Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vhsalum

GOT TAMMIT FILA!

Recommended Posts

quanon wrote,

 

"So, my question is, what was the process for how this rules change came about? Who wanted it, and who made the decision to "interpret" the rules in this new way?"

 

The Refereeing Commission in Kazan noted that the following: "To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him" was inadvertently moved to the 2 pt category and should've remained in the 1 pt category. It also mentioned that criteria still had "Fewest # of Cautions" trumping "Highest value of a hold" which also was corrected.

 

oldrules wrote:

 

"Yeah um, I am going to have to call bs. A good counter wrestler is not ill prepared, they are just taking advantage of a different skill set. So a good whizzer countering a single only gets one point. That is about as subjective and phucked up as it gets."

 

A well executed whizzer more likely than not would either take an opponent from standing [tri-pod]to the mat or lift an opponent off the mat before returning him to his side or back in order to be successful, hence a 2 pt. TD.

 

Sockobow wrote:

 

"Stan: Was the Gilman match called correctly? Gilman got an angle off of the original shot then went to a high crotch of his own before the opponent bellied down and Gilman finished behind. Most American's thought it was a bad call. Was it a bad call or is it the rule we don't agree with? It is a very gray area because he didn't pass behind, he went to a counter high crotch....."

 

Again, what I think doesn't matter; but I can assure you, I would've challenged.

 

tirapell wrote,

"Just wow. It must be nice up on that pedestal Stan...

 

I just wish you'd spend less time bullsh!ting and more time listening to ONLY thing that can save a dying sport - FANS!"

 

Thank you for your well thought-out, articulate comments. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone involved in making the rules can't say if it was the right or wrong call? that is a problem. was that your round about way of saying it was the wrong call and you don't want to throw the officials under the bus? or the governing body doesn't know how to score their own sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone involved in making the rules can't say if it was the right or wrong call? that is a problem. was that your round about way of saying it was the wrong call and you don't want to throw the officials under the bus? or the governing body doesn't know how to score their own sport?

 

Where did he say he didn't know? He said his opinion was irrelevant and he would have challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Refereeing Commission in Kazan noted that the following: "To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him" was inadvertently moved to the 2 pt category and should've remained in the 1 pt category. It also mentioned that criteria still had "Fewest # of Cautions" trumping "Highest value of a hold" which also was corrected.

 

In that case, there are significant mistakes in the published rules. When will the official rules be amended on the FILA site?

 

Another question: there was originally some confusion over pushouts. If Wrestler A pushed Wrestler B out of bounds without attempting a scoring hold, some wanted B to score. Under the current rules, A should always score 1 point:

1 point goes "To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position)." Is this still the way we should read this rule, or is there a more nuanced interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone involved in making the rules can't say if it was the right or wrong call? that is a problem. was that your round about way of saying it was the wrong call and you don't want to throw the officials under the bus? or the governing body doesn't know how to score their own sport?

 

Where did he say he didn't know? He said his opinion was irrelevant and he would have challenged.

 

his answer bothered me either way. if he doesn't want to say because the official made a bad call you can't expect the guys to get it right when they aren't publicly called out for bad calls. humans are going to make officiating mistakes. especially when going through rule changes. inform the wrestlers, coaches, and fans whether the call was right or wrong according to the book. or at least say the sequence was so close that it could be interpreted either way.

 

if his opinion is irrelevant i am either misinformed about his role with fila or he doesn't know how the rules he helped create should be called. his opinion is relevant and i believe he thought it should have been scored 2 points. don't beat around the bush. come out and say it. is it filas understanding that this situation was called correctly or incorrectly?

 

when our major sporting organizations have a controversial call the review it and tell us if their rules were applied correctly or not. it is in the best interest of everyone involved to know. even if the answer is it could be called either way because it was really close. that would be a red flag for me to say the rule sucks when there is a situation that could be scored either way, but that is a whole other discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents:

 

The distinction between the pass-behind and the takedown is this: if you take a man down, he has to be standing (this scores 2 points). If you "pass behind" him, he is already on the ground (this scores 1 point). For the purposes of scoring, since there are no reversals like in folkstyle, it doesn't matter whether the opponent has already gained control of you before you score on him.

 

I haven't seen the Gilman match, but whether Gilman initiated his own attack should not matter. If he gained control of a standing opponent, it should be 2. If he gained control of a grounded opponent, it should be 1. From the description (scoring from a high crotch) it sounds like the opponent did not have 3 supporting points on the ground, so it sounds like it should have scored 2.

 

I think the sport would be a lot easier to understand if there were no difference in points between the "takedown" and the "pass behind" because any change in control would result in the same amount of points. But it is what it is, and if the points are going to be different, we should understand why.

 

It might help if the English rules were written more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I get an answer from someone that holds some kind of authority in the sport, I end up more depressed. The rules in May went from straight-forward to more and more in the ref's hands and small details the general public won't understand. I'd like to think the rules won't change again in the next month, but I know I'd be dreaming to think they'd leave them alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... An european view here.

 

StanDziedzic , I have wrestled for 26 years internationally and locally, and, AFAIK, a firemans carry and front headlock are considered throws in international wrestling. A takedown would be a foot sweep and the like. Basically moves that just force your opponent to the mat are takedowns, and moves that get your opponent's feet off the ground are considered throws (with back exposure). Correct?

 

Otherwise I agree with all your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah um, I am going to have to call bs. A good counter wrestler is not ill prepared, they are just taking advantage of a different skill set. So a good whizzer countering a single only gets one point. That is about as subjective and phucked up as it gets.

 

Shouldn't this be 2 points?

Although you hardly ever see whizzers in freestyle wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the problem is that FILA's trying way too hard to reward only offense. By doing so, the rules have become ridiculously complex. If even the avid international wrestling fans on this board can't understand the calls, then how in the world is anyone else going to understand them?

 

Stan says, "Think keep it simple!" Well, maybe it's simple to him and the rest of the geniuses FILA, but if you can't explain the scoring to your 8-year-old son in the stands (as you can with the popular spectator sports), you've got a problem. So what if it's been like that for "40 + yrs"? That doesn't make it right. And 40 years is just a blip in the history of the sport.

 

I mean, a takedown should mean gaining control of your opponent from the neutral position. So what if that's what it is in folkstyle? It works and nobody's confused about it. It would not change the essence of freestyle, yet it would make it infinitely easier to understand. All this go-behind, feet-to-mat, how-do-you-score-a-front-headlock confusion should simply be tossed out.

 

Bottom line, I suggest that FILA remove any rule where the points only go to the offense/risk taker. And that includes slip throws too. All those rules do is keep it complicated. I don't care if scoring goes down; I don't care if a defensive wrestler wins a gold medal. At least we'll be able to watch a match and understand what's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thanks for responding Stan. I hope you understand how frustrated we are, and I understand you are not the dictator of FILA... with that said, here are my issues, responding to your examples in kind...

 

standziedic wrote

Perhaps a few examples will help:

1. Let's start w/ a standing headlock. Wrestle A throws his opponent directly to the mat exposing his opponent's shoulders; wrestler B immediately slips out and "passes-behind". International Scoring: 3 pts for a TD w/ exposure is awarded to wrestler A, 1 pt wrestler B for a 'pass-behind' or 'reversal', your choice; Folkstyle in contrast: Wrestler A is awarded 0 pts for his efforts to take his opponent from his feet down to the mat; wrestler B is mysteriously anointed a 2 pt TD--even though wrestler B never took wrestler A down, only wiggled his head free Unintended consequence: In the USA the fans are denied what many associate as fundamental to wrestling--a headlock. How often do you see a collegiate wrestler throw a headlock? Explain the folkstyle scoring to a novice intern'l-wrestling fan and you probably will get this response: "That seems stupid, why would anyone ever risk throwing a headlock in American folkstyle?" Answer: "They don't."

 

Lets not make this a Folkstyle comparison. I have my own reasons, as do many others, for enjoying Freestyle, and the one thing I like is the inherent risk involved in freestyle is rewarded. This is not a good example, because a rule is already in place for this specific situation... It's a called a slip. And any freestyle fan, American or otherwise understands the difference. This is not what is upsetting me.

 

standziedic wrote,

2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

 

Once again, NOT an example of what is being "intrepreted" as a takedown. There is no issue in this situation for which it is called, and "technically" this should be considered a "pass behind" as according to the new rules "clarification." But I digress...

 

standziedic wrote,

Remember the preeminent goal remains: to determine the "better wrestler." This should be accomplished not be assumptions or anointing points; rather by executing viable wrestling techniques verifiable by the referees, coaches, wrestlers and viewing audience.

We're talking about judgement of value here. The benefit-of-doubt should always go to the wrestler who takes risk. The rules should differentiate between slipping one's head out after being thrown to one's back or pushing one's opponent out-of-bounds versus a well-executed TD; otherwise you create distorted incentives.

All sports require judgement. The rules are supposed to remove the value of chance. A well-executed takedown has been judged to be more valuable than a 'pass-behind' by most. As a competitor, I understand it completely. It's the soul of intern'l wrestling--it's what makes it such a great sport.

 

This is untrue as untrue gets. This defies all meaning in combative/competitive sports. It has NEVER been about "determining" the better wrestler. Listen to what your saying! This is NOT a beauty contest, nor should it ever be. The use of the word "judgement" should be taken OUT of the vocabulary of any person who actually wants to see this sport grow! And since when were the inceptions and intrepretations of the rules meant "to remove the value of chance." ???? This is a paradigm I am completely unaware of in any manner of sports.

 

Newsflash Stan - Rules are intended to instil the NOTION of equality WITHOUT bias. By your OWN ADMISSION today, you are telling me FILA is much more interested in making our sport a Beauty Pageant, or an Ice Skating Routine. I'm sorry but that's NOT what I signed up for, and not what any rational individual (American, Iranian, Russian, Turk, Cuban, Indian, et al.) would consider to be the measure of sport and what it means to participate in them. Thanks to you, I now have it in writing, that FILA is more concerned with "determining the better wrestler." That should never happen. Rules are in place to set a STANDARD, nothing more, nothing less. At that point it is the ATHLETES determine who WINS under those standards, NOT a man in a tie who didn't cut 5kg the night before!

 

standziedic wrote,

This is a perfect example: Any wrestler whose primary tactic is "jockey for position"-- euphemism for stalling in the minds of the prepared--should be penalized; assuming the referees are keen enough to recognize the ill-intention. These tactics are the very bane to the sport and needs to be banished if wrestling is to survive as a dynamic modern Olympic sport.

 

There is already a rule in place for this "type" of wrestling. It is called passivity. It exists, it is being called. Leave it at that.

 

standziedic wrote,

Think keep it simple!

Most in the world would be confused if someone was awarded a TD, for what to them is clearly not a TD, rather a "pass-behind." Of course, this is not generally the way USA fans accustomed to folkstyle have grown to misuse the term or interpret what is a TD. Yet for the largest majority of the world, it's been this way forever or at least since I started wrestling intern'lly some 40+ yrs ago. Many American fans, burdened w/ this pre-conceived notion of a TD, have never quite discerned the difference--perhaps because it didn't matter, both were scored 1 pt. until now.

The new rules now demand an interpretation [the referee's job]. Why? because a TD is now 2 pts. and what folkstyle defines as a 'reversal', but the world may call in some circumstances a 'pass-behind' is still 1 pt.

 

Yes. Lets! And here we finally arrive at the crux of the problem and the reason I am so disgusted has only been verifed by yourself. I appreciate the historical cultural lesson. I didn't realize that outside of the US, there was an inherent difference between a "pass-behind" and a takedown. (no sarcasm, this at least explains a bit why there was a rules "clarification")

 

Americans have NOT misused or mis-interpreted what is a TD. In FILA's own rule book it has ALWAYS been worth the same amount of points as a leg attack. This needs to be called what it is, a RULE CHANGE. Once again, it has been decided that ARBITRARY rule-making and interpretation of techniques should be factors in "determining the better wrestler."

 

Therein lies the dichotomy between FILA and those who actually love sports. I won't get into the MILLIONS of examples wherein, the better athlete or team didn't win. That has NEVER been the point of sports. I can't believe you're admitting that FILA wants wrestling to become, or get closer to, Ice Skating, Gymnastics, Battle Rap, et al - sports that allow humans OTHER than the athletes competing to determine/judge the winner.

 

You yourself have been on this board and explained/complained about the inherent subjectivity of the officials. This bias and judgement and discernment by the referee needs to TAKEN AWAY. After all this time Stan, I thought that those in charge would truly understand. I'm heart-broken and aghast to realize that that is not the case. I truly fear for the sport, if those in charge really do believe that it is the officials "job" to INTERPRET. That is incorrect.

 

It is a referee's job, AND HIS ONLY JOB, to ENFORCE the rules of the sport. Wow. Just Wow. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

standziedic wrote,

2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

 

Once again, NOT an example of what is being "intrepreted" as a takedown. There is no issue in this situation for which it is called, and "technically" this should be considered a "pass behind" as according to the new rules "clarification." But I digress...

 

 

These situations should not be referred to as pass-behinds, "technically" or otherwise. A pass-behind is gaining control of a grounded opponent. Stan described two situations that are considered to be takedowns in freestyle, but not in folkstyle: a standing switch, and a standing Peterson roll. In folkstyle, those are reversals, but there are no reversals in freestyle.

 

In freestyle, there are: pass-behinds (now worth 1), takedowns (now worth 2), exposures (usually 2, except for hand to hand, which is still 1 for some reason, even though it was supposed to be 2 after the rules changes) and throws (3 or 5). Any of those scoring holds could result from neutral, or from a situation in which the opponent already has control.

 

That's my understanding -- if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected about this.

 

If the rules had simple names along with short definitions for each type of score, I think it would really help eliminate some of this confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, thanks for responding Stan. I hope you understand how frustrated we are, and I understand you are not the dictator of FILA... with that said, here are my issues, responding to your examples in kind...

 

standziedic wrote

Perhaps a few examples will help:

1. Let's start w/ a standing headlock. Wrestle A throws his opponent directly to the mat exposing his opponent's shoulders; wrestler B immediately slips out and "passes-behind". International Scoring: 3 pts for a TD w/ exposure is awarded to wrestler A, 1 pt wrestler B for a 'pass-behind' or 'reversal', your choice; Folkstyle in contrast: Wrestler A is awarded 0 pts for his efforts to take his opponent from his feet down to the mat; wrestler B is mysteriously anointed a 2 pt TD--even though wrestler B never took wrestler A down, only wiggled his head free Unintended consequence: In the USA the fans are denied what many associate as fundamental to wrestling--a headlock. How often do you see a collegiate wrestler throw a headlock? Explain the folkstyle scoring to a novice intern'l-wrestling fan and you probably will get this response: "That seems stupid, why would anyone ever risk throwing a headlock in American folkstyle?" Answer: "They don't."

 

Lets not make this a Folkstyle comparison. I have my own reasons, as do many others, for enjoying Freestyle, and the one thing I like is the inherent risk involved in freestyle is rewarded. This is not a good example, because a rule is already in place for this specific situation... It's a called a slip. And any freestyle fan, American or otherwise understands the difference. This is not what is upsetting me.

 

standziedic wrote,

2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

 

Once again, NOT an example of what is being "intrepreted" as a takedown. There is no issue in this situation for which it is called, and "technically" this should be considered a "pass behind" as according to the new rules "clarification." But I digress...

 

standziedic wrote,

Remember the preeminent goal remains: to determine the "better wrestler." This should be accomplished not be assumptions or anointing points; rather by executing viable wrestling techniques verifiable by the referees, coaches, wrestlers and viewing audience.

We're talking about judgement of value here. The benefit-of-doubt should always go to the wrestler who takes risk. The rules should differentiate between slipping one's head out after being thrown to one's back or pushing one's opponent out-of-bounds versus a well-executed TD; otherwise you create distorted incentives.

All sports require judgement. The rules are supposed to remove the value of chance. A well-executed takedown has been judged to be more valuable than a 'pass-behind' by most. As a competitor, I understand it completely. It's the soul of intern'l wrestling--it's what makes it such a great sport.

 

This is untrue as untrue gets. This defies all meaning in combative/competitive sports. It has NEVER been about "determining" the better wrestler. Listen to what your saying! This is NOT a beauty contest, nor should it ever be. The use of the word "judgement" should be taken OUT of the vocabulary of any person who actually wants to see this sport grow! And since when were the inceptions and intrepretations of the rules meant "to remove the value of chance." ???? This is a paradigm I am completely unaware of in any manner of sports.

 

Newsflash Stan - Rules are intended to instil the NOTION of equality WITHOUT bias. By your OWN ADMISSION today, you are telling me FILA is much more interested in making our sport a Beauty Pageant, or an Ice Skating Routine. I'm sorry but that's NOT what I signed up for, and not what any rational individual (American, Iranian, Russian, Turk, Cuban, Indian, et al.) would consider to be the measure of sport and what it means to participate in them. Thanks to you, I now have it in writing, that FILA is more concerned with "determining the better wrestler." That should never happen. Rules are in place to set a STANDARD, nothing more, nothing less. At that point it is the ATHLETES determine who WINS under those standards, NOT a man in a tie who didn't cut 5kg the night before!

 

standziedic wrote,

This is a perfect example: Any wrestler whose primary tactic is "jockey for position"-- euphemism for stalling in the minds of the prepared--should be penalized; assuming the referees are keen enough to recognize the ill-intention. These tactics are the very bane to the sport and needs to be banished if wrestling is to survive as a dynamic modern Olympic sport.

 

There is already a rule in place for this "type" of wrestling. It is called passivity. It exists, it is being called. Leave it at that.

 

standziedic wrote,

Think keep it simple!

Most in the world would be confused if someone was awarded a TD, for what to them is clearly not a TD, rather a "pass-behind." Of course, this is not generally the way USA fans accustomed to folkstyle have grown to misuse the term or interpret what is a TD. Yet for the largest majority of the world, it's been this way forever or at least since I started wrestling intern'lly some 40+ yrs ago. Many American fans, burdened w/ this pre-conceived notion of a TD, have never quite discerned the difference--perhaps because it didn't matter, both were scored 1 pt. until now.

The new rules now demand an interpretation [the referee's job]. Why? because a TD is now 2 pts. and what folkstyle defines as a 'reversal', but the world may call in some circumstances a 'pass-behind' is still 1 pt.

 

Yes. Lets! And here we finally arrive at the crux of the problem and the reason I am so disgusted has only been verifed by yourself. I appreciate the historical cultural lesson. I didn't realize that outside of the US, there was an inherent difference between a "pass-behind" and a takedown. (no sarcasm, this at least explains a bit why there was a rules "clarification")

 

Americans have NOT misused or mis-interpreted what is a TD. In FILA's own rule book it has ALWAYS been worth the same amount of points as a leg attack. This needs to be called what it is, a RULE CHANGE. Once again, it has been decided that ARBITRARY rule-making and interpretation of techniques should be factors in "determining the better wrestler."

 

Therein lies the dichotomy between FILA and those who actually love sports. I won't get into the MILLIONS of examples wherein, the better athlete or team didn't win. That has NEVER been the point of sports. I can't believe you're admitting that FILA wants wrestling to become, or get closer to, Ice Skating, Gymnastics, Battle Rap, et al - sports that allow humans OTHER than the athletes competing to determine/judge the winner.

 

You yourself have been on this board and explained/complained about the inherent subjectivity of the officials. This bias and judgement and discernment by the referee needs to TAKEN AWAY. After all this time Stan, I thought that those in charge would truly understand. I'm heart-broken and aghast to realize that that is not the case. I truly fear for the sport, if those in charge really do believe that it is the officials "job" to INTERPRET. That is incorrect.

 

It is a referee's job, AND HIS ONLY JOB, to ENFORCE the rules of the sport. Wow. Just Wow. :cry:

 

Now THAT is a checkmate!

 

Stan, I'd write more if I thought I'd get a real answer. I don't have the patience to listen to you treat me and everyone else like we were born yesterday. The fans who "know nothing" are the answer, but you and the cronies are too arrogant to listen to anyone but yourselves, fellow World medalists :roll:

 

But I do enjoy the butt-kicking you are taking on the boards, trying to spin your way out of incompetence. I just wonder why you feel so superior, with the horrendous job you have done at being the steward of our sport. You should have your tail between your legs begging for forgiveness for 30 years of mismanagement, secrecy, and unapproachable behavior. But I guess the entitlement mentality is hard to escape.

 

The way I look at it, we're in a win-win situation. We keep the Games or we lose FILA and people like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance we can get a comment from Stan on why the 10 point technical superiority was changed to 7? We have seen countless times wrestlers come back from 6-0 deficits in a matter of minutes....Why not extend the technical superiority to 10 or 12? I don't believe I have seen the reasoning for this change addressed yet by fila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, thanks for responding Stan. I hope you understand how frustrated we are, and I understand you are not the dictator of FILA... with that said, here are my issues, responding to your examples in kind...

 

standziedic wrote

Perhaps a few examples will help:

1. Let's start w/ a standing headlock. Wrestle A throws his opponent directly to the mat exposing his opponent's shoulders; wrestler B immediately slips out and "passes-behind". International Scoring: 3 pts for a TD w/ exposure is awarded to wrestler A, 1 pt wrestler B for a 'pass-behind' or 'reversal', your choice; Folkstyle in contrast: Wrestler A is awarded 0 pts for his efforts to take his opponent from his feet down to the mat; wrestler B is mysteriously anointed a 2 pt TD--even though wrestler B never took wrestler A down, only wiggled his head free Unintended consequence: In the USA the fans are denied what many associate as fundamental to wrestling--a headlock. How often do you see a collegiate wrestler throw a headlock? Explain the folkstyle scoring to a novice intern'l-wrestling fan and you probably will get this response: "That seems stupid, why would anyone ever risk throwing a headlock in American folkstyle?" Answer: "They don't."

 

Lets not make this a Folkstyle comparison. I have my own reasons, as do many others, for enjoying Freestyle, and the one thing I like is the inherent risk involved in freestyle is rewarded. This is not a good example, because a rule is already in place for this specific situation... It's a called a slip. And any freestyle fan, American or otherwise understands the difference. This is not what is upsetting me.

 

standziedic wrote,

2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

 

Once again, NOT an example of what is being "intrepreted" as a takedown. There is no issue in this situation for which it is called, and "technically" this should be considered a "pass behind" as according to the new rules "clarification." But I digress...

 

standziedic wrote,

Remember the preeminent goal remains: to determine the "better wrestler." This should be accomplished not be assumptions or anointing points; rather by executing viable wrestling techniques verifiable by the referees, coaches, wrestlers and viewing audience.

We're talking about judgement of value here. The benefit-of-doubt should always go to the wrestler who takes risk. The rules should differentiate between slipping one's head out after being thrown to one's back or pushing one's opponent out-of-bounds versus a well-executed TD; otherwise you create distorted incentives.

All sports require judgement. The rules are supposed to remove the value of chance. A well-executed takedown has been judged to be more valuable than a 'pass-behind' by most. As a competitor, I understand it completely. It's the soul of intern'l wrestling--it's what makes it such a great sport.

 

This is untrue as untrue gets. This defies all meaning in combative/competitive sports. It has NEVER been about "determining" the better wrestler. Listen to what your saying! This is NOT a beauty contest, nor should it ever be. The use of the word "judgement" should be taken OUT of the vocabulary of any person who actually wants to see this sport grow! And since when were the inceptions and intrepretations of the rules meant "to remove the value of chance." ???? This is a paradigm I am completely unaware of in any manner of sports.

 

Newsflash Stan - Rules are intended to instil the NOTION of equality WITHOUT bias. By your OWN ADMISSION today, you are telling me FILA is much more interested in making our sport a Beauty Pageant, or an Ice Skating Routine. I'm sorry but that's NOT what I signed up for, and not what any rational individual (American, Iranian, Russian, Turk, Cuban, Indian, et al.) would consider to be the measure of sport and what it means to participate in them. Thanks to you, I now have it in writing, that FILA is more concerned with "determining the better wrestler." That should never happen. Rules are in place to set a STANDARD, nothing more, nothing less. At that point it is the ATHLETES determine who WINS under those standards, NOT a man in a tie who didn't cut 5kg the night before!

 

standziedic wrote,

This is a perfect example: Any wrestler whose primary tactic is "jockey for position"-- euphemism for stalling in the minds of the prepared--should be penalized; assuming the referees are keen enough to recognize the ill-intention. These tactics are the very bane to the sport and needs to be banished if wrestling is to survive as a dynamic modern Olympic sport.

 

There is already a rule in place for this "type" of wrestling. It is called passivity. It exists, it is being called. Leave it at that.

 

standziedic wrote,

Think keep it simple!

Most in the world would be confused if someone was awarded a TD, for what to them is clearly not a TD, rather a "pass-behind." Of course, this is not generally the way USA fans accustomed to folkstyle have grown to misuse the term or interpret what is a TD. Yet for the largest majority of the world, it's been this way forever or at least since I started wrestling intern'lly some 40+ yrs ago. Many American fans, burdened w/ this pre-conceived notion of a TD, have never quite discerned the difference--perhaps because it didn't matter, both were scored 1 pt. until now.

The new rules now demand an interpretation [the referee's job]. Why? because a TD is now 2 pts. and what folkstyle defines as a 'reversal', but the world may call in some circumstances a 'pass-behind' is still 1 pt.

 

Yes. Lets! And here we finally arrive at the crux of the problem and the reason I am so disgusted has only been verifed by yourself. I appreciate the historical cultural lesson. I didn't realize that outside of the US, there was an inherent difference between a "pass-behind" and a takedown. (no sarcasm, this at least explains a bit why there was a rules "clarification")

 

Americans have NOT misused or mis-interpreted what is a TD. In FILA's own rule book it has ALWAYS been worth the same amount of points as a leg attack. This needs to be called what it is, a RULE CHANGE. Once again, it has been decided that ARBITRARY rule-making and interpretation of techniques should be factors in "determining the better wrestler."

 

Therein lies the dichotomy between FILA and those who actually love sports. I won't get into the MILLIONS of examples wherein, the better athlete or team didn't win. That has NEVER been the point of sports. I can't believe you're admitting that FILA wants wrestling to become, or get closer to, Ice Skating, Gymnastics, Battle Rap, et al - sports that allow humans OTHER than the athletes competing to determine/judge the winner.

 

You yourself have been on this board and explained/complained about the inherent subjectivity of the officials. This bias and judgement and discernment by the referee needs to TAKEN AWAY. After all this time Stan, I thought that those in charge would truly understand. I'm heart-broken and aghast to realize that that is not the case. I truly fear for the sport, if those in charge really do believe that it is the officials "job" to INTERPRET. That is incorrect.

 

It is a referee's job, AND HIS ONLY JOB, to ENFORCE the rules of the sport. Wow. Just Wow. :cry:

 

Now THAT is a checkmate!

 

Stan, I'd write more if I thought I'd get a real answer. I don't have the patience to listen to you treat me and everyone else like we were born yesterday. The fans who "know nothing" are the answer, but you and the cronies are too arrogant to listen to anyone but yourselves, fellow World medalists :roll:

 

But I do enjoy the butt-kicking you are taking on the boards, trying to spin your way out of incompetence. I just wonder why you feel so superior, with the horrendous job you have done at being the steward of our sport. You should have your tail between your legs begging for forgiveness for 30 years of mismanagement, secrecy, and unapproachable behavior. But I guess the entitlement mentality is hard to escape.

 

The way I look at it, we're in a win-win situation. We keep the Games or we lose FILA and people like you.

Checkmate numbers two (vhsalum's post) and three (Mr. Tirapelle's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quanon wrote,

"In that case, there are significant mistakes in the published rules. When will the official rules be amended on the FILA site?

Another question: there was originally some confusion over pushouts. If Wrestler A pushed Wrestler B out of bounds without attempting a scoring hold, some wanted B to score. Under the current rules, A should always score 1 point:

1 point goes "To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position)." Is this still the way we should read this rule, or is there a more nuanced interpretation?"

 

In Moscow this past May, the FILA Bureau & extraordinary congress [~130 member federations] needed to make a critical decision regarding the new rules. Some, mostly those in the camp of the past President who had resigned but was re-instated onto the Bureau by CAS [Council of Arbitration for Sport] and was campaigning to regain his Presidency; argued to wait until after Budapest to implement the new rules. He and his cohorts argued for all of the reasons argued here [interpretations, implementation, unintended consequences, referee training to name a few] it was necessary to wait. Others, myself being among the outspoken, argued: If we waited to make the promised changes, we'd damage wrestling's chances significantly.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Karelin [newly installed FILA co-opted member] was on my side for immediate implementation and seated next to the past President. It was agreed, the new-rules would be implemented as soon possible, provided it didn't violate existing contracts for the local organizing committees. @ the Congress Medved--not usually funny--said in effect [wrestling vernacular varies widely]: What's the problem--it's now cumulative score, 2 x 3 minute periods, takedowns are worth more than push-outs and other position changes [assumed--it appears--to mean 'pass-behinds' & 'reversals']. Everything else is just noise. As long as the referees know how to read, it's no problem. Oops that may be a problem!

Most everyone left Moscow under the expectation the World University Games [originally it resisted but was convinced to use the new rules], Jr World and Cadet World Championships to be events used to iron out the wrinkles before Budapest. In Budapest the wrestlers, coaches and referees will be fully apprised of the rules and the implementation. I trust the local organizing committee will install an instructional mechanism to inform the spectators.

 

quanon wrote:

"The distinction between the pass-behind and the takedown is this: if you take a man down, he has to be standing (this scores 2 points). If you "pass behind" him, he is already on the ground (this scores 1 point). For the purposes of scoring, since there are no reversals like in folkstyle, it doesn't matter whether the opponent has already gained control of you before you score on him. "

 

More or less--All 4s is a better description than 'Ground'. It's my understanding the referees interpret "standing" to include the tripod position, as has been the case forever. This is consistent w/ a front headlock where wrestler A turns wrestler B to his/her back. If wrestler B is on his/her feet at the start of the throw, it may be scored 3 pts 'A'. If 'B' is on all 4s at the start of the turn, 'A' only 2 pts are awarded. In other words, this is scored the same as it has been. It has nothing to do w/ either offensive or defensive.

 

 

quanon wrote:

"I haven't seen the Gilman match, but whether Gilman initiated his own attack should not matter. If he gained control of a standing opponent, it should be 2. If he gained control of a grounded opponent, it should be 1. From the description (scoring from a high crotch) it sounds like the opponent did not have 3 supporting points on the ground, so it sounds like it should have scored 2."

 

This remains my biggest concern--Will the referees of the world be able to make the distinction accordingly and consistently?

Fortunately, the wrestler via the challenge has redress on the field of play like no other athlete in any other sport. The challenge is not sent up to the 'booth' for a decision as in the NFL [i always think is the 'Wizard of Oz' in the booth?]. Instead in intern'l wrestling the challenge engages the entire viewing audience in full view for all to see.

 

It appears most of you must have missed the addition to the challenge process. The 'Jury of Appeal' now must render a decision 1st in any challenge, not only if the refereeing body disagrees as it had been.

 

The only issue remains: Why didn't the coach challenge. There is absolutely no negative consequence for the coach to throw the sponge. Why? Because the referee must present the sponge to the wrestler to validate the challenge. This should be normal practice. The decision should be the wrestler's. Gilman should know better than anyone. He can decide of taking the risk that the 3 'Jury of Appeal' members see it his way.

 

fullnelson wrote,

"What if the NFL passed a rule that interceptions run back for touchdowns now only counted as 3 pts; how do you think the public, let alone the coaches/players, would react?

This is what FILA has done!!!!!"

 

I don't believe your analogy is accurate. FILA has increased the value of a takedown to 2 pts, all other position changes, penalties and push-outs stay 1 pt. It would be as if the NFL increased the value of a field goal to 4 pts, yet kept an extra-point @ 1 pt.

Let me repeat for the last time, the 'pass-behind' has never been a takedown other than perhaps as a figment of imagination. Please review the rules for the past 50 years. I find it troubling that anyone who's wrestled, officiated or coached intern'l wrestling was not aware of what constitutes a takedown. The argument that in folkstyle it's 2 pts, doesn't fly. Nor does the argument--the fans in the USA think this is the way it should be--doesn't resonate.

When we--R. Tucci, Doc Bennett and myself--constructed the instructional DVD for the referees courses, we anticipated the need to clarify the 'position change' 1 pt and the takedown 2 pts by using the 'reversal' example I described earlier. We didn't feel it necessary to clarify the TD from the 'pass-behind.' Perhaps, the local organizing committee in Budapest would do well to play the DVD before the sessions begin each day :?:

 

 

Coach J wrote,

"You can justify the dumbness of some of these rules all you want. Facts don't lie: wrestling is out of the Olympics and new fans aren't being won. Wake up, leadership...."

 

Coach J, For your edification, wrestling is not out of the Olympics. On September 8th the Gen. Assembly of the IOC votes in Buenos Aires. We'll find out wrestling's role in the 2020 and 2024 Olympic Games at that time. Though you sound as if you may be wishing for wrestling's ouster so you have the satisfaction of saying I told you so; let's hope you're wrong!

 

This is my last post at least until after Buenos Aires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I am going to have to call bull****. No coach, official, wrestler, announcer, or other "leader" until this last week has referred to that situation as a "pass behind". Any change of control when initiated in the neutral position has always been referred to as a takedown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say, for the sake of argument (I do not believe even for a split second this to be truth), that the "pass behind" has "always" been in the rules, for 50+ years and all "well versed international wrestling fans know this" and the takedowns that we ignorant Americans have been watching for these same 50+ years are all "figments of our imagination" as they were a combination of takedowns, one of the most popualr and well-recognized words in wrestling, and "pass behinds",which no one has ever heard of until takedowns, excuse me, pass-behinds became worth only 1 point..... [deep breath]

 

That justifies keeping a bad rule? According to Stan, what we need in wrestling is more ambiguity and more "challenges" from the corner to let 3 referees, who already made the original call, review the footage, stopping the flow of action, to rule on their own call with no more clarification than can be given by the Rules Man himself, Stan.

 

And the next post on here will be "why are we out of the Olympics again?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why not just tell us if the Gilman call was correct or not according to the rules set up by FILA? my best guess is they didn't challenge because they didn't fully understand the rule. you still haven't told us if the counter attack on the high crotch should be scored 2 or 1. all you said is that you would have challenged. let the wrestling world know if that is a two point or one point scoring maneuver according to the FILA rules. it was scored two, then reversed to one point after a break in the action and brief conference. so, obviously the three guys scoring the match didn't really know how to score it. you have to assume as a coach they would have come to the same conclusion after the video review because it was easy to see, they were just unsure of how to score it.

 

ACCORDING TO THE FILA RULES BOOK: HOW SHOULD THE GILMAN SEQUENCE HAVE BEEN SCORED?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just say, for the sake of argument (I do not believe even for a split second this to be truth), that the "pass behind" has "always" been in the rules, for 50+ years and all "well versed international wrestling fans know this" and the takedowns that we ignorant Americans have been watching for these same 50+ years are all "figments of our imagination" as they were a combination of takedowns, one of the most popualr and well-recognized words in wrestling, and "pass behinds",which no one has ever heard of until takedowns, excuse me, pass-behinds became worth only 1 point..... [deep breath]

 

That justifies keeping a bad rule? According to Stan, what we need in wrestling is more ambiguity and more "challenges" from the corner to let 3 referees, who already made the original call, review the footage, stopping the flow of action, to rule on their own call with no more clarification than can be given by the Rules Man himself, Stan.

 

And the next post on here will be "why are we out of the Olympics again?"

 

The following have been in the rules for at least the past five or six years -- I don't know if the phrasing has been the same for 50 years:

 

- To the wrestler who brings his opponent to the ground by passing behind him, and while in this position holding him down with control (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or the head).

- To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him.

 

It used to be that these were both worth 1 point, and I always wondered why both were in the rules, when the second one alone would have done just as well. Now that they're worth 2 and 1, respectively, there's an obvious need for the distinction.

 

If anybody has access to old FILA rulebooks, I'd be interested in taking a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the way I understand it on the Gilman call was it was a matter of how the call developed. It was scored two by the mat official, then they kept wrestling before it was finally confirmed at 1 point. Apparently 12 seconds ticked off the clock before the score was reflected on the board. Then you're in a situation with short time and you go from winning 4-4, to being down 4-3, then throwing a challenge and losing would put you down 5-3. It's pretty safe to assume an athlete will compete differently knowing he has the lead vs. having to score. If it's 1 point right away, Gilman has time to work on par terre offense, rather than seeing 12 seconds wither away, never to be seen again.

 

So when you stand them up with short time, Gilman went from winning the match to losing by one. Why didn't they challenge? Well, the scoreboard wasn't updated to reflect the call. By the time they wished to challenge, it was "too late" as one person who was over there said.

 

Confirm the call immediately. 12 seconds is a lot of time to waste, especially towards the end of the match. If the points would have been put up immediately, then there's time to assess and throw the brick.

 

In no way did I believe that action to be a countering pass-behind. Sure, he countered the motion while standing, but the initial attacking wrestler wasn't "grounded" when scored on. At least that's the way I remember it. I'm sure the video will confirm.

 

My entire point has been there should have been an official release about the pass behind situation, regardless if the wrestlers and coaches were "aware" of the "clarification."

 

Just my two cents.

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...