I saw another response to restart at 2 - sounds good. I just do not want to see this be a 1 and done - when through 2 Zain was much the better wrestler.
Final X Matchups
- Thread starter PAallDAY
- Start date
If it's a match 3 that means yanni won #2. At best it should be a draw under the circumstances and their should be 2 more matches if needed. I personally don't think it should be 1 match winner takes all.
Not a shot at you crop just a thought that popped at me when I saw this match 3 thing for the 100th time
Chandler is a 12x National Champ, 3x Olympian. You're comparing apples and oranges, Crop.
See Smith/Lewis 1984, and Lindland/Sieraki in 2000. The precedent is there.
It wouldn't be fair to ask Zain to wrestle another match or rematch. They had review officials that made a decision right there and Zain was declared the winner. How do you ever unaward a team spot?
I understand there is a precedent in 2000 and 1984 for a protest. Was that before immediate official video review? If so then it's really not the same. You never think it's going to happen but look at the devastating injury that happened to DT in just a charity match. Everyone loved the idea until the unthinkable heartbreak. Why should Zain be made to risk injury however small if officials made a mistake? I get that Zain wouldn't likely object but two wrongs never make something right.
I understand there is a precedent in 2000 and 1984 for a protest. Was that before immediate official video review? If so then it's really not the same. You never think it's going to happen but look at the devastating injury that happened to DT in just a charity match. Everyone loved the idea until the unthinkable heartbreak. Why should Zain be made to risk injury however small if officials made a mistake? I get that Zain wouldn't likely object but two wrongs never make something right.
If you understand the (semi)arbitrary nature of FS scoring, you have to understand you will not agree with every result. I thought the scoring for the first scramble in the second Zain/Yianni match was completely botched, for example. The whole replay process in every sport grinds my gears. I competed in a lot of sports for a lot of years. We all understood that we, as athletes, made mistakes and that referees did also. You lived with it and played on.
Thats what I was getting at, anyone who is in favor of a match 3 MUST think YD won match 2.
But we can both agree that they both get a bit of leverage with that brick. It's always a spot on my Fargo Bingo board to get the classic Chandler Challenge. It's practically a free space.
According to the uww rules, the match decision at the time is final. Although there is an appeal process, there is no decision that would change the match. If the officials were found to have made a mistake, the only recourse is against the officials. I just read through the uww's rules which you can get online at the Uww website
If there’s a Match 3, then:
* Folkstyle Rules.
* Yanni has to take bottom vs Zain.
Problem solved.
* Folkstyle Rules.
* Yanni has to take bottom vs Zain.
Problem solved.
I love you brother but that was before they had a table review with video.
Final X matches are being posted to USA Wrestling Youtube page.
https://www.youtube.com/user/USAWrestling2008/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/USAWrestling2008/videos
Assuming that’s some FRL stuff.
Willie has some classics - the Russian impression was gold and the Roosterweight/Featherweight argument was hilarious (I.e. how can a Rooster weigh less than a Featherweight - A ROOSTER HAS FEATHERS!)
i'm just being selfish, want them go go best 8 of 15!
I see this, my thoughts only, as;
...freestyle wrestling scoring harder for fans to understand AND tougher for officials (Danger, defined as back exposure past 90 degrees). Some judgment, even when there's video review, will happen.
...the brick-throwing timing rule, and ho much action can be reviewed (some say they went back about 50 seconds). Here's part of the rule "If a challenge is requested by a coach immediately after the refereeing body has awarded or failed to award a potential scoring action, the mat chairman will order the referee to stop the bout when the athletes have attained a non-pinning position and no more scoring is imminent."
...didn't see anything in the USA Wrestling "Rule Book & Guide to Wrestling" that references appeals.
...freestyle wrestling scoring harder for fans to understand AND tougher for officials (Danger, defined as back exposure past 90 degrees). Some judgment, even when there's video review, will happen.
...the brick-throwing timing rule, and ho much action can be reviewed (some say they went back about 50 seconds). Here's part of the rule "If a challenge is requested by a coach immediately after the refereeing body has awarded or failed to award a potential scoring action, the mat chairman will order the referee to stop the bout when the athletes have attained a non-pinning position and no more scoring is imminent."
...didn't see anything in the USA Wrestling "Rule Book & Guide to Wrestling" that references appeals.
In the Zain/Yianni match, everyone keeps talking about how far they went back to review. Could that have been part of a ref conference to review that call since between mat, table and scoring ref they all were different? One said 2 Blue, another 2 Red, and the scoring was 2 Blue and 2 Red?
fwiw, the appeals process is spelled out in section 9 of the USOC's bylaws. The "Corporation" is the USOC, and the relevant "corporation member" is USA Wrestling:
"Any athlete who alleges that he or she has been denied by a corporation member an opportunity to participate as established by Section 9.1 of these Bylaws, may seek to protect his or her opportunity to participate by filing a complaint with the CEO. ...
"If the complaint is not settled to the athlete’s satisfaction the athlete may file a claim with the AAA against the respondent for final and binding arbitration. If an impending competition requires immediate resolution of the complaint, an athlete may file a claim with the AAA simultaneously with the filing of the complaint with the CEO. ...
"The arbitrator shall render a reasoned award in writing. All such awards shall be made public and may be published on the corporation’s website."
The section lists different kinds of appeals, but the relevant one here is this:
"Section 9.13 Field of Play Decisions. The final decision of a referee during a competition regarding a field of play decision (a matter set forth in the rules of the competition to be within the discretion of the referee) shall not be reviewable through or the subject of these complaint procedures unless the decision is (i) outside the authority of the referee to make or (ii) the product of fraud, corruption, partiality or other misconduct of the referee. For purposes of this Section, the term “referee” shall include any individual with discretion to make field of play decisions."
https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/Tea...hash=48C54324CA32FC282054EDADCEA65CB4617DB612
Last edited:
Having attended this event and not much freestyle in the past, I can attest how difficult the scoring is to follow at times compared to NCAA wrestling. With that being said the decisions of the mat referee and officials should be final once the wrestlers leave the mat.
If for some reason this appeal is upheld, invalidating the final outcome of the 2nd match, it would seem appropriate to me that both match 2 and 3, if needed, should be wrestled rather than declaring Yianni the winner of the 2nd match.
Both the differences of the scoring and the general chaotic process that ensues from something like this are some of the reasons why international freestyle wrestling does not have the following of NCAA folkstyle wrestling.
Some on here have called for the NCAA to convert to freestyle rules for their competitions, which in my mind would be a complete disaster, negatively impacting the current following that college wrestling has.
If for some reason this appeal is upheld, invalidating the final outcome of the 2nd match, it would seem appropriate to me that both match 2 and 3, if needed, should be wrestled rather than declaring Yianni the winner of the 2nd match.
Both the differences of the scoring and the general chaotic process that ensues from something like this are some of the reasons why international freestyle wrestling does not have the following of NCAA folkstyle wrestling.
Some on here have called for the NCAA to convert to freestyle rules for their competitions, which in my mind would be a complete disaster, negatively impacting the current following that college wrestling has.
But wouldn't that just refer to Olympic trials next year? Yianni is not being denied an opportunity to compete next year...I could be reading it wrong because it is alot of technical mumbo-jumbo
But wouldn't that just refer to Olympic trials next year? Yianni is not being denied an opportunity to compete next year...I could be reading it wrong because it is alot of technical mumbo-jumbo
In section 9.1, it says it applies to "the Olympic Games, the Pan American Games, the Paralympic Games, a World Championship competition, or other such protected competition as defined in Section 1.3 of these Bylaws."
@js8793 there is another video out there showing a different angle and in that you can clearly see Zain push off to create the roll, and you can bet that's what the refs saw too. Yanni didn't generate the roll, Zain did, 2-0 Red should've been what was scored. In the end the correct call was made, at least for that exchange.
Here is a link to all of the USOC's "Section 9" cases from the past 30 years or so (the infamous Randy Lewis / Leroy Smith battle was outside of that window). There are three section 9 cases involving USA Wrestling (technically four, but two of them involve the same match). Here's a TLDR summary:
2000 - Dennis Hall protested the result of the Greco finals at the Olympic Trials. He claimed his opponent (Jim Guenwald) hooked his leg on a throw and subsequent turn. The USOC Protest Committee and the arbitrator both ruled against Hall because they said the decision was a judgment call that should be left to the officials on the mat. Interestingly, the mat chairman for the match was Rick Tucci. I think he was one of the officials for the Zain/Yianni match too.
2000 - Matt Lindland filed a protest over his match at the Greco Olympic Trials. He lost the match in overtime to Keith Sieracki and filed an appeal with five different allegations about missed calls. The Protest Committee denied Lindland's appeal. The Greco Roman Sport Committee upheld that decision. An arbitrator then vacated those decisions based on procedural flaws in the protest process and ordered a rematch, which Lindland won. But that arbitration result was tossed because Sieracki hadn't been notified of the proceeding. A second arbitrator found in Sieracki's favor and reinstated the decisions of the protest committee and the Greco Roman Sport Committee naming Sieracki the winner. Lindland and Sieracki both ended up filing lawsuits in federal court, the upshot of which was Lindland getting the spot on the team.
2015 - Nick Marable appealed USA Wrestling's decision not let him wrestle off against James Green for the world team spot. Marable said he was unable to wrestle off because he'd hurt himself falling off a treadmill. The artibtrator ruled in Marable's favor, but Green eventually won the world team spot.
This concludes my report.
2000 - Dennis Hall protested the result of the Greco finals at the Olympic Trials. He claimed his opponent (Jim Guenwald) hooked his leg on a throw and subsequent turn. The USOC Protest Committee and the arbitrator both ruled against Hall because they said the decision was a judgment call that should be left to the officials on the mat. Interestingly, the mat chairman for the match was Rick Tucci. I think he was one of the officials for the Zain/Yianni match too.
2000 - Matt Lindland filed a protest over his match at the Greco Olympic Trials. He lost the match in overtime to Keith Sieracki and filed an appeal with five different allegations about missed calls. The Protest Committee denied Lindland's appeal. The Greco Roman Sport Committee upheld that decision. An arbitrator then vacated those decisions based on procedural flaws in the protest process and ordered a rematch, which Lindland won. But that arbitration result was tossed because Sieracki hadn't been notified of the proceeding. A second arbitrator found in Sieracki's favor and reinstated the decisions of the protest committee and the Greco Roman Sport Committee naming Sieracki the winner. Lindland and Sieracki both ended up filing lawsuits in federal court, the upshot of which was Lindland getting the spot on the team.
2015 - Nick Marable appealed USA Wrestling's decision not let him wrestle off against James Green for the world team spot. Marable said he was unable to wrestle off because he'd hurt himself falling off a treadmill. The artibtrator ruled in Marable's favor, but Green eventually won the world team spot.
This concludes my report.
The bylaws say the arbitrator's written decision will be made public.
If there's no published decision and Zain shows up in Kazakhstan in October, I think we can stop speculating.
Ugh ... That is even longer than the cruise liner speculation from two summers ago
IMO—this will NEVER get reversed. it’s over as far as I’m concerned and would be absolutely shocked if anything else comes out of this.
Just listened to Koll interviewed with Matt Dernlan. Koll says the NLWC challenge was on the earlier scoring sequence. The refs told him they are allowed to go back 50 seconds since action never stopped ( I’m paraphrasing but you get this jist). Koll also said he would have done the same thing the NLWC coaches did but wouldn’t have expected the review to go back that far.
So long story short..how the hell is he going to win a challenge when he not appealing if the score was right or wrong, agreed he would have done the same thing as NLWC coaches? He’s basically trying to challenge the 5 second rule.
At the end of the day if this even gets to anyone’s desk, the first people they will go to is the refs. The refs are going to say, “in our judgement it was one big sequence and the coaches were well within the time limit to challenge”. Case closed. Can’t go no further than that. It was a judgement call by the official.
Koll should just come out and declare he’s withdrawing the appeal instead of wasting time taking it up the ladder when it’s all going to come back to the same thing (a judgement call by the official).
Just listened to Koll interviewed with Matt Dernlan. Koll says the NLWC challenge was on the earlier scoring sequence. The refs told him they are allowed to go back 50 seconds since action never stopped ( I’m paraphrasing but you get this jist). Koll also said he would have done the same thing the NLWC coaches did but wouldn’t have expected the review to go back that far.
So long story short..how the hell is he going to win a challenge when he not appealing if the score was right or wrong, agreed he would have done the same thing as NLWC coaches? He’s basically trying to challenge the 5 second rule.
At the end of the day if this even gets to anyone’s desk, the first people they will go to is the refs. The refs are going to say, “in our judgement it was one big sequence and the coaches were well within the time limit to challenge”. Case closed. Can’t go no further than that. It was a judgement call by the official.
Koll should just come out and declare he’s withdrawing the appeal instead of wasting time taking it up the ladder when it’s all going to come back to the same thing (a judgement call by the official).
Last edited:
I understand it HAS been appealed. Unlikely to be reversed may be more accurate, though there's always that chance in what I'll call binding decisions. There's enough fact-driven discussion on both sides of this situation that I'll just wait and see. Just a sense (call it a gut-feeling) I have after reading much of what's been written, and what's in the USOC rules -- it is indeed unlikely to be overturned.
To Cholley … thanks. I only read the USA Wrestling Rulebook, not the USOC stuff.
To Cholley … thanks. I only read the USA Wrestling Rulebook, not the USOC stuff.
Yes you are correct Roar. That’s what I meant. It HAS been appealed and IMO no chance it gets overturned
As someone who's had a brick in my hand at a few tournaments, I'll add this input:
There was obviously a time that we didn't have the brick/video review. We need to not abuse it.
We need more education on use of said brick. There's a great podcast with Bickely and two other officials that Jason Bryant curated that was super informative. I learned a lot. I also talk with officials at tournaments because I'm a seriously likeable guy.
Coaches need to be realists and responsible with the brick. There is potential for great hindrance in our sport's viewability with unnecessary "YOLO" bricks.
Long story-short... Stop ****ing up with these bricks and using it as a last-ditch effort because you're pissed that your kid got beat. If you don't have a legitimate gripe (instead of an emotional reaction) put your hands back in your ****ing pockets because if/when this shit gets out of hand, they'll probably take them away and hinder officiating.
There was obviously a time that we didn't have the brick/video review. We need to not abuse it.
We need more education on use of said brick. There's a great podcast with Bickely and two other officials that Jason Bryant curated that was super informative. I learned a lot. I also talk with officials at tournaments because I'm a seriously likeable guy.
Coaches need to be realists and responsible with the brick. There is potential for great hindrance in our sport's viewability with unnecessary "YOLO" bricks.
Long story-short... Stop ****ing up with these bricks and using it as a last-ditch effort because you're pissed that your kid got beat. If you don't have a legitimate gripe (instead of an emotional reaction) put your hands back in your ****ing pockets because if/when this shit gets out of hand, they'll probably take them away and hinder officiating.
No real idea what the USOC will do here but if I was counseling them I'd caution them to reserve overturning results to only the most extreme scenarios, where the miscarriage of justice was blindingly clear. This scenario isn't that, with legitimate competing interpretations running in both directions. Optics likely play a big part in the USOC's calculus and to that end I'm fairly certain they prefer the choice that doesn't imply that things aren't running smoothly. Bottom line is that if there was a real sense that Yianni got robbed because he otherwise beat Zain, there might be an appetite to overturn, but Zain was better in both matches that day.
I don't disagree about the optics for the USOC, but nearly all of these section 9 cases end up in front of an arbitrator. Am I naive to think that what's best for the USOC will not factor into an independent arbitrator's decision?
Very generally, arbitrators tend to favor the institution over the individual, which is precisely why institutions have long lobbied for and have indeed received judicial green lights for the wider use of mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts. I don't know how that truism maps onto sports arbitration contexts or section 9 contexts, but in looking over a handful of other section 9 complaints/decisions in the link you posted, my generalization tends to bear out.
If I'm understanding the complaint correctly, the arbitrator would have to find that the review officials abused their discretion (or whatever the exact applicable standard is) when they went back :45+ seconds to reverse a call because Zain's corner effectively cemented those points in stone by failing to challenge within 5 seconds of the points being awarded. In order to find that the refs abused their discretion in doing so, there must be no support for their basis in doing so, both under the rule book and in past practice. I'm unable to find textual support for the 'continuous action' basis reportedly cited by the official, but that doesn't mean it's explicitly prohibited. It's common sense that in reviewing a call the officials would have to rewind to where the action in a particular sequence began.
Even given review officials' 'rewind discretion,' Koll might argue, rewinding however far back should only be done for the purpose of providing necessary context to the only matter for which they have actual jurisdiction: determining any scoring within 5 seconds of the brick being thrown (and there was a question late), not altering the scoring with respect to any other action that took place within the 'continuous action' timeline.
The problem with this rigid take is that there are often good reasons to not throw a brick for your wrestler, such as if the wrestler is in a fluid but otherwise advantageous position and threatening to score in other ways. This was the case here. Throwing a brick stops the action and puts the wrestlers back on their feet. So I think it's just common sense that the refs be permitted to review from the start of any sequence and simply get it right.
An arbitrator might ask, well, are there other instances of review officials doing this, i.e., rewinding to the beginning of a sequence and correcting scoring that occurred outside the 5-second window? There probably are and they're probably easy to find.
Realize that the arbitrator isn't looking to 'get the call right' so much as determine whether the official went so far out of his lane that it warranted overturning. I don't think that happened here.
This is all very informative- thanks for sharing. However, I'm not sure the above part is accurate-- below is the relevant language I could find in the UWW rules re: a challenge's impact on action (which makes total sense given that the brick would certainly be abused by coaches of the disadvantaged wrestler in a given situation if it did have the ability to stop action):
"During a bout, when the coach considers that a blatant refereeing mistake has been made against his wrestler and calls for a challenge, the mat chairman must wait for the action to go to neutral and stop the match."
"When a challenge is requested by a coach, the mat chairman interrupts the bout when the action is back to neutral."
"The mat chairman shall demand to stop the match to review the challenge as soon as the situation on the mat becomes neutral."
Thanks for that correction, greatly appreciated. I've seen bricks thrown and refs blow the whistle in the middle of action, which is why I wrote what I did. Maybe there's a hesitation to throw the brick out of that fear? I'm speculating. I don't know the rule book inside out, but like every sport there's the printed rules and there's how things are called. And there's also the heat of the moment, where not every coach (and ref) acts wholly rational.
the one thing not being considered is the scoreboard being correct. I am not saying it was in this case but often the score isn't appropriately recorded -one can understand when there are a lot of signals being flashed at you. Regardless, when do you ask that the scoreboard be verified? If that is a challenge, then how do the brick rules apply?
Similar threads
