this sequence, and the responses, fascinate me ...
there are some folks that responded that really know wrestling. and yet, there were a difference of calls in the responses.
from a ref's perspective, this is an almost can't win situation.
below are the options the ref had, and the problems with each option. I thought some of you would find this illuminating, in that despite what many folks think, not all the rules in high school (or in college) are as black-and-white as some seem to think they are.
Tom
Option 1:
Pretty much what the ref did. Focus on D'Arcy maintaining control of Cefolo's ankle, and go from there. The ref felt that D'Arcy had maintained control, and as such he should get swipes because Cefolo's back was exposed after the roll-through. Any ref that follows this approach is on firm footing should there be any type of challenge.
The problem with this approach is that what D'Arcy does after Cefolo hits the roll-through. The ref seemed to conclude that control was maintained because D'Arcy held on to Cefolo's ankle. However, one of the guidances to refs for situations where the top wrestler's back is exposed is to be aware of it, but not to address it until the top wrestler deals with it. In a number of pinning situations, the top wrestler also has their back to the mat. If they are in control, they don't worry about that. So this guidance is basically saying that if the top wrestler is worried about their back, then they probably are not in control, and the ref should use these actions to guide their evaluation.
D'Arcy's coaches would love the approach that the ref took, and Cefolo's coaches would be screaming at the approach.
Option 2:
Observe that D'Arcy is bridging, and frantically trying to get off of his back after the roll-through, and decide that this is a change in control. Start giving swipes for Cefolo because D'Arcy's back is exposed. You're probably going to confuse the table, as there isn't enough time to signal a reversal for Cefolo, then 2 NF for Cefolo, then a reversal for D'Arcy. The ref would probably go right to swipes, signal the 2 NF at the end of the sequence, then signal a reversal for Cefolo (catching up to what happened) and then a reversal for D'Arcy. A ref would be on pretty solid footing with this approach, though it would take some explaining.
This approach would likely bring protests from both sides. D'Arcy's coaches would probably feel that he never was reversed, and that he should have earned 2 NF. Cefolo's coaches would probably argue that neither reversal should have been awarded, but that Cefolo should be awarded the 2 NF.
Option 3:
This approach recognizes that there are some situations where control is difficult to establish. The ref would basically conclude that D'Arcy had maintained control, but after the roll-through it was 50-50 as to who had control. As such, the ref would not give swipes for either wrestler. After D'Arcy bridged and then rolled over, the ref would simply signal red still had control, and no points would be awarded to either wrestler. The ref would be on somewhat shaky ground with this approach, but they could argue it in response to challenges.
D'Arcy's coaches would be livid, as they would feel that the ref had missed the awarding of back points while he had maintained control, so at a minimum he was shorted 2 NF points. Their argument would be that even if the ref was uncertain of control, as long as an escape or reversal was not awarded to Cefolo, then D'Arcy deserved to be awarded back points. Cefolo's coaches would also be livid, as they would feel that Cefolo should have been awarded back points. They'd likely not care whether reversal points were awarded, especially since if they were then each wrestler should get 2, but they would be irate at not getting 2 NF.
I should also point out that I have, as a ref, had times where I've followed each of the above approaches. In youth wrestling, it's pretty easy to sell whatever decision you make. In high school, the bar is raised a good bit, and the coaches will argue pretty strongly against whatever approach is taken if they feel it works to their wrester's disadvantage.
