. 

And to be clear… I am saying it was a TD.  But I’m also saying it wasn’t called so it’s a loss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

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. 

You shouldn't. Refs who make bad calls circumvent explaining themselves by saying "control".

Share this post


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

I keep going back and forth. It is not an obvious call/no-call as many are claiming. 

This.  It seems much of the twitterverse was in the “he was clearly robbed!” camp but that’s definitely a call that can go either way.  And personally I’d say no 2.

For those that have not seen the clip:

 

 

if you look closely, I think it looks closer to 2 simply because Ramirez is sticking his left leg out.  But most of their bodies are really at more than a 90 degree angle.  That’s almost closer to a front headlock position than a takedown IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Schuteandscore said:

No but once the leg was released and Ramirez weight went forward on his hands, the position changed

But that's not what you said. And the angle didn't change much. If anything it went further away from behind. Shane moved some towards the right but Ramirez moved a little more to his right.

Share this post


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

But that's not what you said. And the angle didn't change much. If anything it went further away from behind. Shane moved some towards the right but Ramirez moved a little more to his right.

True. Had the whistle not blown, it was more likely Ramirez would have squared up than Shane gotten behind.

Share this post


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

But that's not what you said. And the angle didn't change much. If anything it went further away from behind. Shane moved some towards the right but Ramirez moved a little more to his right.

I see your point that that’s not what I said.  I should have clarified.   Don’t get me wrong, I am not in the “Shane got robbed” club.  The call was made and Ramirez wrestled a great match.  I just wouldn’t have made the same call and was stating why I think it was two.  In my opinion, Shane (especially in a college match) showed control once he was behind the arms, Ramirez released the leg and gave up control.  HS, I think let them wrestle out if the position, control is harder to show, but at that level, I think it was.  Doesn’t mean I’m right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NJDan said:

True. Had the whistle not blown, it was more likely Ramirez would have squared up than Shane gotten behind.

Yes but you can’t say what didn’t happen.  I could say yes but the whistle wouldn’t have blown if they were in the center and Shane would have been behind, not trying to stay in bounds.  But we can’t call what didn’t happen.  I am using what did happen, not what could have 

Edited by Schuteandscore

Share this post


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

I see your point that that’s not what I said.  I should have clarified.   Don’t get me wrong, I am not in the “Shane got robbed” club.  The call was made and Ramirez wrestled a great match.  I just wouldn’t have made the same call and was stating why I think it was two.  In my opinion, Shane (especially in a college match) showed control once he was behind the arms, Ramirez released the leg and gave up control.  HS, I think let them wrestle out if the position, control is harder to show, but at that level, I think it was.  Doesn’t mean I’m right

By not what you said- I was referring to the way you phrased it fairly absolutely. I was responding similarly to @klehner in showing you that there are exceptions. I agree it's not an easy call. I wonder if Jim Rivello (very good ref in my opinion) initially saw the hook and perhaps didn't quickly see the release from the far side. He never budged with his arms out position.

Share this post


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

By not what you said- I was referring to the way you phrased it fairly absolutely. I was responding similarly to @klehner in showing you that there are exceptions. I agree it's not an easy call. I wonder if Jim Rivello (very good ref in my opinion) initially saw the hook and perhaps didn't quickly see the release from the far side. He never budged with his arms out position.

I agree that is what most likely happened and think he was calling what he saw, and that’s fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting factoid from Ramirez after the match:

Quote

In an interview with EIWA contributor Betsy Veysman, Ramirez said it was the third 3-2 bout between the two, with the wrestlers splitting a pair of matches during Ramirez's sophomore year of high school.  

 

Share this post


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

True. Had the whistle not blown, it was more likely Ramirez would have squared up than Shane gotten behind.

He was already squared up.  Shane is ~ out in front and not to the side.

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...