Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cornell4eva

Minnesota vs Iowa

Recommended Posts

What Evans did to Storley is a 4-pointer in FS. Feet to back off a double. Not sure what you're talking about.

Not sure if that was for me- I didn't see the match- I was just answering about the hand touching situation which wouldn't be a td in international since knees or head have to touch.

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if that was for me- I didn't see the match- I was just answering about the hand touching situation which wouldn't be a td in international since knnes or head have to touch.

 

I thought you were suggesting the controversial move (Evans double to Storley's butt and back) would not score in FS. Thanks for clarifying.

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.  

Agreed.  Either a horrendous call or a horrendous rule.   That's not a takedown.  There was no control until Evans was on his back.  and I don't care for either team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also agreed - Horrendous.

 

Ref making bad call is understandable, that happens - but after video review that upheld - yikes - we've got a bigger problem here.

 

This isn't big because of the team matchup - this is big because of the interpretation and integrity of the scoring system.

 

The goal is to continue to promote wrestling as a mainstream sport. That goal can only be achieved if our scoring system is consistent, dependable, and isn't routinely described as 'horrendous'.

 

The future of our sport depends on this just as much as our marketing and promotional efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have had any problem with Evans being awarded the takedown(and admittedly yelled 2 right as it happened) if he didn't end up on his back(begrudgingly reconsidered after review).  That really bothered me.  He is so intense and their rivalry is every bit as intense, I just can't believe he LET that happen.  The fact that it did led me to believe that whole sequence was more Storley dictated than Evans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also agreed - Horrendous.

 

Ref making bad call is understandable, that happens - but after video review that upheld - yikes - we've got a bigger problem here.

 

The official was in a pickle. If he even felt he made the bad call during the review what does he do, reverse himself? Then how does he make Storely and Minnesota whole since he had Evans on his back and possibly pinned. The entire sequence was mp screwed once the bad call was made. But refs are only human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  Either a horrendous call or a horrendous rule.   That's not a takedown.  There was no control until Evans was on his back.  and I don't care for either team.

No. Evans had enough control to get him from his feet to his back.  Once contact was made it is a TD.  It's not hard to understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from the movies. American Sniper is great, so you guys all ought to go watch it.

 

As for the Evans Storley match. First period and Storley might have pinned him, but since this was sudden victory, I knew he was screwed. If we only had reaction time ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry HoundedHawk, but I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you make it to be.  Watch it again if you think Evans actually took him to his back.  From the time immediately after Storley hit his butt the move was his.  I could live with the takedown if Evans didn't get rolled so quickly to his back.  But, it was a pretty fluid motion.  If there was even a small pause, I could see it.  But how quickly that transitioned to Storley on top, EVEN IN SLOW MOTION, makes it VERY hard to call that a for sure Evans' takedown without Iowa bias.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Evans had enough control to get him from his feet to his back.  Once contact was made it is a TD.  It's not hard to understand.  

Then its a horrendous rule. that's not a TD.  Iowa fans would be up in arms if that went against them (and rightfully so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry HoundedHawk, but I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you make it to be.  Watch it again if you think Evans actually took him to his back.  From the time immediately after Storley hit his butt the move was his. 

You've answered the dilemma.  AFTER is the key word.  The moment he landed on his butt with Evans grabbing his legs and a head clear it's over.  It doesn't matter what happens AFTER.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houndedhawk,

 

You clearly changed your wording from the post before to the last one.  You first called it "back" and now switched to "butt".  And how is your head clear when Storley has a deep over and under and is fully using his momentum to roll him through? Reaction time or not, you still have to have some semblence of control.  Even if he paused Storley's momentum for a 2 count I would agree with you, but that didn't happen.  I can live with the call because of how it was called originally.  But, to 100% endorse the call is PURE FAN BIAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOPE, Sorry Hawk guy - if that were true, shoulder rolls could be called pins.

 

The difference isn't BEFORE or AFTER - it's about MOTION. The motion has to be paused to create the AFTER.

 

In this case, I'm not picking a side, but there is legitimate evidence that motion wasn't paused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houndedhawk,

 

You clearly changed your wording from the post before to the last one.  You first called it "back" and now switched to "butt".  And how is your head clear when Storley has a deep over and under and is fully using his momentum to roll him through? Reaction time or not, you still have to have some semblence of control.  Even if he paused Storley's momentum for a 2 count I would agree with you, but that didn't happen.  I can live with the call because of how it was called originally.  But, to 100% endorse the call is PURE FAN BIAS.

Get off your bias wagon. You're clueless as to my motivation.

 

Butt, back, it doesn't matter. 

 

His head was clear, in that I meant it was not under the butt, between the legs.

 

I don't think you guys understand the new rules.  If a guy slips behind another guy, he's not in this control you speak of, and if the hand just grazes the ground its a TD.  The ref did the same thing to Clark in the same meet, and I agree.  Dardanes had enough control to get his hand to touch the mat before Clark flurried out.  Evans had enough control in his freight train double to put Storely down.  The moment he touched it was over.  It's not like Storely initiated this with some lock up to throw. Evans went for the double leg and got it him down to the ground...over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houndedhawk,

 

And how is your head clear when Storley has a deep over and under and is fully using his momentum to roll him through? 

 

He didn't have a deep over and under until after it was a TD. I'm too lazy to post the frame by frames but since you have it on tape, do the frame by frame yourself and you'll see he didn't even have an "under" at all until he was on his ass. Evans did double him to his ass and Storley had a perfect reaction, using that momentum to hip in and turn him. But by then it was a TD.

 

If it had been a deep over/under, Evans would've gone right to his back. There was a pause between the time that Storley's ass (and lower to mid back, for that matter) hit the mat and when Evans went over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOPE, Sorry Hawk guy - if that were true, shoulder rolls could be called pins.

 

The difference isn't BEFORE or AFTER - it's about MOTION. The motion has to be paused to create the AFTER.

 

In this case, I'm not picking a side, but there is legitimate evidence that motion wasn't paused.

Pins require one second on the mat regardless.

 

The difference is before.  Evans initiated a double leg, and it put Storely down with Evans arms around Storely...over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ref was too afraid to admit that he was wrong because the Gophers then have a claim for 6 team points as Storley could have pinned him.  In a situation like that, let the motion continue and then go to replay, just like hockey.  This sport has really taken a huge step back with all of these stupid new rules.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry HoundedHawk, but that wasn't how it went down.

 

It would have been over if Evans had taken him down with control. But that wasn't the case here.

 

The TD attempt turned into a roll through - and LS wound up on top.

 

This wouldn't have changed the outcome of the meet. So it's not terribly important. Iowa wins either way. But it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would have been over if Evans had taken him down with control. But that wasn't the case here.

 

 

This is the crux of the issue and even refs can't agree (see Rakkasan's post on this thread, for example). What is control now in college? You say he had no control. The way the rulebook defines control now leaves so much room for debate (i.e. the way the rules are written now, you are wrong, there was control) that even refs think the rules need to be rewritten for more clarification.

 

So what are we to do other than go by the rules as they are written? Just because it doesn't feel right or, worse, the rules as written do not properly represent what the rules committee intended (intentions don't trump what is officially written) does NOT mean we get to ignore them. I don't like paying as much tax as I do. I don't think i should. Therefore I'm not going to follow what the tax code states I should pay, I'll just pay less. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.

 

We can certainly complain about the poorly written rule book or whether the rules as written should be changed, but as I've stated here several times, the rules are the rules until they're changed.

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...