Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tommygun

Storley vs Evans

Recommended Posts

I went and looked it up, just for you. Here you go, from 2010-2011 rule book (couldn't find more recent, but this suffices for the purpose of proving my point):

 

From 2010-2011: Section 2.6 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 and beyond reaction time. When a significant portion of the defensive wrestler’s weight is borne on a hand(s), it is considered control.
 
Compare that to what is written in the current rule book and then try to make the case for reaction time as the rules are written, especially relative to the old TD standard. You can't!
 
EDIT to include current rules, again:
 
From 2014-2015: Section 2.6 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.
 
There is absolutely no way the stark difference in wording of these two sets of TD rules plus that little Youtube video posted by Rak properly represent then intent of making TDs thiis season the same as in the past except for the one case where the hand touches. Just read the two side by side. The new rules absolutely imply, very strongly, no reaction time.
Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beating%20a%20dead%20horse.jpg

 

Thanks for your intelligent contribution, and glad to be of service. 

 

So what specifically do you disagree with? I answered your question as exactly as possible. To be even more specific and beat the horse again:

 

Old way of defining control: TD + reaction time.

New way of defining control: TD.

 

See rules cited above.

 

Capiche?

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, the horse ISN'T dead.  It is however, horribly diseased................

 

Of course it's not dead. It's a huge issue in our sport. It does appear, however, that there are some who want to excuse the rules committee and authors of the rule book from a real travesty. You have to wonder as to their motives because it is plainly obvious to any objective person that the new rules (even with that Youtube supplement) not only introduce massive confusion, they actually support the notion of no reaction time. So the guys crying about how everyone does not understand the rules really should be saying the rules misinterpret the true intent of the committee, period. It is absolutely not the refs' (at large) fault that TDs are being called the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is the written rule is relatively unchanged.  For a takedown to occur as an example, control is still an element and inbounds is still and element.  The only thing that changed is the elimination of reaction time from the wording.  Control still has to occur and inbounds still has to occur.

 

I was just curious as to how you think the NCAA defined control in the past.  Everyone thinks they know what control is but has it really been defined in recent publications?  Inbounds certainly has been defined and specified over time but what about control. 

Edited by Rakkasan91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not dead. It's a huge issue in our sport. It does appear, however, that there are some who want to excuse the rules committee and authors of the rule book from a real travesty. You have to wonder as to their motives because it is plainly obvious to any objective person that the new rules (even with that Youtube supplement) not only introduce massive confusion, they actually support the notion of no reaction time. So the guys crying about how everyone does not understand the rules really should be saying the rules misinterpret the true intent of the committee, period. It is absolutely not the refs' (at large) fault that TDs are being called the way they are.

Are you assuming you know what Rak and I are thinking about this? I have no idea what Rak thinks about it. I agree that the new rule/interpretation was ill-conceived and I think that as a result a lot of fans, coaches and refs  are in error as to what it means (I posted the same in more detail in one of the other related threads). I was only trying to see what you meant by the old definition. Given that a lot of people (and not necessarily you but it's hard to be specific given how many posted about this) think that the rule being in the rulebook is sacrosanct and without the ability to call it otherwise simply because they think that should be the case your statement sounded like you meant the same regardless of how clear you thought you were being.

You had very good visual analysis about the move itself earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is the written rule is relatively unchanged.  For a takedown to occur as an example, control is still an element and inbounds is still and element.  The only thing that changed is the elimination of reaction time from the wording.  Control still has to occur and inbounds still has to occur.

 

I was just curious as to how you think the NCAA defined control in the past.  Everyone thinks they know what control is but has it really been defined in recent publications?  Inbounds certainly has been defined and specified over time but what about control. 

 

 

I thought it was worded control beyond reaction time in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is the written rule is relatively unchanged.  For a takedown to occur as an example, control is still an element and inbounds is still and element.  The only thing that changed is the elimination of reaction time from the wording.  Control still has to occur and inbounds still has to occur.

 

I was just curious as to how you think the NCAA defined control in the past.  Everyone thinks they know what control is but has it really been defined in recent publications?  Inbounds certainly has been defined and specified over time but what about control. 

 

Control is like porn.  I know it when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is the written rule is relatively unchanged.  For a takedown to occur as an example, control is still an element and inbounds is still and element.  The only thing that changed is the elimination of reaction time from the wording.  Control still has to occur and inbounds still has to occur.

 

Look, I'm on your side on this (want some reaction time if we are trying to preserve folkstyle vs. freestyle), but I don't agree at all with what you just said.

 

The new rules define control as taking someone down (with NO reaction time), period. They literally say that: gain control by taking the opponent down. Whatever the intent is, this statement defines control as getting into a TD position. With no reaction time stipulated. Saying you gain control by taking someone down is itself a definitional statement. It's like saying you score by gaining points (the definition of scoring).

 

The old rules define control as taking someone down WITH reaction time. They also literally say that: gain control by taking the opponent down beyond reaction time. Agian, this is a definitional statement.

 

If you have an issue with this, as I do, then suggest to the rules committee that the clarify what they intend through a statement such as the following:

 

Control is achieved by ________. A TD shall be awarded once control is achieved.

 

If you want to add reaction time, then tack on the phrase "beyond reaction time" as in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A takedown was defined that way, not control itself. Rak and I were asking where the definition of control was given (other than the one scenario of hands down old/new)

 

Disagree, as I just posted. TBar is right, control itself was defined as TD + reaction time: "a contestant gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds and beyond reaction time."

 

That statement defines control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really as it is clearly a circular definition but at least now I see what you were saying earlier.

That's all I was trying to clarify.

A takedown was defined as control. Control was defined as taking him down.

 

No, what I'm saying is more nuanced than that.

 

Whether you agree on intent of rule or not, it's hard to argue that the written statement is definitional. It's just a fact that it is. As in my earlier example, the definition of "scoring" is "to earn points." If you look it up in the dictionary, you'll get something like that. If you make that definition a sentence, then it will read: a contestant scores by earning points.

 

Similarly, the definition of control (per the rule books) is "to take an opponent down..." The sentence version of that definition is simply what's in the rule book.

 

Now, I fully agree with you that in the 2014-2015 rule book, the statement appears circular, or as I called it on another thread, tautological, i.e. an object is circular when it becomes round. But in the context of NO reaction time, it isn't merely a tautological statement. It is then definitional, i.e. control = TD with no reaction time needed. The only logical way to interpret that statement is the way a lot (most?) refs are calling TDs now: you gain control and therefore a TD the instant you achieve a TD position because control no longer requires anything more than getting into a TD position. Before, control was not just about position, it was position + reaction time.

 

That is my main issue with the rule book. The contradictory statements, etc. are also very annoying, but you can't screw up the foundational statement that defines a TD that badly. That's like a football rulebook having major issues with how a touchdown is defined.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nuances in what you're saying- takedown and control definitions are clearly circular and thus not a true definition but again- you seem to want to argue about something when we are agreeing on the main point. This new rule (definitely as presented in the book- slightly less so as to what the refs have been presented with) has everyone screwed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimp, you still don't get what I'm saying so let me say it in a simpler way, and if you disagree, oh well.

 

Control is a condition of scoring. TD is the scoring move itself.

 

Therefore, this question does not make sense because the answer is always yes: Does a TD require control? Yes, it always requires control because control is a prerequisite to scoring a TD.

 

The right question to ask is, does a TD require reaction time? In other words, what defines control?

 

Old rules stipulated that control was a combination of achieving a TD position + reaction time.

New rules stipulate all you need is to achieve the TD position.

 

TDs always require control, but the issue is whether control requires reaction time or not.

 

Whatever you believe, clearly, the rule book needs to make these three concepts much clearer: control, reaction time, TD position. They then need to define a scoring TD in the context of those three concepts.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I doubt that the term "control" has ever been completely defined per se, but more likely its meaning has been inferred by the definition of "takedown."  In other words, initially control was an integral part of achieving a takedown, and had to be demonstrated for the awarding of points.  Below is one of the earliest definitions of a "takedown" from the early 1940's.  Please note that the concept of taking one's opponent "to the mat under control" is empathized.  In short, without control, there could be no takedown.

 

Subsequently, it was clarified that the concept of "beyond reaction time" was integral to establishing control. Following the 1940's excerpt is one from the mid-1970's.  Note that the rule had essentially remained the same, with the main clarification that a takedown consists of gaining control and holding down an opponents' supporting points "beyond reaction time."

 

In the final analysis, the definition of "control" is similar to Justice Stwart's definition of "pornography." To paraphrase, Stewart said he may not be able to define it, but he knows it when he sees it.  When a referee is making a takedown call (or non-call), he's observing an event that may be subjective in nature and lacking in clearly defined parameters.  That's my two cents, anyway.

 

 

---- Sources follow ------

 

Rule 8-Position of Advantage (source: 1942 NCAA Wrestling Guide)

 

1. Whenever a contestant brings his opponent to the mat under control while all of the supporting points of either wrestler's body are on the wrestling mat proper, he has earned the Position of Advantage and the offensive wrestler is entitled to this advantage until such time as his opponent, in legal manner, gains a neutral position within the boundary of the mat proper, except when he forfeits this advantage by reason of penalty inflicted by the referee for infringement of the rules. (See rules 9 and 13.)

 

Note 1. The supporting parts of the defensive wrestler's body are any and all parts touching the mat at that time. The supporting parts of the offensive wrestler's body are the parts of the body touching the mat other than the parts with which he is holding his opponent. (The offensive wrestler's usual points of support are the knees or the side of one thigh and buttocks.) The offensive wrestler must have control of his opponent and must have brought him to the mat to constitute a "takedown."

 

Note 2. In the interpretation of the above rule it should be clearly understood that the offensive wrestler is entitled to the Position of Advantage only when he brings his opponent to the mat under control as indicated: above; i.e., when the contestants leave the mat on their feet the offensive wrestler is not entitled to the Position of Advantage, even though he may have a decidedly advantageous hold, and the bout is resumed in neutral position at the center of the mat unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the defensive wrestler intentionally went off the mat to prevent his opponent from going behind him. (See Rule 13, Section 2-A.)

 

Note 3. The latter part of Section 1 above, but not Note 2, applies also when one contestant has had the Position of Advantage on the mat immediately before leaving the mat.

 

SECTION 15. TAKEDOWN (source: 1975 NCAA Wrestling Guide)

 

When, from a neutral position, a contestant gains control and places his opponent's supporting points down on the mat, and held beyond reaction time, while the supporting points of either wrestler are within the wrestling area, he has gained a takedown. Down on the mat, the usual points of support may be: knee(s), the side of the thigh and the buttocks. When the hands bear the majority of the defensive wrestlers weight, the hands are considered supporting points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jammen, I wasn't stealing your "I know it when I see it" line.  I was busy researching old rule books when I formulated that into my response.  Therefore, I didn't see your post until after I posted the above.  At any rate, I agree with you 100% that its very appropriate to the situation being discussed.

 

Now, can I have part of that chicken dinner you won?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

From the 1972 NCAA rules book (last year it was specified as a note):

 

"Note: Control is a situation in which contestant exercises and maintains restraining power over his opponent."

 

Nice, Rak.  Contrary to my assumption, it appears that "control" has indeed been pretty well defined in the past. 

 

On a lighter note, I also saw this definition of control in one of the Minnesota forums:

 

"Control occurs when a Hawkeye almost gets a takedown in SV, but is countered by his opponent.

It's scored as a two-point move for the Iowa wrestler - just as if it had been a real takedown."

 

Edited by HurricaneWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter? Once you introduce a new rule and create enough of a stink that an entire nation of refs is confused, it is the job of the rules committee to not merely clarify but remove all doubt as to what the rules say. It's laughable that a rule book is not merely unclear, but as Hurricane has shown also contains outright contradictions. Are refs, coaches, athletes and fans supposed to just read between the lines or refer to rule books from years ago to try to deduce intent?

 

Again, the rules as written are about as clear as mud, appear to eliminate reaction time, and need to be rewritten. The results of this fiasco speak for themselves. Everyone, including NCAA champion coaches, refs, announcers who are supposed to be educating fans, and fans themselves are all confused.

 

Does it matter, yes it does. Because control is still central to a td. You just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......... Storley's effort was a "counter" - - would appear he had to "post" weight (on his rear end) to complete the "action of the elevetion" of the counter, therefore- once said weight was posted on said rear end- "2TD" for Evans ............. if the ref called it correctly as it happened, no review & no argument ....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Storley's back (and butt) hit the mat, Evans' legs were in the air. IMO that is not control.

 

The reason Evans' legs were in the air is because he was pulled by Storley on their way to the mat. Yes Evans had provided some momentum with his planted right foot and head and left shoulder applying pressure to left of midriff, while Storley was still upright. But with his left knee still on the ground, neither Evans, or anyone else, could have generated the momentum needed  to suddenly get his legs floating a foot off the ground while fully extended and parallel to same. 

 

Evans didn't get a leg down (his left) until he was in the beginning of the process of being turned (45%). Given all that, now come the questions of "restraint" and "control". Who had it and when?

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...