Ohio State Match - Video Review

[RoarLions1]

Here's several of the rules;
f. If the referee determines the coach delayed throwing the foam brick, the video review challenge shall not be allowed.

g. If a coach challenges a previously made ruling on a video review challenge or if a coach challenges a ruling when the team's allotment of video review challenges has been exhausted, the actions are considered intentional delay of the match and the coach is penalized with a control of mat violation.

h. If a coach requests a video review of a fall, which is not reviewable, the coach shall be charged with a video review challenge.

For the team point that Ohio State was deducted, I understand it was a "Control of Mat Area" violation. Rule "f." above appears to be the rule violated. I don't ever remember a referee determining there was a delay in any dual or tournament I've watched. Anyone else?

 

[nerfstate]

It was a weird situation--From what I've been able to piece together, I feel like no official saw the brick when it came out, and they assumed it had come out later than it did. Maybe they should have thrown the brick on when the brick was thrown, lol. Not to advocate for the point to be returned or everything--that single-digit just looks so nice on the box score, but . . . .??

 

[RoarLions1]

Thanks nerf...this is a memory thread for me. Asking the collective wisdom/knowledge of the board. Mrs. Roar doesn't mention an "memory" issues, only "hearing" issues so far...and they are explainable, "selectively" .

 

[PSUbluTX]

Thanks for posting these rules, Roar. I don’t recall seeing the late challenge rule enforced this way before either. Seems like the refs have given a warning in the past, although the rule clearly says the offender shall be “penalized.” Maybe some refs consider giving a warning to be a type of penalty? Or maybe this ref was simply using the rule to nullify the silly celebration penalty assessed against RBY at Ryan’s insistence?

 

[billrag]

In fairness, the penalty point against RBY for "spiking" his headgear was borderline as well. It's my opinion that neither situation warranted a penalty point, but what do I know?

 

[Grass]

I didn't have an issue with the penalty point against RBY. I'm pretty sure that's an automatic penalty point and when I saw him do it I knew it was coming.

 

[RoarLions1]

I didn't have an issue with the penalty point against RBY. I'm pretty sure that's an automatic penalty point and when I saw him do it I knew it was coming.

This ^^. We can like/dislike the rule, it was called exactly as written.

 

[Mat Burn]

Well since we are discussing penalty points, the stall point against Verk was IMHO horrible. It would have been great to see him gas a fading Jordan in OT, with the thoughts later of seeing a negative score on OHS after the team point deduction.

 

[billrag]

This ^^. We can like/dislike the rule, it was called exactly as written.

I haven't read the rule and if the rule does call for a penalty against a wrestler who "slightly forcefully drops his headgear at his feet", then by all means. I think it was Bo who lost a penalty point last year for tossing his headgear and while it wasn't classless or anything, I fully understood that he had violated the rule and deserved the penalty point. If the rule is clear, I agree, it should have been called as written.

 

[kingslayer_85]

Well since we are discussing penalty points, the stall point against Verk was IMHO horrible. It would have been great to see him gas a fading Jordan in OT, with the thoughts later of seeing a negative score on OHS after the team point deduction.

Verk wrestled great in that match but if you are talking about the call when he pushed/ran Jordan out and didn't attempt to return him to the mat I think that is the right call

 

[SWPA]

I would agree that Bo and RBY both celebrated with the use of their respective headgear in a way that was not classless or disrespectful but the rule is there for a reason and was rightfully called in both cases. Bo new he messed up and needed to clam down right after he spiked it. That shows his true character. Kids get emotional and forget sometimes what actions can cost them team points during celebrations. The simple fix for this is to practice keeping your headgear on until after your hand is raised and you leave the mat. There are plenty of different ways to celebrate without taking raw emotion away from the wrestlers.

 

[RoarLions1]

I haven't read the rule and if the rule does call for a penalty against a wrestler who "slightly forcefully drops his headgear at his feet", then by all means. I think it was Bo who lost a penalty point last year for tossing his headgear and while it wasn't classless or anything, I fully understood that he had violated the rule and deserved the penalty point. If the rule is clear, I agree, it should have been called as written.

Art. 1. Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, baiting an opponent, aggressively throwing ear protection (regardless of anger or excitement),

Nothing wrong with the call, mo.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

In fairness, the penalty point against RBY for "spiking" his headgear was borderline as well. It's my opinion that neither situation warranted a penalty point, but what do I know?

From the NCAA Rule Book:

"Rule 5 - Infractions
Section 2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Art. 1. Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, baiting an opponent, aggressively throwing ear protection (regardless of anger or excitement,) failure to stop on the whistle ..."

Basically, if a wrestler drops their headgear, it's not an issue, and no unsportsmanlike conduct will be called. If they throw their headgear, it will be called.

While RBY's throw of his headgear wasn't exactly slamming it to the mat in frustration or in celebration, it was a clear violation of the rules. The ref was absolutely correct with the call against RBY.

 

[kingslayer_85]

I would agree that Bo and RBY both celebrated with the use of their respective headgear in a way that was not classless or disrespectful but the rule is there for a reason and was rightfully called in both cases. Bo new he messed up and needed to clam down right after he spiked it. That shows his true character. Kids get emotional and forget sometimes what actions can cost them team points during celebrations. The simple fix for this is to practice keeping your headgear on until after your hand is raised and you leave the mat. There are plenty of different ways to celebrate without taking raw emotion away from the wrestlers.

They should also enhance the rule to prohibit wrestlers from putting the headgear on sideways. I have noticed that Cassar has done this in the past , someone has to tell him that there are many times it is ok to try and emulate Coon but this isn't one of those cases.

 

[NoVaLion2]

I haven't read the rule and if the rule does call for a penalty against a wrestler who "slightly forcefully drops his headgear at his feet", then by all means. I think it was Bo who lost a penalty point last year for tossing his headgear and while it wasn't classless or anything, I fully understood that he had violated the rule and deserved the penalty point. If the rule is clear, I agree, it should have been called as written.

Rule 5, Section 2, Art. 1: "Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, baiting an opponent, aggressively throwing ear protection (regardless of anger or excitement), ..." Emphasis in original.

I think a two handed jam constitutes aggressive. I don't particularly like the rule, but it's a rule. I'll give good odds that RBY NEVER does it again.

oops, just saw Tom posted the detail as well.

 

[nerfstate]

Verk wrestled great in that match but if you are talking about the call when he pushed/ran Jordan out and didn't attempt to return him to the mat I think that is the right call

You're the first person I've seen here with that interpretation of what happened. Sure looked like Jordan ran/pulled Verk out to me, especially toward the end when Verk was setting up a mat return. Maybe it's just my homerism though. I feel the call in general illustrates some of the holes with the current stalling definition on the edge.

 

[RoarLions1]

Verk wrestled great in that match but if you are talking about the call when he pushed/ran Jordan out and didn't attempt to return him to the mat I think that is the right call

You're the first person I've seen here with that interpretation of what happened. Sure looked like Jordan ran/pulled Verk out to me, especially toward the end when Verk was setting up a mat return. Maybe it's just my homerism though. I feel the call in general illustrates some of the holes with the current stalling definition on the edge.

Yeah, I'd have to re-watch it to be sure. At the time, live action, it sure didn't look like Verk was driving the action towards OB. In fairness, the refs called a (questionable??) stall on Martin later, when he pushed Manville OB. Refs have a tough job...I wouldn't want it.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

They should also enhance the rule to prohibit wrestlers from putting the headgear on sideways. I have noticed that Cassar has done this in the past , someone has to tell him that there are many times it is ok to try and emulate Coon but this isn't one of those cases.

Why? Makes no sense to penalize that.

 

[Mat Burn]

You're the first person I've seen here with that interpretation of what happened. Sure looked like Jordan ran/pulled Verk out to me, especially toward the end when Verk was setting up a mat return. Maybe it's just my homerism though. I feel the call in general illustrates some of the holes with the current stalling definition on the edge.

Too much of a judgement call @ the end of the match. I think the PSU staff felt the same way, didn't they challenge it?

 

[nerfstate]

Too much of a judgement call @ the end of the match. I think the PSU staff felt the same way, didn't they challenge it?

I was curious about that too--can you actually challenge a stalling call? Who tossed the brick there, anyway. I'm guessing it wasn't Cael. Seemed like he tried to walk it back, knowing it was a lost cause (in spite of their belief it wasn't a good call).

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Too much of a judgement call @ the end of the match. I think the PSU staff felt the same way, didn't they challenge it?

It was the 2nd brick that the PSU staff threw. The 1st one was ruled in their favor (a hands to the face was awarded to the PSU wrestler), so that challenge didn't count against their limit of 1 per dual. The ref did not change the stall call on Verkleeren, so that became PSU's last challenge of the dual.

 

[Mat Burn]

I was curious about that too--can you actually challenge a stalling call? Who tossed the brick there, anyway. I'm guessing it wasn't Cael. Seemed like he tried to walk it back, knowing it was a lost cause (in spite of their belief it wasn't a good call).

Not knowing what Cael thought of it, but I think he didn't want to challenge it which would give Jordan a chance to get a breather.

Looked to me that he was fading.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Thanks for posting these rules, Roar. I don’t recall seeing the late challenge rule enforced this way before either. Seems like the refs have given a warning in the past, although the rule clearly says the offender shall be “penalized.” Maybe some refs consider giving a warning to be a type of penalty? Or maybe this ref was simply using the rule to nullify the silly celebration penalty assessed against RBY at Ryan’s insistence?

Same here, but I just re-watched and 38 seconds of match time went by from the time Smith may (looked to me like he had the TD) have had a takedown and the action was stopped. No sign of the brick before that. However, if they had thrown the brick and the refs didn't see it wouldn't tOSU coaches be going nuts trying to call attention to the brick? 38 seconds is a long time.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Yeah, I'd have to re-watch it to be sure. At the time, live action, it sure didn't look like Verk was driving the action towards OB. In fairness, the refs called a (questionable??) stall on Martin later, when he pushed Manville OB. Refs have a tough job...I wouldn't want it.

Martin clearly pushed Manville out. Good call based on the rule.
Askren says it is easy to tell if your're being pushed out or are running out - depends on where your feet/hips are. Feet in front, your're being pushed... I need to rewatch.... Verk does a late attempt of a forw trip and he clearly stops moving his feet.... but that might have been too late.
Another item Askren brought up that I need to review: RBYs stall call. Ben doesn't know why the ref counted to 5 and then finally called stalling a few seconds later. My interpretation was the ref was waiting for the action to stop... is that correct?

 

[tikk10]

Here's several of the rules;
f. If the referee determines the coach delayed throwing the foam brick, the video review challenge shall not be allowed.

g. If a coach challenges a previously made ruling on a video review challenge or if a coach challenges a ruling when the team's allotment of video review challenges has been exhausted, the actions are considered intentional delay of the match and the coach is penalized with a control of mat violation.

h. If a coach requests a video review of a fall, which is not reviewable, the coach shall be charged with a video review challenge.

For the team point that Ohio State was deducted, I understand it was a "Control of Mat Area" violation. Rule "f." above appears to be the rule violated. I don't ever remember a referee determining there was a delay in any dual or tournament I've watched. Anyone else?

I don't think Rule f was violated because violating Rule f doesn't, by these terms, trigger a penalty point and one was. So I think it was Rule g that was determined to have been violated because control of the mat was cited as the basis, which would mean they determined there was an intentional delay.

It wasn't obvious to viewers when the brick was thrown but recall the circumstances: Smith got onto Hall's legs and looked like he might've gotten a takedown. Ref demonstrably signaled no takedown. A wild scramble ensued and Hall eventually winds up behind Smith. Now, if the brick came out after Hall's takedown (and I imagine the ref determined it had), that's an intentional delay because you're not challenging the call on the near-takedown so much as trying to wipe out Hall's two points on his takedown. The time to challenge that call was when the ref signaled no takedown by Smith.

Often enough it's not possible for coaches to react so fast because the time between the challengable non-call and the subsequent event is practically instantaneous, but here there was a lot of time between Smith's near-takedown and Hall's subsequent takedown.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Same here, but I just re-watched and 38 seconds of match time went by from the time Smith may (looked to me like he had the TD) have had a takedown and the action was stopped. No sign of the brick before that. However, if they had thrown the brick and the refs didn't see it wouldn't tOSU coaches be going nuts trying to call attention to the brick? 38 seconds is a long time.

seems like they wanted to wait and see after the scramble... when it was over and he didn't have 2 they decided to throw ...

 

[kingslayer_85]

Yeah, I'd have to re-watch it to be sure. At the time, live action, it sure didn't look like Verk was driving the action towards OB. In fairness, the refs called a (questionable??) stall on Martin later, when he pushed Manville OB. Refs have a tough job...I wouldn't want it.

what I noticed was that Jordan was on his heels and not his toes, almost like his was leaning back into Verk. Assumed then that Verk was pushing

 

[Cowbell Man]

They should also enhance the rule to prohibit wrestlers from putting the headgear on sideways. I have noticed that Cassar has done this in the past , someone has to tell him that there are many times it is ok to try and emulate Coon but this isn't one of those cases.

Could be emulating Jimmy Gulibon?

 

[RoarLions1]

Again, not an easy job. These guys are under a microscope at times.

Not nearly the scope, I have a little bit of perspective... coaching, umpiring and refereeing, about 10 years worth back in the day. Half the folks agree with the tough calls, half don't, nature of the beast.

 

[kingslayer_85]

well who is going to go and check the video on the Jordan / Verk match on the push out of bounds, interested since it seems I am the only one who saw the way I did. Assume most of the folks hear are retired , the bank I work at blocks all videos on the work computer so I can't do that right now. Someone has to tell the folks in tech that people watch videos that aren't porn.

 

[SWPA]

Headgear is cool, keep it on young fellas.

 

[NoVa Lion]

well who is going to go and check the video on the Jordan / Verk match on the push out of bounds, interested since it seems I am the only one who saw the way I did. Assume most of the folks hear are retired , the bank I work at blocks all videos on the work computer so I can't do that right now. Someone has to tell the folks in tech that people watch videos that aren't porn.[/QUOTE

I agree with you kingslayer. Looks to me like it was the right call, with a huge disclaimer. The disclaimer is you see that happen multiple times in almost every dual and it is never (well almost never) called.

 

[RD41]

Martin clearly pushed Manville out. Good call based on the rule.
Askren says it is easy to tell if your're being pushed out or are running out - depends on where your feet/hips are. Feet in front, your're being pushed... I need to rewatch.... Verk does a late attempt of a forw trip and he clearly stops moving his feet.... but that might have been too late.
Another item Askren brought up that I need to review: RBYs stall call. Ben doesn't know why the ref counted to 5 and then finally called stalling a few seconds later. My interpretation was the ref was waiting for the action to stop... is that correct?

The only complaint I have is the inconsistency of this call. Not just looking at this match but the entire season. There have been very blatant examples of wrestlers being pushed OOB & nary a call is made.

 

[nerfstate]

Here it is, should be queued up to the right time.


I still see what I want to see, but point taken it’s a tough call either way. Hence my displeasure in the rule as is.

 

[NoVa Lion]

The only complaint I have is the inconsistency of this call. Not just looking at this match but the entire season. There have been very blatant examples of wrestlers being pushed OOB & nary a call is made.

+ a bunch. That is what I said.

 

[TexasLion1979]

The deduction of one team point in a match is a huge penalty. Would college football institute a two point penalty for a touchdown celebration making a touchdown worth four points? Never because it would be stupid.

I think the penalty needs to affect the match just completed. Perhaps make it the equivalent of a stall call. If the stall call results in a point that ties up the bout, get back to wrestling.

 

[El-Jefe]

Can anyone dig up the rule about overturning NCAA Tournament calls after the match ends by tweeting a still shot?

Does it also apply to tweets from Aruba?

Asking for a friend.

 

[TexasLion1979]

On the Verk/Jordan match. It may have been the correct call (not sure) but as a referee I would have not made the call. Basically deciding the match.

 

[SpikingWhamos]

You're the first person I've seen here with that interpretation of what happened. Sure looked like Jordan ran/pulled Verk out to me, especially toward the end when Verk was setting up a mat return. Maybe it's just my homerism though. I feel the call in general illustrates some of the holes with the current stalling definition on the edge.

I have the same interpretation. Thought Verk clearly moved that action OB on purpose because he couldn't get the mat return.

 

[kingslayer_85]

On the Verk/Jordan match. It may have been the correct call (not sure) but as a referee I would have not made the call. Basically deciding the match.

It did decide the match and we can debate the if we like the rule but when I was watching the match I thought it was a valid call. I don't understand the folks calling it BS when Jordan was on his heals leaning into Verk