Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cornell4eva

Minnesota vs Iowa

Recommended Posts

Well, my understanding of the rules comes from the rule book itself. 

 

Ordinarily that would be the definitive source.  However, in this particular instance, the officials are supposed to follow the interpretative guidance in the NCAA's Wrestling Rule Clinic video.  (That's the video that Rak recently posted a link to - see below). 

 

If you forward that video to about 1:07:18, you will note the following graphic on the screen:

 

2014 - 15  Wrestling Rules and Points of Emphasis

 

Rule 2.6, WR-17 Scoring Opportunities, Takedown

 

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.
 
While the above is on the screen, Pat McCormick makes the following comments: 
 

"Now, this rule needs a minor rewrite.  This will be accomplished with the season starting in 2015.  Therefore, it is important to view the videos Ron and I have put together to illustrate how the rule is to be interpreted."

 

In short, you can't actually rely on the rule as its written. Otherwise, why would it need a "minor rewrite"? And, why would the NCAA's national coordinator of officials tell refs to view the videos to know how to interpret the rule?  The only logical answer is that the video examples are to take precedence over the rule as its written. (Not a good situation at all, but it is what it is.)

 

At any rate, based on watching those video examples, I believe the "no reaction time" rule was only intended to apply in those situations where one wrestler is behind the other in a standing position and forces him to touch the mat with a hand.  Nonetheless, its being applied to lots of other scenarios, such as the one that occurred in the Storley-Evans bout.

 

And - at any rate - from the replays I watched (two different angles), I never saw either of Storley's hands touch the mat during the purported takedown by Evans.  He had his hands away from the mat, underhooking Evans and then rolled through without Evans ever stopping his momentum. (I saw at least one of Storley's hands touching the mat later, but that was when he was putting Evans on his back.  And by then, the bout had already been stopped by the official.)

 

In short, by either interpretation (i.e., the rulebook as written or the interpretive video), I don't think that was a takedown.

But, that's just my two cents.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3lpBmCD94k#t=3984

Edited by HurricaneWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preceding the "hand" comment is the more important comment of "gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds." Whether Storley's hand literally touched the mat or not is a point of interest and great importance generally but does not take away from the fact that you gain control by taking someone down. Not by taking someone down and holding them for a second, or two seconds, or referee's discretion, but taking them down, period. The "hand" statement further reinforces the notion of zero reaction time.

 

The rule is poorly written but it is in fact written officially in the rule book. If Pat McCormick thinks it's poorly written and the entire committee agrees, shame on them. But don't blame Evans for following the rules as written or the refs for reffing the match as written.

 

If one can't rely on the rule as written, what the hell is the purpose of the rule book in the first place, to give participants a general but inaccurate sense? I think the video is a total copout for a crappy editing job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't blame Evans for following the rules as written or the refs for reffing the match as written.

 

.

I don't think anyone blames Evans for anything here. He always wrestles hard and he's the one that took the risk to gain the "takedown." But he wasn't attempting to follow or break any rule in that instance. He merely benefited from it. You can be damn sure that he is thankful for the rule right now, as his expression, to me, looked like he thought he lost the match initially. Either way, all that matters is March. And I'm 100% sure he won't win that matchup/tournament (I love that I can make comments like that without consequence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone blames Evans for anything here. He always wrestles hard and he's the one that took the risk to gain the "takedown." But he wasn't attempting to follow or break any rule in that instance. He merely benefited from it. You can be damn sure that he is thankful for the rule right now, as his expression, to me, looked like he thought he lost the match initially. Either way, all that matters is March. And I'm 100% sure he won't win that matchup/tournament (I love that I can make comments like that without consequence).

People say things like this as if Storley were blowing his doors off. It was a 1-1 match in OT, and Evans was the only one to penetrate the defenses of the other. What about that makes anyone think Storley has this matchup on lock? It seems much more likely Evans would be able to repeat his fundamental wrestling move than Storley's hail mary counter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preceding the "hand" comment is the more important comment of "gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds." Whether Storley's hand literally touched the mat or not is a point of interest and great importance generally but does not take away from the fact that you gain control by taking someone down. Not by taking someone down and holding them for a second, or two seconds, or referee's discretion, but taking them down, period. The "hand" statement further reinforces the notion of zero reaction time.

 

The rule is poorly written but it is in fact written officially in the rule book. If Pat McCormick thinks it's poorly written and the entire committee agrees, shame on them. But don't blame Evans for following the rules as written or the refs for reffing the match as written.

 

If one can't rely on the rule as written, what the hell is the purpose of the rule book in the first place, to give participants a general but inaccurate sense? I think the video is a total copout for a crappy editing job.

 

Believe me, I'm sympathetic to your position that we should be able to rely on the rules as written.   However, in this instance, Pat McCormick was expressing more than just his personal opinion.  The video is an official NCAA production and he is speaking in his capacity as national coordinator of officials.  Moreover, the other presenter is Ron Beaschler, wrestling secretary - rules editor.  

 

Further complicating the issue is the fact that wrestling is on a two-year rules cycle.  In fact, if you turn to page WR-96 in the current rule book, you'll find the following:

 

No. 50—TAKEDOWN. A takedown shall be awarded when this position  

is attained beyond reaction time with one or both hands bearing weight.

 

.......Takedown_zpsac0hviav.png

 

As should be obvious from the above, the rule book is indeed an unreliable guide in indicating the current status of the rule under discussion.  (Note the illustrated example directly contradicts the concept of "no reaction time" in awarding a takedown in this scenario.)

 

Last, but perhaps most significantly, page WR-6 of the current rule book contains the "Points of Emphasis" the Wrestling Rules Committee selected for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons.  This page lists the rules by section and page number and includes the following:

 

Rule 2.6.....Reaction time involving hand on mat is removed.....page 17

 

You will note that the above does not state that reaction time has been removed for all instances involving takedowns.  Rather it specifies that reaction time has been removed in those instances "involving hand on mat."  Moreover, based on the video segments presented in the official interpretative video,  it appears that those instances occur only in scenarios like those shown in the illustration above. (Both wrestlers standing, with one behind the other, forcing his opponent to touch the mat with a hand or hands.)

 

At any rate, whatever the interpretation of the rule should be, I hope its clarified post haste.  The NCAA needs to eliminate any confusion concerning the so-called "no reaction time" rule ASAP - and most definitely before the post-season.

Edited by HurricaneWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane, we agree on one thing. The rules as written are not only confusing but seemingly contradictory. The fact that McCormick tried to cover up a crappy editing job on a video on Youtube, NCAA production or not, does not take away from the fact that the rules must be rewritten and the Youtube video does not fix things.

 

We disagree on what refs should do since the rules are so poorly written. The fact that we have to argue what refs should do (other than follow the rules as gospel like any other major sport...) is a total travesty that falls squarely on the shoulders of the guys who made the Youtube video and their colleagues. Again, shame on them for adding huge confusion to a sport that does not need it. But they did what they did so we are where we are.

 

Until the rules are written clearly enough to properly represent the sport as intended, there are four choices for refs:

 

1. Use the rules as gospel

2. Use the rules plus the Youtube "clarification" as gospel

3. Use the rules plus the Youtube "clarification" as general guides but in sticky situations, use judgment with the aid of video review

4. F-- the rules, call things however you want

 

Clearly, 4 is out of the question.

 

I contend that 3 is the way to go, which is why I like the TD call. You're either at 2 or somewhere in between 2 and 3, I don't know.

 

2 is not the solution for a few reasons. First, nowhere in the video does McCormick eliminate the notion that reaction time is a thing of the past. Even you agree that the rules are at best confusing on that critical topic that completely changes the nature of the sport from one of "control" the way we've known it for over half a century to one of getting in the right position (closer to freestyle), whether or not you maintain it. In that video, McCormick gives examples of how to interpret the "hand" statement in the rules but does not clarify other controversies borne of the new rules.

 

 

If 2 is the solution, let's take it a step further. Do the rules plus the Youtube video solve other controversial issues, such as exactly when to award a TD in the situation in which a wrestler in control "cuts" the bottom man to try to take him down again? That is another point of controversy, is it not? This weekend alone, I saw the same ref call an escape differently in the same match (PSU vs. Michigan, 133). The rules + Youtube don't solve that issue, among others (such as when an offensive wrestler who gets "funked" goes from getting leg passed/stalemated to gaining control). So at best, rules + Youtube is an incomplete solution and therefore cannot be the answer.

 

Also, as you acknowledge, the rules (whether it's just the book or the book + Youtube) are seemingly contradictory. You illustrated an example in your latest post). That's a major problem.

 

The foundational statement in the rules that define a TD is "gains control by taking an opponent down in bounds." If reaction time is what the rules committee wanted (other than in "hand" situations), then this statement contradicts their intention because it is a tautological statement. Saying you gain control by taking an opponent down is like saying something is circular when it becomes round. The comment in the context of rules with reaction time makes zero sense and clarifies absolutely nothing. It is tautological. The comment in the context of rules without reaction time actually makes sense--especially when the following "hand" statement further adds support for the notion of no reaction time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the minutiae of the rules interpretation are, one thing is clear - it needs to go away and is backfiring.   While I understand the intent of the new rule, it doesn't work after numerous examples of TDs that shouldn't be TDs. 

 

Get rid of it after this year, the experiment failed and I don't think many wrestling fans would disagree with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the minutiae of the rules interpretation are, one thing is clear - it needs to go away and is backfiring.   While I understand the intent of the new rule, it doesn't work after numerous examples of TDs that shouldn't be TDs. 

 

Get rid of it after this year, the experiment failed and I don't think many wrestling fans would disagree with that. 

 

I agree. Unfortunately, ten NCAA champions and 80 AAs will be decided based on this clusterf---- of a situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCormick and Beaschler also published an official NCAA document two years ago that corrected new interpretations where the old rules book language said something contradictory.

 

The editors missed that when the books went to be puplished so they had to issue and an addendum.  It went out to all officials so from my standpoint it was clarified. 

 

I apply the no reaction time metric only when a hand(s) is involed. All other cases should require normal control to be established before awarding points; however, the reaction time has always been very quick in college compared to high school.

 

If you think the NCAA rules book has some editorial issues, you should really read the high school rules book and case manual and see how out of synch they are.

Edited by Rakkasan91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Unfortunately, ten NCAA champions and 80 AAs will be decided based on this clusterf---- of a situation.

 

Lets hope it doesn't decide a single one - can you imagine if that was the NCAA semifinals?   The board would get to Churella/Hendricks level, though it would have the unfortunate benefit of making sure it goes away faster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Control is subjective, the hand is objective, which i think was something the committee was going for, like it or not. Objectivity increases uniformity in rules and their application.

Check out Gimp's comments in the "Reaction Time" thread from earlier this week. The Evans takedown scenario is exactly what he was referring to. The should be control prior to deciding whether or not a hand touched the mat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the Gopher takedown was not an option in this sequence once it went to video review. Because the official called the Evans takedown, thereby ending the match, everything that happened after that basically didn't exist. So, even if Jeff Cook waved off the takedown, they'd be back up on their feet, in sudden victory.

Edited by SetonHallPirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Gimp's comments in the "Reaction Time" thread from earlier this week. The Evans takedown scenario is exactly what he was referring to. The should be control prior to deciding whether or not a hand touched the mat.

 

I just read that entire thread. I saw the Youtube video portion that Rak referenced too.

 

The problem with gimp's interpretation of the rules, which by the way I PERSONALLY LIKE, is that the rule book does not state the rules that way, even if you watch them with the comments in the video supplement.

 

In order for this issue to go away, the new rules need to definitively and clearly state the following:

 

1. Does a TD require control first or not? In other words, is there or is there not reaction time?

2. If so, are there any situations in which control is not required, i.e. no reaction time? (e.g. opponent in rear standing, defensive wrestler's hand touches--no other body part but the hand is an exception)

3. If a TD requires control, what defines control? Is it simply a matter of referee's judgment? Is it one second passing after attaining a dominant position? Two seconds or more? Three, etc.?

 

Currently, the rule book and the Youtube supplement do not address these questions definitively. All they do is clarify a position in which the defending wrestler's hand comes into contact with the mat. They do not address how the other situations should be handled. Specifically, the foundational statement that defines a TD (control is gained by taking someone down) is tautological and unclear at best.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

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...