Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TripNSweep

Really bad call and Matt Brown is a $%&*

Recommended Posts

You know it was a lousy way for a match to end. You can whine about it or move on. If you think that trashing the wrestlers or the system will somehow re-align the cosmos, you are sorely mistaken. As for Wilps, sure he will never forget this, if he is scarred for life, that's on him. As for a tainted title, Brown will just have to not fret over that. Broken dreams can induce transformation for good or bad, their choice. You think Snyder is moping around? The time that a guy gets to wrestle in college is short, then your life begins.

 

Nice summary.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Brown is a model kid.  You can't get any more solid than him.  With that said, he is a very smart wrestler and used his wrestling intelligence to help him win that match.  He knew that the mule kick would eventually get a stall call just as he pointed to locked hands and semi held Wilps hands together.  He knew exactly what he was doing so I don't agree when people say Brown didn't want to win that way.  He 100% wanted to win that way because his actions led to the result.  I don't see that as a bad thing though because he did what he had to do to win and there was nothing wrong with it.

 

I believe Wilps hands were locked and that call was justified. I just hate the stall rule on trying to move up.  Wilps was doing all he could do to move up and actually was successful at moving to the upper body but it was right at the 5 second call.  Tough way to tie the match. Wilps should''ve won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were 2 evenly matched guys.  Brown won because Wilps made a technical error locking his hands and also was hit by a stalling call expressly designed by the rules makers to do what it did in that match.  The line between champ and running up is razor thin.  He and his coach followed the rules as written.

 

Brown wasn't a d1ck about it.  He's a humble 4.0 student, ROTC, doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs, and will be a 2nd LT in our armed forces upon graduation.  I mean it would be hard to find a cleaner cut all american kid.  Why all the hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, it was a lousy way to win.

 

Second, Brown is a good guy.

 

Third those against the decision seem to want an exception to the locked hands rule; in the finals of the NCAA tournament, when a PSU guy is wrestling. Otherwise the rule should be enforced.

 

Fouth, I suppose there is a group out there who want locked hands eliminated. If those complaining are not part of this group; see third. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Brown is a model kid.  You can't get any more solid than him.  With that said, he is a very smart wrestler and used his wrestling intelligence to help him win that match.  He knew that the mule kick would eventually get a stall call just as he pointed to locked hands and semi held Wilps hands together.  He knew exactly what he was doing so I don't agree when people say Brown didn't want to win that way.  He 100% wanted to win that way because his actions led to the result.  I don't see that as a bad thing though because he did what he had to do to win and there was nothing wrong with it.

 

I believe Wilps hands were locked and that call was justified. I just hate the stall rule on trying to move up.  Wilps was doing all he could do to move up and actually was successful at moving to the upper body but it was right at the 5 second call.  Tough way to tie the match. Wilps should''ve won.

 

Matt Brown quote in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette:  http://sungazette.com/page/category.detail/nav/5017/Local-Sports.html

 

"I never remember winning a match like that.  But it's kind of fun in practice we do that all the time," he said.  "Morgan (McIntosh) is a big, strong kid, trying to ride me and I'll drop down to one knee so he has to let go of locked hands.  So that's something I feel comfortable with."

 

When did 'success with honor' at PSU become 'winning any way you can'?  I guess that died with Paterno.  People have mentioned other standout, role model wrestlers.  I don't think you'd ever have seen Robert Kokesh pull something that this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too much rhetoric about what helps or hurts the sport. It's used too often as a trump card to bolster one's opinion.

 

I'm not a PSU fan by any means, but Brown was getting one either way here...by escaping or by awarding a point for the technical violation of locked hands which was preventing the escape.

 

 

 

Correct. The locked hands from Wilps was the only thing preventing Brown's escape, so either way Brown was going to score that 1 point needed for victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it was a lousy way for a match to end. You can whine about it or move on. If you think that trashing the wrestlers or the system will somehow re-align the cosmos, you are sorely mistaken. As for Wilps, sure he will never forget this, if he is scarred for life, that's on him. As for a tainted title, Brown will just have to not fret over that. Broken dreams can induce transformation for good or bad, their choice. You think Snyder is moping around? The time that a guy gets to wrestle in college is short, then your life begins.

 

 

Thank you, and spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Brown quote in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette:  http://sungazette.com/page/category.detail/nav/5017/Local-Sports.html

 

"I never remember winning a match like that.  But it's kind of fun in practice we do that all the time," he said.  "Morgan (McIntosh) is a big, strong kid, trying to ride me and I'll drop down to one knee so he has to let go of locked hands.  So that's something I feel comfortable with."

 

When did 'success with honor' at PSU become 'winning any way you can'?  I guess that died with Paterno.  People have mentioned other standout, role model wrestlers.  I don't think you'd ever have seen Robert Kokesh pull something that this.

 

 

It is part of the rules, lu_alum. The fact is, if you drop down the top man DOES have to let go of the locked hands. Part of the rules. What Brown did is sound strategy. What Wilps did is an infraction. Let it go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. The locked hands from Wilps was the only thing preventing Brown's escape, so either way Brown was going to score that 1 point needed for victory. 

There were no locked hands and Brown was not trying to escape.  There was a guy controlling an unlocked hand and placing against another hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge difference between riding parallel for a whole period, or blocking and not shooting from neutral and not working up within 5 seconds from the ankles. Guys mule kick like crazy knowing it can lead to a stall call.

 

Imagine a person watching the finals for the first time. They watch several matches were nothing really happens in the first period. In fact, the odds are 50-50 that the first period ends 0-0, with very little action. Then, you see guys lacing an ankle and building up riding time...not much action. No stalling calls in either situation. But, a tightly contested battle between to evenly matched wrestlers (where action is occurring) is determined in the last 10 seconds because one guy isn't "working up" to control the other guy. Lots of action going on, yet stalling helps determine the outcome. This newbie to the sport would rightfully be perplexed at the strange ways that wrestlers generate points. Probably isn't coming back for more. A ref awards 2 points in a period of 10 seconds that gives a guy the national title. It just seems that wrestling is its own worst enemy.

 

I was agnostic to the outcome. Matt Brown seems like a stand up guy, so no ill will towards him. If he gets a TD in OT to win a title, I would be super excited for him. Winning this way hurts the sport, and now Brown will live the rest of his life with this over his head. You think he wants a title in this fashion?? I will be waiting for the "but those are the rules" replies.

the 2nd paragraph sums it up for me, Wilps  had the match won. Getting those last 2 points without actually scoring for Brown definitely is an injustice to Wilps and our sport. Let them at least settle it in OT.  

 

You know it's wrong when a newly crowned NCAA champion is getting interviewed right after the match and he is clearly a bit distraught knowing the manner in which he was just awarded a win. Not smile, no celebration. Fans in the stands clearly didn't even know what happened as i spoke to people there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inappropriate conduct for the defensive wrestler to touch either or both hands or one knee to the mat in order to release the offensive wrestler’s lock, and the referee shall not call a violation if the lock is held in such cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These two guys wrestled an excellent match... I could care less who won...  I just like to see great wrestling.

That being said...

 

You can't just read half of the rule... and only enforce the part that you like..

He DID lock hands...

BUT... he gets reaction time to release... 

Here's the rule (the case book interpretation)...:

 

Rule 5 / Infractions:

RULING: The wrestler in the advantage position could lock hands once the bottom wrestler's weight is supported entirely by both feet.

(GO BACK and look at the video - he's standing... )

Once the wrestler brings the opponent to the mat, the wrestler with the advantage has reaction time to break the grip.

 

Reaction time = "Up to 2 seconds" (not 2 seconds .. but up to 2 seconds.. THAT'S 1.9 seconds) 

.... as the lead official stated himself... there was 1 second on the clock... (hmmm... that's less than 2 seconds)

 

The case book scenario is EXACTLY the same as this situation...

 

So.. back to what everyone is saying... 

It's already in the books... so... I'll leave this one alone now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we've beaten the locked hands to death... Let's talk about the 5-count for the late stalling point that only lasted 3.5-4 seconds. Ref started counting at 7 seconds and made the call just after the clock changed from :04 to :03.

 

That's the call that the Pitt coaches should have challenged.

Edited by lu_alum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we've beaten the locked hands to death... Let's talk about the 5-count for the late stalling point that only lasted 3.5-4 seconds. Ref started counting at 7 seconds and made the call just after the clock changed from :04 to :03.

 

That's the call that the Pitt coaches should have challenged.

And the challenge would not have changed it.

 

Video of that sequence is on flow - ref starts swiping as the clock goes from 0:09 to 0:08 and blows the whistle at 0:03.

 

Also, There was a restart from 0:20 to 0;09 where Wilps had dropped to the ankle and the ref didn't start counting for a few seconds - and then started and got to 2 or 3 as they went out of bounds.

 

The stalling could have been called earlier. Paraphrasing, Johnson stated that the ref had missed counting it.

 

People are going to see what they want to see - but from video, it looks like Brown is handfighting, trying to escape.

 

As for reaction - it appears that WIlps is holding on with everything he can with no intention of releasing. Brown is not holding Wilps hands together hoping for a clasping/locked hands T violation call.

 

http://fansided.com/2015/03/21/tyler-wilps-loses-ncaa-wrestling-championships-on-locked-hands-video/?utm_source=FanSided&utm_medium=Network&utm_campaign=Around%20the%20Network

Edited by Old_Marine_Wrestler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why the refs needed to review the 2nd time. Shouldn't they have checked during the first review whether the locked hands occurred before time expired? Certainly whether something occurred during regulation, or inbounds, etc., should be part of any review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inappropriate conduct for the defensive wrestler to touch either or both hands or one knee to the mat in order to release the offensive wrestler’s lock, and the referee shall not call a violation if the lock is held in such cases.

 

From the rulebook:

 

5.10.1 Wrestlers in the position of advantage may not interlock or overlap their hands, fingers or arms around their opponent’s body or both legs unless all of their opponent’s weight is supported entirely by the opponent’s feet or the defensive wrestler’s pinning area is meeting a near-fall criterion. (See Rule 2.9.)

The mere touching of the defensive wrestler’s hands to the mat is not considered a change in this position unless the hands are weight-bearing, in which case the offensive wrestler is allowed reaction time to release the lock. It is inappropriate conduct for the defensive wrestler to touch either or both hands or one knee to the mat in order to release the offensive wrestler’s lock, and the referee shall not call a violation if the lock is held in such cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Brown went down hoping for a locked hands. Looked like he was attempting a sitout/switch or something. He may have held one of Wilps' hands there (although you could probably argue he was just going for hand control), but It looked like Wilps could have easily moved the other one. He didn't, and held it beyond reaction time IMO.

 

I do agree with why did they need to review it a second time though. They should have been looking at the clock the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why the refs needed to review the 2nd time. Shouldn't they have checked during the first review whether the locked hands occurred before time expired? Certainly whether something occurred during regulation, or inbounds, etc., should be part of any review.

I wondered that also. In addition, with the same thinking, I didn't think pitt should have even been allowed to challenge since you can't review a review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My .02:

 

I also thought Brown's post-match interview comment was neutral and not disrespectful, just a 'the breaks even out over time' kind of thing.

 

I think the stall call could have gone either way, but I'm OK with the way it was called.

 

However, I did not like the locked hands call for the same reason stated by refs (e.g. conan) above: Wilps is entitled to reaction time. 

 

The combination of these two would have led to a tie and sudden victory, which would have been more satisfying to all the fans but that is not a reason to argue for them -- the rules should be applied independent of the situation and their likely result on the match.

 

Finally, the one thing that I don't see on this thread: Brown should send Wilps a Christmas card for years to come to thank him for bouncing Kokesh out of the bracket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×