Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wrestlingnerd

Confusing scoring on Ramos vs. Haze 2

Recommended Posts

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... 4qyYyhP3Zd

 

The first scoring sequence starts when Ramos lifts Haze up off the mat with a low single. He then tries to get 4 after he stands up by arching back the same way Foster took Ruth down for 4 at the US Open. However, Haze defends well and Ramos fails to get exposure, and as they land on the mat, Haze ends up on top for what looks like a TD. However, the scoring ends up 1-1.

 

How is this possible?

 

Ramos clearly got 1 point for almost taking down Haze (appreciation point). How did Haze not get 2 when he had Ramos taken down on the mat in big bird defense mode with all four supporting points on the mat? The only logical 1 pointer would've been a reversal, but if Ramos only scored 1, he clearly could not have taken Haze down and therefore Haze could clearly not have reversed him.

 

??

 

The scoring of this sequence was not material to the outcome of the match, since Ramos won handily, but I am curious to know how that sequence could end 1-1. Doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ref signaled two for Hazewinkel and was overturned.

 

This leads me to believe that the 1 point for appreciation does not result in "control" but nevertheless changes the status of the match to par terre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more interested in why Haze got one for the underarm spin that Ramos didn't come close to being taken down. If somebody could explain the "appreciation point" (old dirty?) I'd like to learn. It seems like 'we'll give you a point for a nice effort @ almost scoring'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. Used to be a way to encourage throwing- if you make your opponent travel through the air you get 1. The way they call it these days is dumb and just needs to go away like the pass behind point did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused on each if the first three scoring sequences in that match.

 

1. At 2:27, this is the 1-and-1 sequence described in the original post. Was Ramos's point for getting an "almost takedown" or just more generally for getting Haze's feet off the mat? And why did Haze only get 1 (reversal?), not 2 for a takedown? Is it because of what quanon said -- namely, that an "almost takedown" or whatever Ramos got still counts as a takedown for purposes of awarding a reversal if the opponent gains control?

 

2. At 4:05, Ramos looks (to me) to have pretty clearly taken Haze his back after securing the takedown, so why wasn't it 2 and 2? I guess it may just be a bad video angle, but it sure looked like exposure to me.

 

3. At 7:58, Haze's failed arm throw gets 1 point? I really have a hard time calling that an "almost takedown." Is there some other rule in place that awards points in that situation? Man, imagine a 1-1 match in the Olympics finals getting decided by that call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAC, the whole match was confusing, but at least in the second and third sequence, there is no doubt as to what the rules actually are.

 

For sequence 2, in situations where it's not feet to back (such as, say a lateral drop or a freight train double to the back, both 4 point moves), you can score a TD or an exposure but not both. For example, if you have a front headlock and do an alligator roll and end up on top, that's 2, not 2 for exposure plus 2 for the TD, even though the exposure did result in control after. What I believe happened with Ramos is that the low double that led to exposure was all considered one continuous move (I believe that's what the ref means by the circular motion he makes with his arm at the end of the sequence), so only 2 was scored.

 

I agree with you, to me too, it sure looked like 2 + 2, since the action stopped after the ref threw up 2. But I chalked that up to interpretation that made sense even if I didn't agree with it.

 

Same for sequence 3. What a BS point, but that's also interpretation. It almost felt like a pity point off of a move that was neither spectacular enough to warrant appreciation nor close to a TD.

 

But for sequence 1.... WTF?? Did any of us know that an "almost TD" could cause par terre (so that Haze would then reverse, as opposed to take down, Ramos)? That makes zero sense to me. If you almost took someone down, you didn't take them down, so how the hell is the resulting position then called par terre?? What an unbelievably stupid rule, if that's really what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching with the commentary off, but in the Taylor-Howe match, it looked like Howe got 1 for the correct hold, then Taylor got 2 for the takedown.

 

Correct?

 

That would be different from the scoring in the Ramos/Hazewinkel match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was watching with the commentary off, but in the Taylor-Howe match, it looked like Howe got 1 for the correct hold, then Taylor got 2 for the takedown.

 

Correct?

 

That would be different from the scoring in the Ramos/Hazewinkel match.

 

 

Exactly why I find the Ramos vs. Haze scoring (scenario 1) so confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around 3:04 of the Howe vs. Caldwell match, there is another situation where a reversal is scored that doesn't make much sense to me: http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... 4uH7PldUrU

 

The sequence went like this:

 

Howe shoots in on a high crotch but is unable to convert immediately as Caldwell circles to defend with a chest lock. No TD yet and no appreciation.

 

Caldwell hits a roll with his chest lock, exposes Howe, but Howe keeps his hands locked on the high crotch, stops the momentum of the roll by hanging on to the high crotch with both arms, which puts Caldwell on his back for a couple of seconds. Caldwell bails to his stonach and Howe ends ip on top.

 

This sequence was scored 4 for Howe, 2 for Caldwell, and 1 more for Howe, so Howe got 5 points while Caldwell got 2.

 

I am totally lost as to how you could score the sequence that way.

 

If Howe got 4 for a feet to back TD, how does Howe also get 1 when the hold and the position of control never changed once?

 

Clearly, there are nuances to 1 pt "reversals" that very few people understand... Is there a ref on here who can explain?

 

I thought we were making great progress with the new rules, but the "almost TD" and the way the 1 point "reverals" are being scored are steps back, in my opinion. Very confusing to not only the athletes, their coaches, and even the refs on the mat, but also, most importantly, to the fans. What a cluster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Howe v. Caldwell

 

The scoring was called this way:

Howe, feet to back for 4

Caldwell, counter by holding Howe on his back for 2

Howe, reversal by gaining control for 1

 

This scoring sequence is logical -- the only problem is that it wasn't feet to back, because Caldwell was on a knee before Howe's attacking sequence was really initiated. So it should have been 2 Howe -- 2 Caldwell -- 1 Howe. But in this case, the action was so fast that it could reasonably be considered to be continuous. 5-2 Howe was not unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: Howe v. Caldwell

Howe, reversal by gaining control for 1

 

That's the part I find confusing.

 

When exactly can a reversal be scored? The answer is obviously that it can be scored not just after getting taken down. Because Caldwell never took Howe down. I think ir can be argued that Howe never even lost control, since he had his arms locked in the high crotch the entire time.

 

From today, it appears you can get a reversal from at least three different situations:

1. After getting taken down (legitimately, i.e. after giving up 2 or 4)

2. After "almost" getting taken down (see Ramos vs. Haze 2)... but not always (see Taylor vs. Howe, where Taylor scored 2 instead of the 1 pt. reversal that Haze scored)

3. After getting turned for 2 if the turner holds you there for a second or more

 

I never thought 2 or 3 were possible until today.

 

Not exactly clear, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#3 has always been the case. If you expose someone, you gain control in the process.

 

If it is true that exposing someone always means control, then the non-call of a "reversal" point from exposure is one of the most frequently missed calls I see. I will post a link next time I see an example, but I remember seeing several sequences this year alone in which an offensive wrestler gets a TD, the defensive wrestler scores exposure, but then the offensive wrestles ends up on top without scoring again (for the 1 pt reversal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#3 has always been the case. If you expose someone, you gain control in the process.

 

If it is true that exposing someone always means control, then the non-call of a "reversal" point from exposure is one of the most frequently missed calls I see. I will post a link next time I see an example, but I remember seeing several sequences this year alone in which an offensive wrestler gets a TD, the defensive wrestler scores exposure, but then the offensive wrestles ends up on top without scoring again (for the 1 pt reversal).

I'd have to see an example before I could comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#3 has always been the case. If you expose someone, you gain control in the process.

 

If it is true that exposing someone always means control, then the non-call of a "reversal" point from exposure is one of the most frequently missed calls I see. I will post a link next time I see an example, but I remember seeing several sequences this year alone in which an offensive wrestler gets a TD, the defensive wrestler scores exposure, but then the offensive wrestles ends up on top without scoring again (for the 1 pt reversal).

I'd have to see an example before I could comment.

 

An oft-missed call. The officials need to be reminded of this one. You'll see a good chairman calling for a conference on this situation sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up on this -- the 1 point near takedown results in the par terre position, meaning that the opponent gets 1 point for a reversal. This would not be the case if the 1 point score results in a separation between the opponents, in which case the match would return to neutral.

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...