Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cornell4eva

Minnesota vs Iowa

Recommended Posts

It was the correct call but the wrong call at the same time.  That match illustrates the second and third order effects of a rule that really isn't clearly thought out.  There is a difference when reaction time is eliminated when a wreslter places his hand on the mat to when there is no control.  If I force you to place your hand on the mat, I had some semblance of control to make you do that.  In this match, there was no control and I'm sure most college coaches would agree.  In this match, Iowa never had control but he met the criteria for control.

 

College is becoming more like freestyle in terms of meeting criteria for scoring instead of folkstyle which emphasizes control trumps criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no more "true control" requirement in D1 TDs. Therefore, it was the correct call. Evans, however briefly, put Storley in a posiition that the rules now define as control, so he got the TD.

 

I don't like the new rule but it is now the rule so we can't blame the ref for enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no more "true control" requirement in D1 TDs. Therefore, it was the correct call. Evans, however briefly, put Storley in a posiition that the rules now define as control, so he got the TD.

 

I don't like the new rule but it is now the rule so we can't blame the ref for enforcing it.

Sure, since it went in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain what happened since I don't have the ability to watch?

 

 

Tied 1-1 headed to OT. In OT, Evans hit a double and put Storley on both butt cheeks but Storley had an over/under and rolled through, putting Evans on his back. Ref called 2, Minny complained and it went to video review. The call was upheld and Evans won 3-1. Before the new TD rules, that would've been 2+3 and maybe fall for Storley, but with the new rules, it was 3-1 Evans. First score wins in first OT period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nerd,

 

That is where everyone is wrong.  Control still has to occur.  The reaction time or lack thereof applies to a hand touching but you still have to demonstrate control.  I beleive almost everyone is misinterpreting what the rule actaully says.  I would guess that Brands will tell his wrestler that he got away with one.  I would also guess that if McCormick or Beachler were in my house tonight, they would say that was not the intent of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nerd, what is the definition of a takedown now? I know there is no reaction time but sounds like I missed another part of the rule change.

It would have been difficult to overturn that when both butt cheeks hit the mat on the double. The new OT rules were followed whether we like it or not. It might be hard for traditional folkstyle fans to get used to but it rewards offense. Storley needs to find some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Nerd,

 

That is where everyone is wrong.  Control still has to occur.  The reaction time or lack thereof applies to a hand touching but you still have to demonstrate control.  I beleive almost everyone is misinterpreting what the rule actaully says.  I would guess that Brands will tell his wrestler that he got away with one.  I would also guess that if McCormick or Beachler were in my house tonight, they would say that was not the intent of the rule.

 

I understand what you said may be the intent of the rule. But the way it is written, what you write is highly debatable at best. Personally, I really don't think the rules are written the way you just stated them. The rules need to be rewritten to clarify what you say. Here is what the book currently says:

 

A takedown shall be awarded when, from the neutral position, a contestant gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds. If the defensive wrestler’s hand comes in contact with the mat, it is considered control.

 

I maintain that it was the correct call based on these rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nerd,

 

That is where everyone is wrong.  Control still has to occur.  The reaction time or lack thereof applies to a hand touching but you still have to demonstrate control.  I beleive almost everyone is misinterpreting what the rule actaully says.  I would guess that Brands will tell his wrestler that he got away with one.  I would also guess that if McCormick or Beachler were in my house tonight, they would say that was not the intent of the rule.

Absolutely correct. There was continuous motion per the slow motion video; therefore no TD. Period. Reaction time has nothing to do with anything in this situation and the call should've been reversed. To help clarify things, suppose Storley had rolled Evans through much faster... Or even instantaneously? Is it still a TD? If not, then no TD here either. You can't have the ref trying to determine how quickly the action occurs.

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...