MM Challenge of 5pt move question

[Cowbell Man]

Bringing this to a new thread to figure out what happened.

After the roll around that put Mesenbrink to his back, we challenged. Since we were stuck getting announcers that hardly knew what wrestlers were on the mat, I don’t know what the actual challenge was.

The made the assumption it was that while still neutral that Fish was in danger for about 4 seconds. That would mean TD MM, reversal Fish for 2 and 2NF.

Since the challenge failed, I’ve decided I don’t know what the challenge was for because Fish was back exposed for a long, long time.

A little help here, please.

 

[wrestlinPSU]

I stated in the match thread that I thought Mesenbrink held fish on his back for at least two seconds. I thought the challenge was for those possible points.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

I think PSU challenged the 2NF against MM.

 

[Psubiomed]

Bringing this to a new thread to figure out what happened.

After the roll around that put Mesenbrink to his back, we challenged. Since we were stuck getting announcers that hardly knew what wrestlers were on the mat, I don’t know what the actual challenge was.

The made the assumption it was that while still neutral that Fish was in danger for about 4 seconds. That would mean TD MM, reversal Fish for 2 and 2NF.

Since the challenge failed, I’ve decided I don’t know what the challenge was for because Fish was back exposed for a long, long time.

A little help here, please.

Pretty sure we are challenging that Fish doesn't actually show control for a takedown until after the roll through on Mm back.

 

[Rocky_Smith]

It was clear that Fish was exposed in danger for a long, long time. Yet even on review, no points for MM. I figure I must not understand the rule.

 

[wrestlinPSU]

Pretty sure we are challenging that Fish doesn't actually show control for a takedown until after the roll through on Mm back.

I don’t think they gave the take down until after Mesenbrink going down to the mat held fish there first. I’m going to have to go back and watch it again now. I definitely think there was a pause for 2 to 3 seconds with Mesenbrink on top of fish holding him.

 

[mcpat]

Looked like a merkel TD by Fish to me. I thought Cael was challenging the 2 NF for Fish because it was at least questionable that Mitchell was exposed for a two count. FWIW, I thought the officials got it right.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

I see two potential answers: 1. The coaches believed Fish did not have the TD prior to MM holding Fish at less than 90 degrees for a three count, thus giving MM the takedown 2. There was no NF 2 for Fish because reaction time for the awarding of the TD made MM's back exposure less than a two-count.

 

[Cowbell Man]

Looked like a merkel TD by Fish to me. I thought Cael was challenging the 2 NF for Fish because it was at least questionable that Mitchell was exposed for a two count. FWIW, I thought the officials got it right.

To that issue, they got it right. But Fish was exposed and nearly pinned for almost 4 seconds and that is a TD, regardless. Exposure.

 

[mcpat]

To that issue, they got it right. But Fish was exposed and nearly pinned for almost 4 seconds and that is a TD, regardless. Exposure.

I’d have to rewatch it, but I thought Fish had a merkel TD. So there is no neutral exposure for Mesenbrink because they weren’t in neutral; Mitchell was on bottom.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

To that issue, they got it right. But Fish was exposed and nearly pinned for almost 4 seconds and that is a TD, regardless. Exposure.

Since Fish was awarded the takedown first, the following rule applies, thus negating MM from being awarded a Neutral Danger Zone Takedown:

Match Takedowns. A takedown shall be awarded when, from the neutral position, a competitor gains control of the opponent by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds and beyond reaction. Art. 2. Neutral Danger Zone Takedown. When in the neutral position, the referee shall announce a neutral danger signal (NDS) anytime a wrestler exposes their shoulders to the mat at any angle less than 90 degrees (neutral danger zone).The danger zone utilizes near fall criteria outlined in Rule 4.5.1, but replaces 45 degrees with any angle less than 90 degrees. The NDS announcement shall occur anytime a wrestler is voluntarily or involuntarily in the neutral danger zone, beyond reaction time, and will continue until the wrestler is out of the danger zone or a takedown is awarded. A neutral danger signal is not announced when both wrestlers are in the danger zone simultaneously.Art. 3. Neutral Danger Signal. The NDS is a mandatory verbal announcement of the word “danger,” followed by a verbal three count. Whenever possible, the referee also should include a visual indication of the count. If the referee reaches the third count and the wrestler is still in the danger zone, the opposing wrestler is awarded a takedownthere is

 

[mcpat]

This shows it. I see the official award Fish a merkel TD. So I think Mitchell is on bottom when folks want him to be awarded a neutral exposure TD.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

I'm not a fan of the Merkel takedown. I prefer the way it is called in freestyle, where a TD is only awarded if the offensive wrestler has both legs outside his opponent's legs.

 

[PaWrestlingFan7]

I’d have to rewatch it, but I thought Fish had a merkel TD. So there is no neutral exposure for Mesenbrink because they weren’t in neutral; Mitchell was on bottom.

This^^^. The challenge was for the 2 NF awarded Fish.

 

[Cowbell Man]

View embedded media

This shows it. I see the official award Fish a merkel TD. So I think Mitchell is on bottom when folks want him to be awarded a neutral TD.

Ah. Yes. I see the merkel now. That makes sense. No exposure.

 

[Random4598375]

Looked like a merkel TD by Fish to me. I thought Cael was challenging the 2 NF for Fish because it was at least questionable that Mitchell was exposed for a two count. FWIW, I thought the officials got it right.

This is how I saw it as well.

There was no way in hell those announcers, who barely knew what near fall points are at all, were going to be of any use in figuring that out.

 

[Callthestall]

I have a question. When coach challenges a call that involves numerous scoring options. Do coaches have to be specific on what they thought was wrong or can they just ask for the whole sequence to be reviewed???

 

[billrag]

I have a question. When coach challenges a call that involves numerous scoring options. Do coaches have to be specific on what they thought was wrong or can they just ask for the whole sequence to be reviewed???

I don't know the answer to this, but my suspicion is that they must specify what they're challenging and can't just say, "go back over that sequence and see if you got it right". I also suspect that even if the refs then see that they DID blow an earlier part of the sequence, that they aren't at liberty to change it unless that was what the challenge was specifically about. Seems a shame because you see sequences all the time where one thing or another might be wrong, but obviously you can't leave it completely open ended or they'd all last 15 minutes.

 

[Ski]

I have a question. When coach challenges a call that involves numerous scoring options. Do coaches have to be specific on what they thought was wrong or can they just ask for the whole sequence to be reviewed???

NCAA approves massive rule changes in college wrestling, including three-point takedown​

“The rule change provides the referee with the authority to confirm or overturn all calls or missed calls during a video review challenged sequence,” the statement said. “For coach’s challenges, the sequence is described as the time from the alleged error until the match is, or should have been, stopped by the referee.”

 

[CSauertiegPSU]

It was clear that Fish was exposed in danger for a long, long time. Yet even on review, no points for MM. I figure I must not understand the rule.

They’re no longer in a neutral position at that point, so that neutral danger count is irrelevant

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

View embedded media

This shows it. I see the official award Fish a merkel TD. So I think Mitchell is on bottom when folks want him to be awarded a neutral exposure TD.

All fan bases have em. Hell, some folks in Iowa still think Sammy pinned Bo.

 

[Random4598375]

View embedded media

This shows it. I see the official award Fish a merkel TD. So I think Mitchell is on bottom when folks want him to be awarded a neutral exposure TD.

I think Cael was listening to the BTN+ broadcast and was challenging the reversal that was awarded to Fish.

 

[mcpat]

All fan bases have em. Hell, some folks in Iowa still think Sammy pinned Bo.

I didn’t mean it negatively. I get all kinds of stuff wrong watching and discussing wrestling.

 

[psualt]

I assumed the challenge was from the end of the flurry when MM rolled through quickly. I believe that is when the two count occurred.

 

[Centuar94]

Challenge was for “move to the back “😂

 

[WexfordWarrior]

Challenge was for “move to the back “😂

And not wrestling with enough Gusto.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I’d have to rewatch it, but I thought Fish had a merkel TD. So there is no neutral exposure for Mesenbrink because they weren’t in neutral; Mitchell was on bottom.

Yep. After watching video posted below this post, I think what they were specifically challenging regarding exposure was whether MM's back is ever close enough to the mat (both shouldrrblades directly exposed within 6" of mat for 2 full seconds). When they first land, MM is clearly not exposed - Fish then makes the adjustment of releasing Merkel so he can turn on top of MM. This does very briefly expose MM, but he rolls through almost immediately. If you watch Ref on mat, he never makes one exposure swipe, let alone two. Having watched that video clip, where do you suppose they see 2 full seconds of continuous exposure on video review?

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Yep. After watching video posted below this post, I think what they were specifically challenging regarding exposure was whether MM's back is ever close enough to the mat (both shouldrrblades directly exposed within 6" of mat for 2 full seconds). When they first land, MM is clearly not exposed - Fish then makes the adjustment of releasing Merkel so he can turn on top of MM. This does very briefly expose MM, but he rolls through almost immediately. If you watch Ref on mat, he never makes one exposure swipe, let alone two. Having watched that video clip, where do you suppose they see 2 full seconds of continuous exposure on video review?

Agreed, hence the challenge. No idea why the 2NF was upheld.