Wrestling Rutgers Dual Thread 1/16

jack66

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,362
10,824
1
I think all the hand-wringing over the way an official calls a match is more understandable if the stakes are high. I don’t believe the stakes were high in Bartlett’s match yesterday.

Rather, I think the real issue is that many have certain expectations for Bartlett’s point potential at Nationals. If an official’s calls are truly going to be the difference in matches against R12-R16 types, then the real issue here might be fans’ expectations.

There is still time to refine an approach and clean some things up before B1Gs. In the meantime, we should probably relax a bit and acknowledge there is significant work to do to solidify a spot in the AA tier many are hoping for (or expecting). At this point in the process, the official is irrelevant to the task at hand.

Yep, when the expected change isn't happening it might be time to change the expected ... saves a lot of anguish.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,177
39,012
1
This could begin one of our typical longstanding board jokes. Yesterday, after Dean beat Bulsak, this happened...

RUCrackers

Sophomore​


You know given the family pedigree of Dean, against Buldak's, I think Bulaak is the better wrestler. Max's father Dave, has given both his boys every advantage to be great wrestlers. On the opposite end you got Bulsak who doesn't come from that lineage. There's something to be said about that.
Jesus, I just read that thread. What a bunch of ignorant whiners. C Star made a face. Can you believe it? Then the if, if, ifs. We're close, next year we have a real shot. Lmao.
 

BruceK-PSU83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
12,153
6,843
1
to me, the biggest issue was bartlett wasted a masterful far ankle exchange by not continuing to wrestle when van brill was bellied out and only had on hand on the leg. bartlett needs to be peeling that hand and working behind.
This^^.
 
  • Like
Reactions: js8793

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,364
2,483
1
Beau lost because he didn’t convert on the multiple near takedowns he could have had.

Angel made the right calls, particularly on the reaction time one.

Sorry, but you're full of shit, don't understand the rulebook and don't know what you're talking about. You don't get "reaction time" after you've given up a clear takedown. Bartlett had gone fully behind VB and had an arm fully around VB's waist - THEN, VB reached back with his arm and merely grabbed Bartlett's armpit who was in a full "control position" as defined by the rulebook's position Interpretations section. The notion that a subsequent action is sufficient to overcome Bartlett's clear control position is laughable given that the rulebook actually says that Bartlett's clear control position (i.e., full behind VB with arm clearly wrapped all the way around VB's waist) is sufficient to disqualify a whizzer attempt that existed PRIOR to the positioning!
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Just one but. Angel Rivera still sucks!
That’s fair — we all have our impressions formed in different ways. For whatever reason, I’ve never had a problem with Rivera. It may be that he doesn’t seem to make big-time bone-headed blunders like you see from others time to time. He does seem to be in the thick of seemingly controversial/borderline calls often enough, but when I really scrutinize video and try to be objective, I believe I come away agreeing with his call (or at least saying it could go either way) more times than not. And he’s cool as a cucumber out there — maybe I give him some extra credit for that. I think other officials allow coaches and fans to coax them too easily.

That’s just me, though. I’m not always paying attention.
 

Petch

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2012
3,107
4,751
1
just rewatched the bartlett match. angel got things right.

as dumb a rule as it is, bartlett did leave both feet simultaneously to hit that cut back. the problem is with the dumb rule, not angel. he's not supposed to ignore them because they're dumb. cael didn't argue it. i think that says a lot.

and it definitely wasn't 2 in OT and actually wasn't nearly as close as i remember. van brill always had a leg. he tried to pass twice and got stopped, but immediately turned back out of danger zone criteria both times. was never close to a 3 count. angel also never signaled 2 at any point. that was on the scoreboard people.

to me, the biggest issue was bartlett wasted a masterful far ankle exchange by not continuing to wrestle when van brill was bellied out and only had on hand on the leg. bartlett needs to be peeling that hand and working behind.

angel has actually been one of the better officials all year. that's not a good thing unfortunately.
Please…this is the same clown that actively tried to give Fix (who didn’t score an actual wrestling point) the title last year, while allowing Van Brill to do the NFL cone drill in reverse yesterday….take it somewhere else.
 

Lion8286

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
14,597
20,932
1
Jesus, I just read that thread. What a bunch of ignorant whiners. C Star made a face. Can you believe it? Then the if, if, ifs. We're close, next year we have a real shot. Lmao.

Pretty much the same as their football board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

nitlion6

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2012
11,864
13,256
1
Sorry, but you're full of shit, don't understand the rulebook and don't know what you're talking about. You don't get "reaction time" after you've given up a clear takedown. Bartlett had gone fully behind VB and had an arm fully around VB's waist - THEN, VB reached back with his arm and merely grabbed Bartlett's armpit who was in a full "control position" as defined by the rulebook's position Interpretations section. The notion that a subsequent action is sufficient to overcome Bartlett's clear control position is laughable given that the rulebook actually says that Bartlett's clear control position (i.e., full behind VB with arm clearly wrapped all the way around VB's waist) is sufficient to disqualify a whizzer attempt that existed PRIOR to the positioning!
As Beau came around, Van Brill immediately came off his knees onto his toes and on the way back down threw a whizzer in. In that situation there is reaction time. That is on Beau and his finish.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,364
2,483
1
As Beau came around, Van Brill immediately came off his knees onto his toes and on the way back down threw a whizzer in. In that situation there is reaction time. That is on Beau and his finish.

Wrong, VB had his hands on the mat - 4 point stance, Bartlett fully behind, arm completely around waist.... takedown as per rulebook. You clearly don't understand rulebook as you think there is a distinction between being "on your toes" with hands on mat (i.e., 4-point stance) and being on your knees with hands on mat - there isn't!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7Springs

seeyajohn

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2012
490
574
1
"Please…this is the same clown that actively tried to give Fix (who didn’t score an actual wrestling point) the title last year, while allowing Van Brill to do the NFL cone drill in reverse yesterday….take it somewhere else."

This is an unnecessarily rude reaction to a reasoned opinion.
 

NittanyChris

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2001
8,458
7,803
1
The announcers thought Beau had the TD. The scorekeepers thought Beau had the TD. Beau thought he had the TD. Only A Rivera didn’t.

Could Beau have wrestled through better? Yes. Will he learn from this? Yes. Did Rivera screw up the match? At more than just this point, also yes.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,364
2,483
1

No shit. These absurd lunatics that claim VB putting his arm back and grabbing Bartlett's armpit SUBSEQUENT to him having a clear control position and takedown is sufficient to negate a TD that has already occurred as per rulebook.... is effectively equivalent to saying that an escape point should be awarded as a neutral position for reaching back and grabbing your opponents armpit from down position???
 

Grass

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 31, 2001
2,721
2,463
1
50
South San Francisco
I also think Cael and crew made a mistake challenging the TD. VB was about ready to fall over and that gave him some time to recover. How often do the guys who review their own calls (which is bogus) reverse their initial call? Hardly ever. Anyone with two eyes knows VB should have been hit with an additional stall for running for 30 seconds. Rivera had no issues on the biggest stage calling RBY for a stall call, but lets VB run backwards for 30 seconds in a meaningless match in January.
 

SRATH

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
14,365
4,841
1
Gibbons never gives PS any credit. He constantly roots for the other team.
Gibbons has done just about everything there is to do in college wrestling and has earned the right to say whatever he wants. Plus we are fine with or without Jim's blessing. As an ISU guy, I'm sure it chafes him a bit their golden boy made good back east.

At Nationals, the only thing which matters, he is always super complimentary of PSU.
 

Harleyr1

Member
Dec 6, 2017
15
5
1
Again, Bartlett already had the TD - he had VB flat on his back and he was chest-to-chest with him - and VB did not have his leg. That is a TD by rule - match was over at that point. VB did not get a hold of Beau's leg until after he had managed to roll back over onto his stomach, but again, it doesn't matter at that point, he was already takedown once he is on his back and Bartlett is chest-to-chest to him. Complete bullshit how Rivera called the end of SV1.
Waaawaaaaawaaaa...geez stop crying ..BB lost ...MVB took all the shots ..coaches knew what criteria would be so they went neutral ...stop blaming refs ...he lost ..enough said
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ski

Lion8286

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
14,597
20,932
1
Waaawaaaaawaaaa...geez stop crying ..BB lost ...MVB took all the shots ..coaches knew what criteria would be so they went neutral ...stop blaming refs ...he lost ..enough said

When are you Rutgers fans going to stop crying about Starocci?? Am sure RU fans will find something new to cry about next week @Harleyr1
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and danoftw

07mantle

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
232
302
1
Top doesn't work. Escape by BB would give him a 4-3 win.

In any case, I suspect another rule change will be in order for next year.
My thot exactly … what is the difference between awarding a stalling call (point) for a wrestler backing off the mat boundary line to avoid wrestling and a wrestler taking 5 steps straight backwards (although in bounds) to avoid wrestling? And why o why are we subjected to Angel Rivera so many matches … guy is always in the middle of so many controversial calls … the VAST majority of which go against Penn State.
That’s fair — we all have our impressions formed in different ways. For whatever reason, I’ve never had a problem with Rivera. It may be that he doesn’t seem to make big-time bone-headed blunders like you see from others time to time. He does seem to be in the thick of seemingly controversial/borderline calls often enough, but when I really scrutinize video and try to be objective, I believe I come away agreeing with his call (or at least saying it could go either way) more times than not. And he’s cool as a cucumber out there — maybe I give him some extra credit for that. I think other officials allow coaches and fans to coax them too easily.

That’s just me, though. I’m not always paying attention.
not being antagonistic here but do you agree with the manner (and quickness ...like seconds) in which Rivera called stalling on RBY against Fixx in the national championship last year. Reflecting on how quickly he called RBY in that match ...I wonder why he wasn't as consistent yesterday when Van Brill clearly backed away five steps very intentionally? To me he does not appear to be consistent in the two situations.
 

mcpat

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2021
1,867
3,945
1
Again, Bartlett already had the TD - he had VB flat on his back and he was chest-to-chest with him - and VB did not have his leg. That is a TD by rule - match was over at that point. VB did not get a hold of Beau's leg until after he had managed to roll back over onto his stomach, but again, it doesn't matter at that point, he was already takedown once he is on his back and Bartlett is chest-to-chest to him. Complete bullshit how Rivera called the end of SV1.
Was I arguing any of that with you? (Again?)
 

mcpat

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2021
1,867
3,945
1
My thot exactly … what is the difference between awarding a stalling call (point) for a wrestler backing off the mat boundary line to avoid wrestling and a wrestler taking 5 steps straight backwards (although in bounds) to avoid wrestling? And why o why are we subjected to Angel Rivera so many matches … guy is always in the middle of so many controversial calls … the VAST majority of which go against Penn State.

not being antagonistic here but do you agree with the manner (and quickness ...like seconds) in which Rivera called stalling on RBY against Fixx in the national championship last year. Reflecting on how quickly he called RBY in that match ...I wonder why he wasn't as consistent yesterday when Van Brill clearly backed away five steps very intentionally? To me he does not appear to be consistent in the two situations.
Is there some unwritten rule that you can’t call stalling twice in 30 secs? If Rivera was just going to let MVB flee from RBY for 30 secs with no repercussions, what was the point of wrestling the 6th period of OT? Might as well have just stopped the match and awarded MVB the win when he selected Neutral.
 

Raw Daddy

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2014
529
897
1
i still have a hard time wrapping my head around tony negron finding his way into the lineup on this team haha who had that on their bingo card?
I personally think he has a huge ceiling and can do damage later on. His attitude and style are A+ and we know what happens with that and coaching staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcpat

billrag

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2011
523
898
1
It's hard to see the photo posted above and not presume that Bartlett had the takedown. I know that photos only show one split second in time, but come on.....
 

Raw Daddy

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2014
529
897
1
I've noticed same thing with Gibbons
I think he doesn’t like the idea that PA is the heart of wrestling. I feel like Iowa people have a hard time with this sometimes because it’s how they identify themselves whether it’s prep, college or Olympic guys. It’s hard to even argue at all now.
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
My thot exactly … what is the difference between awarding a stalling call (point) for a wrestler backing off the mat boundary line to avoid wrestling and a wrestler taking 5 steps straight backwards (although in bounds) to avoid wrestling? And why o why are we subjected to Angel Rivera so many matches … guy is always in the middle of so many controversial calls … the VAST majority of which go against Penn State.

not being antagonistic here but do you agree with the manner (and quickness ...like seconds) in which Rivera called stalling on RBY against Fixx in the national championship last year. Reflecting on how quickly he called RBY in that match ...I wonder why he wasn't as consistent yesterday when Van Brill clearly backed away five steps very intentionally? To me he does not appear to be consistent in the two situations.
I’d have to go back and rewatch the 2 matches to form an opinion. I’m not sure developing an opinion is important enough to me to do that. I’ll take your word for it that there was inconsistency in how he called the 2 matches.

Again, this is just me. RBY won, so I had zero motovation to let some stall calls bother me enough to analyze them for merit. Bartlett was in a tight one yesterday that I would hope shouldn’t come down to a stall call or non-call; the fact that it was has me concerned about bigger things.
 

danoftw

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2018
779
3,274
1
A shame VB was too tired to really get into his celebration. These 1 point OT wins are like Olympic gold to him. If his in match skills ever catch up to his elite post match talent he could be trouble
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
Is there some unwritten rule that you can’t call stalling twice in 30 secs? If Rivera was just going to let MVB flee from RBY for 30 secs with no repercussions, what was the point of wrestling the 6th period of OT? Might as well have just stopped the match and awarded MVB the win when he selected Neutral.
Now this phenomenon has bothered me over the years. That and not noticing any stalling until the 3rd period in general.

I try to just accept that it’s just the way it is with officials — and has been going back at least as far as my HS days as a competitor. I just make a conscious effort to try not to let it become the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcpat and billrag

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,364
2,483
1
A picture in this situation where you get reaction time means nothing. Rear standing hand touch takedown then a picture will workYou "reaction time"

A picture in this situation where you get reaction time means nothing. Rear standing hand touch takedown then a picture will work

Wrong, "reaction time" has ZERO to do with this situation - Bartlett is in a clear "control position" as defined in the rulebook... and never loses this "control position". Your notion that VB reaching back and grabbing his armpit AFTER Barlett has established this clear "control position" negates control is beyond ridiculous -- it is effectively equivalent to saying a bottom wrestler reaching back and doing this establishes a neutral position and they should be awarded an escape point for it. BTW, according to the rulebook, Bartlett's position would be sufficient to establish control and a TD negating a VB whizzer attemp even if the whizzer attemp was in place PRIOR to Bartlett's control position! Given that fact, it most certainly is sufficient to negate a whizzer attempt that comes AFTER Bartlett's control position and is not even a true whizzer as VB essentially just reaches back well after Bartlett is fully behind him in a clear control position (VB still has both hands on mat for Pete's sake!) and grabs his armpit more than anything else which has zero to do with breaking Bartlett's very clear "control position" as defined by the rulebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cowbell Man

Junglekitty

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2018
235
486
1
My synopsis:

125: Drew wrestled well. I give credit to Shawver, he didn't let himself get in the position where he had to take down. I give just as much credit to Drew for winning that match, he executed when he had too. Obviously, I didn't want that match to be that close, but a win is a win.

133: Not much to say about RBY. Not sure if he was sick last match, or in protocol, but his energy was high, and he dominated.

141: Meredith saved a team point, and in duals that's big. Hope to see Lee back soon, which by the sounds of it, he is in protocol so it shouldn't be long. Meredith answers the call every time and gives it his all. As a fan, I only hope that our guys give 100% every time, and Meredith delivers.

149: We can say BB had the takedown all we want ( which I agree he did ), but it wasn't awarded. With BB style at 49, he has very little margin for error. This is exactly why squeaking out wins is so risky. There are too many variables that come in to play when it comes down to a 1 pt match. I was hoping after that first takedown he was going to fire off more attacks knowing he can get to the legs and convert, but that didn't happen. BB is definitely in shape, and I think he can beat anyone in the weight not named Yianni. However, wrestling like he is, I think anyone in the weight can also beat him. You know what he's bringing to the table this year and his matches are exciting, frustrating, disappointing, surprising, every good and bad adjective you can think of. I'm glad he wrestles for us and look forward to watching him every time he steps on the mat.

157: I'm really hoping its a weight issue with Tony. I think he struggles making weight not because it is a hard cut, but because he makes it a hard cut. He was out of gas, and just dove at a leg in OT. If I'm correct, and he starts managing his weight correctly, he's obviously a different wrestler. If I'm not correct, I hope Brady can make 57 and Edsell goes 65 ( I think that's the better lineup regardless ). Bottom line, if this is Tony's weight, he has to be better, end of story.

165: Welcome back Brady! I think the thing I liked the most was he was disappointed in his performance. He was shaking his head after the match in frustration. To me, that means he knows he can give more, and I think he will. Didn't see much, if any rust. I know he's still been in the SDSU room going with those kids, but going as a coach and as a competitor is a different mindset, but he looked good. As I mentioned above, I hope he can make 57, but just glad he's in lineup. Point bump for sure.

174: Carter seems to get better every time he's on the mat. A lot of similarities to him and RBY with the foot work and go behinds. Can't wait to see him and Kem go.

184: Brooks majors Poznanski who was #5. I think he took a big step this year as well and has separated himself from the rest of the field. Wrestling like that will put him at the top of the podium, again.

197: Dean had me worried. I believe this is the first time he wasn't able to put on a good ride. Bulsak is a tough competitor and his mat wrestling is outstanding. Kudos to Dean for getting it done.

HWT: Kerk will finally have his opportunity to go against a top guy next weekend. Then we'll be able to get a gauge of where he's at. I know he's. at least top 5, where in that top 5 is yet to be seen.

Overall a good showing. Seemed like I saw a lot of guys with their hands on their hips early. I'm guessing they're at the peak of a training cycle and gonna slow that down this week going to Michigan. It will be no easy task, but excited to watch.

We Are!
 

dunkej01

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 10, 2005
18,309
27,846
1
Please…this is the same clown that actively tried to give Fix (who didn’t score an actual wrestling point) the title last year, while allowing Van Brill to do the NFL cone drill in reverse yesterday….take it somewhere else.
It's not just psu fans.

There is a reason most fans that are paying attention know who he is and hate to see him take the mat.
 

js8793

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2018
1,701
3,090
1
Sorry, but you're full of shit, don't understand the rulebook and don't know what you're talking about. You don't get "reaction time" after you've given up a clear takedown. Bartlett had gone fully behind VB and had an arm fully around VB's waist - THEN, VB reached back with his arm and merely grabbed Bartlett's armpit who was in a full "control position" as defined by the rulebook's position Interpretations section. The notion that a subsequent action is sufficient to overcome Bartlett's clear control position is laughable given that the rulebook actually says that Bartlett's clear control position (i.e., full behind VB with arm clearly wrapped all the way around VB's waist) is sufficient to disqualify a whizzer attempt that existed PRIOR to the positioning!
it's always the overemotional guys who don't understand what they're talking about, no matter how much they yell. van brill has reaction time in that situation. that's how it's been called all year. it burned iowa in the bastida-warner match. you have to have already established rear standing and then the hand touches. it does not apply to go-behind situations (which is incredibly stupid because that's the situation everybody had in mind when the rule was put in, but whatever). this is the exact ruling that saved Nolf that takedown against Hidlay in the semis. not even going to get into it about he whizzer not negating the takedown lol. that has been the case for decades in this sport.

you're right that when you post a freeze frame of a fraction of the second in the match, bartlett has a controlled position, but he has to maintain that position beyond reaction time in this sequence, which he did not. learn the rules.
Again, Bartlett already had the TD - he had VB flat on his back and he was chest-to-chest with him - and VB did not have his leg. That is a TD by rule - match was over at that point. VB did not get a hold of Beau's leg until after he had managed to roll back over onto his stomach, but again, it doesn't matter at that point, he was already takedown once he is on his back and Bartlett is chest-to-chest to him. Complete bullshit how Rivera called the end of SV1.
comical description of that exchange. the fact that's how you see it, discredits everything else you've written. you're just a homer that's mad a penn state kid came out on the wrong side of some tough exchanges. not an excuse to not understand the rules though.
 

El-Jefe

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2012
25,642
53,363
1
it's always the overemotional guys who don't understand what they're talking about, no matter how much they yell. van brill has reaction time in that situation. that's how it's been called all year. it burned iowa in the bastida-warner match. you have to have already established rear standing and then the hand touches. it does not apply to go-behind situations (which is incredibly stupid because that's the situation everybody had in mind when the rule was put in, but whatever). this is the exact ruling that saved Nolf that takedown against Hidlay in the semis. not even going to get into it about he whizzer not negating the takedown lol. that has been the case for decades in this sport.

you're right that when you post a freeze frame of a fraction of the second in the match, bartlett has a controlled position, but he has to maintain that position beyond reaction time in this sequence, which he did not. learn the rules.

comical description of that exchange. the fact that's how you see it, discredits everything else you've written. you're just a homer that's mad a penn state kid came out on the wrong side of some tough exchanges. not an excuse to not understand the rules though.
Freeze frame proof is equally ridiculous coming from Tan Tom or from Bushwood.

Though at least Tan Tom constrains himself to 140 characters from Aruba.
 

KCLion

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,158
1,846
1
I’d have to go back and rewatch the 2 matches to form an opinion. I’m not sure developing an opinion is important enough to me to do that. I’ll take your word for it that there was inconsistency in how he called the 2 matches.

Again, this is just me. RBY won, so I had zero motovation to let some stall calls bother me enough to analyze them for merit. Bartlett was in a tight one yesterday that I would hope shouldn’t come down to a stall call or non-call; the fact that it was has me concerned about bigger things.
Let’s just say that fix scored two points on 3 stalling calls within 35 seconds of wrestling time, 2 in the third period, one being when Fix ran him off the mat and gibbons was shocked it wasn’t on Fix.