Jones v. Farmer - 3rd Takedown

[rrschott]

1 minute ago, Silence Dogood said:

They tried. The ref was confused and shut it down. 

You don't let him.  There's respectful ways to continue the conversation, and there's always the option to engage the head referee at the tournament (IIRC, they were called in for something that came up in another match).

[Wrestling Bill Walton]

1 hour ago, rrschott said:

I hate to say it, but at that point it's on the coaches to make sure everything is scored correctly.  review the sequence in Track, make sure their wrestler is credited with the escape, and make the ref explain why it's not going to OT.  That's the coaches' obligation to their wrestler, and there are certainly ways to raise those issues in a respectful manner while still advocating for your guy, especially with that much on the line.

The OV coaches argued the correct point.  They had a right to ask why the awarded escape was taken away.    The ref got confused to what position they were in and forgot he awarded an escape.   He just discounted the OV coaches  request and walked away.   The asst referee could have helped her also, but he let the referee sink.    EMD got out of town right away.    You could go to the head referee, but you cant look at video.  It looked liked a guy came in front of the table in street clothes, was he the ref admininstrator?   He saw it too and could of helped get the score right.   The thing that bothered me was how fast the ref changed his decision from coach Schaefer's argument.  It was immediately then he just blew off the OV coaches.  

[SLAPtheMAT1313]

First off, I think it's important to point out that none of this discussion is being made as a negative to the EMD kid, those two were quite even opponents, thats how you get to a discussion of OT..and there is absolutely nothing to say that with OT the outcome would have been any different.

 

I was also called out for using the word "cheated" previously...I had no intention of implying that the ref started out his day with the idea of intentionally doing any harm to any wrestler...and I apologize if it read that way.  My question is this....what word(s) would you use if trying to explain this to the OV kid??  "I am sorry, Bryce.  You did escape as caught on video, we awarded you the point, as caught on video...the table staff disagreed with the call, as caught on audio and didn't award you said point...and although we had TWO referees responsible for nothing other than the scoring of your match, couldn't keep track of the score that SHOULD have totaled a whopping 4 points in 6min...then neither could be bothered to review it with the OV coaches when they questioned it...because they had NOWHERE else to be as it was the last match of the ticket round!  But don't feel cheated...it was just unfortunate!

 

They did not CHEAT him, those adults FAILED him

[BIGCATSontheMAT]

Posting pictures do not help at all. You need a slow motion video of about the last 5 seconds. From where I was sitting which was front row right in front of the mat, vanover had a Peterson locked up as time expired, therefore he has not lost control

[Silence Dogood]

33 minutes ago, BIGCATSontheMAT said:

Posting pictures do not help at all. You need a slow motion video of about the last 5 seconds. From where I was sitting which was front row right in front of the mat, vanover had a Peterson locked up as time expired, therefore he has not lost control

I disagree. Went back and watched the video. And that's not what the referee signaled. He changed the reversal to an escape and then forgot what happened.

[HWTDAD]

9 hours ago, ReformedPoster said:

Cheated is a strong word.  it implies intent.  I know the ref in question and he is right down the middle kind of guy that does not favor one kid over another.  Mistakes happen, and that is unfortunate.  But nobody was cheated out of anything

LOL!! Whether you know the ref or not the kid was absolutely cheated....cmon...

[HWTDAD]

47 minutes ago, BIGCATSontheMAT said:

Posting pictures do not help at all. You need a slow motion video of about the last 5 seconds. From where I was sitting which was front row right in front of the mat, vanover had a Peterson locked up as time expired, therefore he has not lost control

Posting pictures do not help?!?! 2 hands on the mat is loss of control sooo....

[Wrestling Scholar]

1 hour ago, BIGCATSontheMAT said:

Posting pictures do not help at all. You need a slow motion video of about the last 5 seconds. From where I was sitting which was front row right in front of the mat, vanover had a Peterson locked up as time expired, therefore he has not lost control

Are you sure you're watching the same match?  I saw the video.  And if he hit a Peterson, isn't that a move you hit from the defensive position, thus he list control?

[Wrestling Bill Walton]

1. This situation in the Vanover match brings up a good question to the IHSAA.  Should the IHSAA pay its table workers at big events  instead of relying on  local  homer volunteers?  Its apparent that we just found a new way how table help can affect a match as it did in this case.   Again if you havent followed, the two EMD knuckleheads working the table started cheering on the  Flowreslting sttream after they convinced each other the ref didnt put up an escape.  With the ref confused,  its apparent how their monologue had a big affect on the match.   Also these dudes were heard on the Flocast calling the refs calls ***potty mouth*** when it went against EMD.   Dudes were also yelling and screaming when the calls got overturned in EMD favor.   Maybe the IHSAA should stop pocketing all the money and pay a little to some workers to create a more unbiased enviroment.

[BIGCATSontheMAT]

4 hours ago, Wrestling Scholar said:

Are you sure you're watching the same match?  I saw the video.  And if he hit a Peterson, isn't that a move you hit from the defensive position, thus he list control?

A Peterson doesn’t necessarily have to be hit from defensive position. You could hit it in neutral position or starting on top and getting in a scramble and hitting it.

[SIACfan]

I did not see the match nor do I have the ability to watch it on Flo.

 

But if, from the referee's position, the top wrestler loses control but the bottom wrestler works for a reversal instead of taking the escape then no points are awarded until the situation concludes itself. There are several things that can result from this situation.

 

1) The bottom wrestler completes a reversal at which point he is awarded 2 points

2) The bottom wrestler eventually simply takes the escape at which point he is awarded 1 point

3) Time expires & the official rules that while the reversal was not achieved, there was loss of control & thus a point is awarded

4) The top wrestler regains control. In this case the official would rule no change & award no points

 

So even if the MD wrestler lost control, if the OV wrestler never took the escape but instead tried for a reversal & then the MD wrestler regained control then the right call would be no escape.

[Silence Dogood]

2 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

I did not see the match nor do I have the ability to watch it on Flo.

 

But if, from the referee's position, the top wrestler loses control but the bottom wrestler works for a reversal instead of taking the escape then no points are awarded until the situation concludes itself. There are several things that can result from this situation.

 

1) The bottom wrestler completes a reversal at which point he is awarded 2 points

2) The bottom wrestler eventually simply takes the escape at which point he is awarded 1 point

3) Time expires & the official rules that while the reversal was not achieved, there was loss of control & thus a point is awarded

4) The top wrestler regains control. In this case the official would rule no change & award no points

 

So even if the MD wrestler lost control, if the OV wrestler never took the escape but instead tried for a reversal & then the MD wrestler regained control then the right call would be no escape.

Agree.

 

My take on watching the video is that the ref originally went with #1. Then changed his mind to #3. Then got confused (was talking about a takedown with the table help) and awarded nothing.

 

So I guess he went with #4 but I don't think that's what he intended when he took away the reversal - he signaled for the 1 escape but the table help missed it and then he forgot about that in the confusion. 

[Lawdiggity]

30 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

I did not see the match nor do I have the ability to watch it on Flo.

 

But if, from the referee's position, the top wrestler loses control but the bottom wrestler works for a reversal instead of taking the escape then no points are awarded until the situation concludes itself. There are several things that can result from this situation.

 

1) The bottom wrestler completes a reversal at which point he is awarded 2 points

2) The bottom wrestler eventually simply takes the escape at which point he is awarded 1 point

3) Time expires & the official rules that while the reversal was not achieved, there was loss of control & thus a point is awarded

4) The top wrestler regains control. In this case the official would rule no change & award no points

 

So even if the MD wrestler lost control, if the OV wrestler never took the escape but instead tried for a reversal & then the MD wrestler regained control then the right call would be no escape.

Not arguing what you are saying as I’m not as savvy about the nuances of the rules as you. But I find this very interesting. Fully agree with #1-3 and see those situations all the time. But for #4 I’ve even seen that go 2-1 with 2 going to the wrestler re-gaining control and 1 for the wrestler with the escape but then getting taken down again. Key word being “re-gaining” which implies control was lost in the first place.  If control is lost they’re neutral, right? 

[SIACfan]

20 minutes ago, Lawdiggity said:

Not arguing what you are saying as I’m not as savvy about the nuances of the rules as you. But I find this very interesting. Fully agree with #1-3 and see those situations all the time. But for #4 I’ve even seen that go 2-1 with 2 going to the wrestler re-gaining control and 1 for the wrestler with the escape but then getting taken down again. Key word being “re-gaining” which implies control was lost in the first place.  If control is lost they’re neutral, right? 

 

Not if the bottom wrestler chooses to work for a reversal instead of taking the escape.

 

You don't award an escape point even when control is lost if the bottom wrestler is working for a reversal because you don't give them 1 for escape & then 2 for TD. That would effectively be 3 points for a reversal. So you wait to see what happens.

 

Same goes the other way. You don't want to give 1 escape if the bottom wrestler is working for a reversal in case the top wrestler regains control because you would then have to award the top wrestler 2 for a TD. If the that situation occurs it is a no change scenario & no points to anyone.

 

Think of it this way, just because there is loss of control doesn't necessarily mean the wrestlers are in a neutral position. If the bottom wrestler chooses to work for a reversal they are in a scramble position. Thus the official has to wait & see how the scramble concludes.

Edited February 23, 2023 by SIACfan

[ReformedPoster]

How many times have we seen a kid get a takedown and he decides to cut his opponent by pushing his head down and then briefly removing his hands to break contact.  The escape isn't immediately given if the opponent stays on his hands and knees.  Even if it is technically a "loss of control".  The escape typically isn't awarded until the bottom man squares up or comes up off his hands and knees.  I see this as similar

 

If the top man in my scenario breaks contact and then immediately drops back on top, there was no escape given and no TD awarded.

Edited February 23, 2023 by ReformedPoster

[jonah7474]

On 2/19/2023 at 10:48 AM, bigballerb said:

I said the same thing I was shocked they stood with the call, luckily it didn’t affect the match but if it did 

Word on the street is… the assistant tried to tell him it was a bad call and he over ruled him… AND after the match he said it didn’t matter because it didn’t affect the outcome of the match. 

[aoberlin]

2 hours ago, jonah7474 said:

Word on the street is… the assistant tried to tell him it was a bad call and he over ruled him… AND after the match he said it didn’t matter because it didn’t affect the outcome of the match. 

I believe you are talking about the wrong match.

[SWINfan]

I'm not a referee and can't speak to the exact application of the rule in this instance, but I can say I have seen it called the way SIACfan described and just because hands break doesn't make it an automatic escape.  There is something called reaction time and how it is applied in HS I'm not exactly sure.  I think Reformed Poster's example also applies.  Whether it's in a scramble or intentional, the escape isn't awarded instantaneously.  I see holds broken all the time in scrambles and control regained almost immediately.  In my mind, if Vanover reached out and had a leg, preventing a reversal, then that would fit.  But I can't see that part on the video.

I can't say for sure whether the call was correct or not, or whether the referees handled things wrong.  But the fact that there is still an ongoing argument reinforces my statement that it isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be.  Maybe it is to them, but that doesn't make it universal that everyone should see it the same - hence not clear.

 

[Wrestling Bill Walton]

7 hours ago, SWINfan said:

I'm not a referee and can't speak to the exact application of the rule in this instance, but I can say I have seen it called the way SIACfan described and just because hands break doesn't make it an automatic escape.  There is something called reaction time and how it is applied in HS I'm not exactly sure.  I think Reformed Poster's example also applies.  Whether it's in a scramble or intentional, the escape isn't awarded instantaneously.  I see holds broken all the time in scrambles and control regained almost immediately.  In my mind, if Vanover reached out and had a leg, preventing a reversal, then that would fit.  But I can't see that part on the video.

I can't say for sure whether the call was correct or not, or whether the referees handled things wrong.  But the fact that there is still an ongoing argument reinforces my statement that it isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be.  Maybe it is to them, but that doesn't make it universal that everyone should see it the same - hence not clear.

 

1.  Its clear Vanover lost the leg and with Mills having a bodylock shows loss of control.   And subsequently for a couple seconds he doesn't have the leg thus your reaction time argument is null.

2. You see a ref not award an escape in similar situations as mentioned by Reformed Poster, because the top wrestler maintains control of the leg.  Clearly didnt happen hear.

3. The ref even thought it was an escape and clearly awarded it.  See pic or video.   In the audio, the  ref argues the ending situation was not a takedown.  Thus he considered the situation to be a neutral position with escape awarded.

4.  Part of the controversy was this a reversal or not.  Any good ref will give this an escape.  The reversal is dicey as Mills met control criteria with Merkel at buzzer but not reacton time for Vanover to react makes that a tough call.

5.  The real controversy is the ref gave escape.  Then EMD table help saw the escape sign and chose not to put it up, who subsequesently cheered they didnt have  to score point because the ref got confused.  This was after the table worker called the refs call ***potty mouth***.

[ReformedPoster]

54 minutes ago, Wrestling Bill Walton said:

1.  Its clear Vanover lost the leg and with Mills having a bodylock shows loss of control.   And subsequently for a couple seconds he doesn't have the leg thus your reaction time argument is null.

2. You see a ref not award an escape in similar situations as mentioned by Reformed Poster, because the top wrestler maintains control of the leg.  Clearly didnt happen hear.

3. The ref even thought it was an escape and clearly awarded it.  See pic or video.   In the audio, the  ref argues the ending situation was not a takedown.  Thus he considered the situation to be a neutral position with escape awarded.

4.  Part of the controversy was this a reversal or not.  Any good ref will give this an escape.  The reversal is dicey as Mills met control criteria with Merkel at buzzer but not reacton time for Vanover to react makes that a tough call.

5.  The real controversy is the ref gave escape.  Then EMD table help saw the escape sign and chose not to put it up, who subsequesently cheered they didnt have  to score point because the ref got confused.  This was after the table worker called the refs call ***potty mouth***.

2.  I mentioned nothing about leg control.  I'm talking about the situation where I get a takedown, and decide to cut the opponent.  I stand up, push down their head and and then break contact.  So I'm standing and the opponent is still on hands and knees.  If I immediately drop back on top, there are no points given.  The escape wouldn't be awarded until the bottom man either squares up or comes up off his knees.

 

5.  Do you know for a fact that the people working the table are MD people?  They could have easily been from another Evansville school that happened to cheer for the locals.  I don't know as I wasn't in attendance that day.

Edited February 24, 2023 by ReformedPoster

[ReformedPoster]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:47 AM, Wrestling Bill Walton said:

So watched the video on Flo.    The reversal is a tough judgement call as he secures Merkel at the buzzer.

 

1 The ref melted like butter when EMD coach went to the table, who was at table one second after buzzer.

2.  After he cancelled his 2 point reversal,  the ref put up a point escape.  Which is obviously the correct call as referenced by HWTDAD pic where it shows loss of control.    See pic below where after the reversal was cancelled, the ref clearly gives the one point escape signal.   Looks like it just gets ignored.    Its not clear, but in the confusion he just gave up on that very relevant one point escape.   

3.  EMD coach was aggressive and screaming and yelling and intimidated the ref.   Owen Valley coaches were cool and calm showing sportsmanship under an emotional situation.  Obviously they didnt get rewarded for that.   EMD coach got awarded.

 

I went back and rewatched this match.  Right before your screen shot, the ref clearly hold up 2 for red and then 1 for green.  I believe he was indicating to the table that the correct score was 2-1 for red.  I don't think he was signaling that points were awarded for that scramble.

[Silence Dogood]

1 hour ago, ReformedPoster said:

I went back and rewatched this match.  Right before your screen shot, the ref clearly hold up 2 for red and then 1 for green.  I believe he was indicating to the table that the correct score was 2-1 for red.  I don't think he was signaling that points were awarded for that scramble.

I just re-watched too and think you are right... But I still think the ref was confused about it being a takedown situation vs. a reversal/escape situation at that point. 

[HolsteinKing]

 

.

Edited February 25, 2023 by HolsteinKing
Me

[rrschott]

6 minutes ago, HolsteinKing said:

To begin with, in order to award control by a Merkel the nearside leg has to be completely laced through and locked in over the back leg of the opponent and be hip to hip; in addition both arms must be under hooked from behind, or a legal headlock established (either on the near or far side, doesn't matter) in order to award control with that move.   A whizzer of the nearside arm would not establish control either.

 

Next, SIAC is very accurate with the statement about what we're looking for for a loss of control, or lack of in a scramble.  All of SIAC's 4 conditions noted during a scramble are correct in what we're looking to happen in order to award or not award points.   

 

Also, in regards to a loss of control, there must be distance separation and both wrestlers must have a defendable position while the clock is running.  I will not award an escape when offense has cleared in front of their opponent but still has head control.  Head control means still pressing down on the head while on the mat, or a collar tie to the head/neck.  Defense must be in a position to be able to react once offense has completely let go.  Otherwise, you'd have a noted situation of escape 1, and then an easy takedown 2, when control had never been lost.

 

Communication is paramount to wrestlers and coaches.  I am pointing at head pressure at stating "control red/green, no change"... Once separation has happened, I make sure both have a defendable position and reaction time has passed and then award the escape.

 

Hope this helps educate some of what we're looking for in certain situations.

 

 

That is helpful, and explains why our coaches preach that if you don't have the reversal to get clear separation to ensure you get your point before you re-engage.  

[Lawdiggity]

On 2/23/2023 at 9:12 AM, SIACfan said:

 

Not if the bottom wrestler chooses to work for a reversal instead of taking the escape.

 

You don't award an escape point even when control is lost if the bottom wrestler is working for a reversal because you don't give them 1 for escape & then 2 for TD. That would effectively be 3 points for a reversal. So you wait to see what happens.

 

Same goes the other way. You don't want to give 1 escape if the bottom wrestler is working for a reversal in case the top wrestler regains control because you would then have to award the top wrestler 2 for a TD. If the that situation occurs it is a no change scenario & no points to anyone.

 

Think of it this way, just because there is loss of control doesn't necessarily mean the wrestlers are in a neutral position. If the bottom wrestler chooses to work for a reversal they are in a scramble position. Thus the official has to wait & see how the scramble concludes.

Thank you @SIACfan I think the sentence in your explanation that cleared it up for me and was most helpful was - “Think of it this way, just because there is loss of control doesn't necessarily mean the wrestlers are in a neutral position.“