Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Two_on_one

Yazdani's illegal foot stomping single

Recommended Posts

I volunteer coach HS wrestling, and use both ties a lot. Double collar is for when I need to wear down someone in remarkably better shape (read: everyone older than 14). Football tie is for when I need to choke someone out for taking me down earlier. Don't go across the wind pipe, just stick the blade of your thumb in their carotid and wait.

Wait... what?

 

If you work with children and don't try to seriously injure them, you're not preparing them for the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full nelson and the three quarters nelson should be automatically illegal -- there is already a ban on touching the head or neck with two hands. There doesn't need to be another rule.

 

In an ideal world, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of people have mentioned Dave; here's a good example. 0:13

 

 

I feel pretty confident in saying what "chancery" has historically meant in English: encircling the head with your arm. It's quite an old term:

 

When I have established a pair of well-pronounced feathering-calluses on my thumbs, when I am in training so that I can do my fifteen miles at a stretch without coming to grief in any way, when I can perform my mile in eight minutes or a little less, then I feel as if I had old Time's head in chancery, and could give it to him at my leisure.

 

It's an allusion to the Court of Chancery. The term was used in boxing as well, back when a lot more clinching was allowed. Older American wrestling terminology tended to focus more on holds than moves, and to compose names from more basic terms... so you'd see "front chancery", "side chancery", "rear chancery", "bar arm and chancery", etc. The "cement mixer", as a hold (not a move), is a bar arm and chancery. We actually called it that, or abbreviated it to "chancery", when I was a lad.

 

That has not much to do with FILA's rule, which is as strange as a lot of their other rules.

 

By the way, notice that the prohibition of treading on the feet is in the same list as dislocating his joints? Should they get the same penalty, then? And as someone noted, you can't seize the sole of the foot, either. Well, then, if I shoot, and the opponent seizes the sole of my foot in the course of defending, it should be a penalty, right? If I complete the move, I get the score of the move + caution + 1, and caution + 2 if I don't, just like a leg foul in Greco?

 

You can poke holes like this all day long. I think the reason this doesn't bother the folks at FILA is that these things we're reading aren't the rules. Realistically, despite the use of the word "rules" in the title, these are the written guidelines. The actual rules are what people understand them to be, at a given time; an understanding which is fine tuned (and sometimes not-so-finely tuned) at the referees' clinic before the tournament. Or during the tournament.

 

We want the written rules to be accurate, and for the way matches are called to reflect these in a fairly literal way. This is our cultural perspective; other people are quite comfortable with the way things are done internationally.

 

And yeah: it's a really freakin' good cultural perspective, that people damned well ought to adopt. But still, it's a characteristically American outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then, if I shoot, and the opponent seizes the sole of my foot in the course of defending, it should be a penalty, right? If I complete the move, I get the score of the move + caution + 1, and caution + 2 if I don't, just like a leg foul in Greco?

 

Exactly this happened to me once when I grabbed a guys foot.

 

I also saw had a teammate score a point because his opponent pushed him out of bounds with a two handed shove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The full nelson and the three quarters nelson should be automatically illegal -- there is already a ban on touching the head or neck with two hands. There doesn't need to be another rule.

 

In an ideal world, of course.

 

How does 3/4 nelson differ from a half nelson? In Europe we train half nelson + hand as a power version of the move, from kids to adults. And it looks pretty much like the 3/4 nelson pictured.

 

1. Get half nelson.

2. Put your other hand on top of your other hand.

3. Crank the neck and push forwards with your chest and legs.

 

I've never seen anyone call this move illegal. This is pretty much the basic half-nelson here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The full nelson and the three quarters nelson should be automatically illegal -- there is already a ban on touching the head or neck with two hands. There doesn't need to be another rule.

 

In an ideal world, of course.

 

How does 3/4 nelson differ from a half nelson? In Europe we train half nelson + hand as a power version of the move, from kids to adults. And it looks pretty much like the 3/4 nelson pictured.

 

1. Get half nelson.

2. Put your other hand on top of your other hand.

3. Crank the neck and push forwards with your chest and legs.

 

I've never seen anyone call this move illegal. This is pretty much the basic half-nelson here.

You are describing what we call a power half. A 1/4 nelson is similar (reinforcing the wrist), and is legal. A 3/4 nelson looks like this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wrestlers are forbidden to: Seize the sole of the opponent’s foot (only seizing the upper part of the foot or the heel is permitted)."

 

Some photos might help clear this up.

 

I assume that there's a lot of discretion left to the referee here (ha ha).

 

I didn't ask for clarification of this rule. My assumption is that any attempt to grab the bottom of the foot near the heel is okay, and anything that looks like you're grabbing the actual foot or toes instead might occasionally warrant the referee giving you a caution - or maybe just slapping your hand away!

 

Why is this rule in place? To discourage defensive scrambling? I'm having a hard time picturing the potential danger involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The full nelson and the three quarters nelson should be automatically illegal -- there is already a ban on touching the head or neck with two hands. There doesn't need to be another rule.

 

In an ideal world, of course.

 

How does 3/4 nelson differ from a half nelson? In Europe we train half nelson + hand as a power version of the move, from kids to adults. And it looks pretty much like the 3/4 nelson pictured.

 

1. Get half nelson.

2. Put your other hand on top of your other hand.

3. Crank the neck and push forwards with your chest and legs.

 

I've never seen anyone call this move illegal. This is pretty much the basic half-nelson here.

You are describing what we call a power half. A 1/4 nelson is similar (reinforcing the wrist), and is legal. A 3/4 nelson looks like this:

 

 

Ok, now I get it. The arm goes straight under the arm, not on top of the head. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an allusion to the Court of Chancery. The term was used in boxing as well, back when a lot more clinching was allowed. Older American wrestling terminology tended to focus more on holds than moves, and to compose names from more basic terms... so you'd see "front chancery", "side chancery", "rear chancery", "bar arm and chancery", etc. The "cement mixer", as a hold (not a move), is a bar arm and chancery. We actually called it that, or abbreviated it to "chancery", when I was a lad.

 

interesting! was able to google the court of chancery easily enough. couldn't find out how the name got applied to a wrestler headlock, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an allusion to the Court of Chancery. The term was used in boxing as well, back when a lot more clinching was allowed. Older American wrestling terminology tended to focus more on holds than moves, and to compose names from more basic terms... so you'd see "front chancery", "side chancery", "rear chancery", "bar arm and chancery", etc. The "cement mixer", as a hold (not a move), is a bar arm and chancery. We actually called it that, or abbreviated it to "chancery", when I was a lad.

 

interesting! was able to google the court of chancery easily enough. couldn't find out how the name got applied to a wrestler headlock, tho.

 

It's a place you get stuck. For instance, the Dickens novel Bleak House is a dark comedy about an inheritance case which drags on so long that it ultimately ends when legal fees consume the entire value of the estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an allusion to the Court of Chancery. The term was used in boxing as well, back when a lot more clinching was allowed. Older American wrestling terminology tended to focus more on holds than moves, and to compose names from more basic terms... so you'd see "front chancery", "side chancery", "rear chancery", "bar arm and chancery", etc. The "cement mixer", as a hold (not a move), is a bar arm and chancery. We actually called it that, or abbreviated it to "chancery", when I was a lad.

 

interesting! was able to google the court of chancery easily enough. couldn't find out how the name got applied to a wrestler headlock, tho.

I looked it up on Oxford English Dictionary. Comes from boxing and dates to the 1800s, as Ray said. It's when the opponent can't defend himself from punches because you've wrapped up his head with one arm (which sounds just like the legal system).

 

The OED does not say that it refers to a 3/4 nelson, though. Maybe we should send an email to have them update their usage.

 

 

You can poke holes like this all day long. I think the reason this doesn't bother the folks at FILA is that these things we're reading aren't the rules. Realistically, despite the use of the word "rules" in the title, these are the written guidelines. The actual rules are what people understand them to be, at a given time; an understanding which is fine tuned (and sometimes not-so-finely tuned) at the referees' clinic before the tournament. Or during the tournament.

 

We want the written rules to be accurate, and for the way matches are called to reflect these in a fairly literal way. This is our cultural perspective; other people are quite comfortable with the way things are done internationally.

 

And yeah: it's a really freakin' good cultural perspective, that people damned well ought to adopt. But still, it's a characteristically American outlook.

 

I agree with basically all of this, but I've been thinking about it and a few other things are probably worth saying. Bothering about what's in the rulebook may be a post-Enlightenment attitude, but it's not necessarily an American thing. There may be less tolerance for corruption and less cynicism about rules in our culture than in the former Soviet Republics, but since the vast majority of people involved with the sport in the US will never look at the rulebook, I'm not sure how American it is to expect the rules to coincide with the rulebook.

 

The sport is supposed to be global, not an old boy's club. If the rules as they are written are similar to how they are typically called, then the sport becomes more accessible to the general public in this country and elsewhere. If the rules and their interpretations are relatively stable, that helps too. I get the impression that the general wrestling population in this country is mystified when it comes to international rules -- not a good thing if you're trying to grow the sport.

 

The last time I looked at the rules for squash (our competitors for the Olympic spot), I found them to be far better organized and thought out than the rules for wrestling, at least on the surface. They were also translated into more than half a dozen languages (maybe 9?). As of right now, they've been updated, and there are only five languages for the rules available on the World Squash website.

 

http://www.worldsquash.org/ws/rules/rules-of-squash-2

 

I'd like to see the language in the rules cleaned up. I'd be happy to volunteer to do it myself, but that's not how these things work, which is why the rules are vague now. In any event, translating the rules into many languages and making those sets of rules available should be coordinated through the FILA website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray & quanon - thanks! appreciate the assistance regarding the etymology of chancery holds. sounds positively Kafkaesque!

Actually, Bleak House does read a lot like Kafka... or vice-versa, you might say, since it came first. I think it's my favorite Dickens novel, despite that otherwise I prefer the lighter, funny ones like Nicholas Nickleby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sport is supposed to be global, not an old boy's club. If the rules as they are written are similar to how they are typically called, then the sport becomes more accessible to the general public in this country and elsewhere.

 

 

I wrestled freestyle for years in the 2000s (...mostly Cadet) and have followed the international scene for more than two years (I jumped on the Burroughs bandwagon), and I have no clue what some of the "penalties" refer to. That's not good for the sport. The rules in general have lots of nonsensical rules in the book that no one calls. Why do we still have the "if you don't bridge during a gut-wrench it's a 2-2 score" rule still if no one has ever called it that way?

 

 

We want the written rules to be accurate, and for the way matches are called to reflect these in a fairly literal way. This is our cultural perspective; other people are quite comfortable with the way things are done internationally.

 

And yeah: it's a really freakin' good cultural perspective, that people damned well ought to adopt. But still, it's a characteristically American outlook.

 

Imagine if American football had these kinds of loosey goosey rules and interpretations for stuff like scoring possessions or out-out-bounds calls. Granted, holding penalties in football are kind of "whatever the ref wants to call that day," but the internet would collapse the first time the Pats lost a game because a ref called a pass incomplete not because of the wording of the rules, but because that's how he calls it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the language in the rules cleaned up. I'd be happy to volunteer to do it myself, but that's not how these things work, which is why the rules are vague now.

I don't know; FILA might still be in a more open-minded mood, after their recent trauma. Perhaps Stan could give some idea as to whether such an initiative would be well-received. I would be happy to help, if I thought the work would amount to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Wrestlers are forbidden to: Seize the sole of the opponent’s foot (only seizing the upper part of the foot or the heel is permitted)."

 

Some photos might help clear this up.

 

I assume that there's a lot of discretion left to the referee here (ha ha).

 

I didn't ask for clarification of this rule. My assumption is that any attempt to grab the bottom of the foot near the heel is okay, and anything that looks like you're grabbing the actual foot or toes instead might occasionally warrant the referee giving you a caution - or maybe just slapping your hand away!

 

Why is this rule in place? To discourage defensive scrambling? I'm having a hard time picturing the potential danger involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know most of the story regarding the 3/4 nelson being made illegal. Hodge lost his first match of the round ribin by a fall despite his opponent not touching him at the time and Hodge was thrown off the mat (danny told me that is what happened). He has the Soviet in the next match, not being a good mood he did torture the opponent by applying the 3/4. At that time there was a 3- minute par terre period for each wrestler, even if you scored a reversal you went back down(you did get the point for the reversal). You were to try to keep a base. The Soviets got it declared a inhumane hold shortly thereafter, and it has been illegal since then. Danny said he could have put the guy on his back without hooking the foot/leg of the opponent. The grabbing the head with both hands occurred sometime in the mid to late 90s.

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...