Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cornell4eva

Minnesota vs Iowa

Recommended Posts

I will give you that it's not written clearly, but the rule still requires control. Even if a defensive wrestler's hands are on the mat, there still won't be a takedown without control. unless you are suggesting every time a defensive wrestler has his hands on the mat there is control and therefore a takedown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule book...pfft.  It wasn't control.  Listen, I don't like either team, but the momentum was with Storley and continued to bring Evans to his back.  If this is how the rule is interpreted, it should be changed.  Control is what should count, not a hand on the mat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give you that it's not written clearly, but the rule still requires control. Even if a defensive wrestler's hands are on the mat, there still won't be a takedown without control. unless you are suggesting every time a defensive wrestler has his hands on the mat there is control and therefore a takedown?

 

You can "give me" anything, I don't care. I only care that the rule book is written correctly. Tell me where in the rule book your opinion comes from. Mine comes from the excerpt I quoted, which makes Evans's double leg to Storley's ass a TD.

 

Even Rakkasan, who doesn't like the rule (neither do I, as I stated), thinks that--as the rules are written--the TD was as correct as incorrect. 

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule book...pfft.  It wasn't control.  Listen, I don't like either team, but the momentum was with Storley and continued to bring Evans to his back.  If this is how the rule is interpreted, it should be changed.  Control is what should count, not a hand on the mat.  

 

 

OK, so refs should base their rulings NOT on the rules in the rule book that governs them, but rather, on what pipewrench and Cornell4eva think "should" be correct. Makes a lot of sense.

 

BTW, I have no vested interest in the outcome of the dual or that particular match. And I also don't like the new rule. But it is what it is.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: I can't find where the rule book says I'm right, so I'm done with this topic.

If that had been a headlock, instead of a double, would it have still been Evans TD (Evans initiates the throw - putting Storley on his back, but Storley pops his hips and rolls Evans right through to his back without the action stopping - which is similar to, if not exactly, what he did in that sequence)?

 

I don't know and am asking for clarification...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

On another thread rakkasan put a link to the actual rules video. If you listen to it you will hear Pat McCormick say the rule needs to be rewritten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another thread rakkasan put a link to the actual rules video. If you listen to it you will hear Pat McCormick say the rule needs to be rewritten.

 

I completely agree the rule needs to be rewritten. That was never something I disputed. But UNTIL it is rewritten, the rule book is what it is, and the refs must interpret the rules as they are written.

 

Again, I personally do not like the way the new rules are written. Philosophically, I think folkstyle should reward control and if we want to move closer to freestyle (my favorite style), we should just go to freestyle, so I don't like the push for "no reaction time". That said, until the rules are rewritten again, they are the rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That position wouldn't be a td in freestyle. But the new procedure of counting when the top wrestler drops to the ankle or the other new control scenarios from the cradle aren't in the rulebook either.

Coaches and officials are required to view the video each year as a supplement to the book.

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...