Wrestling Rutgers Dual Thread 1/16

nitlion6

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2012
11,865
13,257
1
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!
No. You are wrong, but that is OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danoftw

west2east

Well-Known Member
Mar 3, 2013
856
944
1
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.
You either understand the rules or you don't. I have no dog in the fight but that's not 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6

mcpat

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2021
1,867
3,946
1
I admit to not knowing the reaction time rules, but it has occurred to me that it’s prob why Hidlay didn’t have two against Nolf. So maybe I apply that to Beau’s match.
 

nitlion6

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2012
11,865
13,257
1
I admit to not knowing the reaction time rules, but it has occurred to me that it’s prob why Hidlay didn’t have two against Nolf. So maybe I apply that to Beau’s match.
As much of a blue and white glasses type of guy that I am, I still have no idea, nor any justification for how Hidlay wasn't given his two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcpat

Harleyr1

Member
Dec 6, 2017
15
5
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???
Stop bein a friggin crybaby ...waaah waaah ..BB lost ...enough said
 

SpikingWhamos

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
344
520
1
I admit to not knowing the reaction time rules, but it has occurred to me that it’s prob why Hidlay didn’t have two against Nolf. So maybe I apply that to Beau’s match.

Exactly correct. You only get the TD without reaction time with rear standing control BEFORE the hand touches. In both Nolf/Hilday and here, there was no rear standing control, so control *is not established* until they have cleared reaction time.

 
Last edited:

dicemen99

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
5,136
5,805
1
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.
You are misinterpreting the rule book.

Reaction time has to do with establishing control. Control can be established in rear standing and it is still not a takedown. But if the hand then hits the mat reaction time is not relevant.

Same with the 4 point stance or on the mat for that matter. Once control is established BEYOND REACTION TIME - takedown. But reaction time is a factor in the position that is pictured. If Beau gains that position but VB whizzers before the admittedly subjective reaction time, no takedown.
 

mcpat

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2021
1,867
3,946
1
You are misinterpreting the rule book.

Reaction time has to do with establishing control. Control can be established in rear standing and it is still not a takedown. But if the hand then hits the mat reaction time is not relevant.

Same with the 4 point stance or on the mat for that matter. Once control is established BEYOND REACTION TIME - takedown. But reaction time is a factor in the position that is pictured. If Beau gains that position but VB whizzers before the admittedly subjective reaction time, no takedown.
I’m starting to appreciate the refs a little more.
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
I admit to not knowing the reaction time rules, but it has occurred to me that it’s prob why Hidlay didn’t have two against Nolf. So maybe I apply that to Beau’s match.
Here is the definition from the rule book;
Reaction Time. The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous.

...and it does matter in this case.
 
Last edited:

west2east

Well-Known Member
Mar 3, 2013
856
944
1
You are misinterpreting the rule book.

Reaction time has to do with establishing control. Control can be established in rear standing and it is still not a takedown. But if the hand then hits the mat reaction time is not relevant.

Same with the 4 point stance or on the mat for that matter. Once control is established BEYOND REACTION TIME - takedown. But reaction time is a factor in the position that is pictured. If Beau gains that position but VB whizzers before the admittedly subjective reaction time, no takedown.
Nice explanation Dice. And all true. That was not a takedown.
I was going to explain it to him as well but I don't think he understands things well enough to even try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6

west2east

Well-Known Member
Mar 3, 2013
856
944
1
Here is the definition from the rule book;
Reaction Time. The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the
referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is
provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands
calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee
and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous.

...and it does matter in this case.
Nice job explaining things to your fan base. Everyone is looking at things thru blue & white glasses so they're gonna think that's 2 all day long. Glad the educated fans are correcting them. The more people that understand the rules the better
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
Nice explanation Dice. And all true. That was not a takedown.
I was going to explain it to him as well but I don't think he understands things well enough to even try.
I agree, Dice's explanation was superb. To make the statement, unquestionably, "That was not a takedown.", while agreeing that reaction time is subjective (again, in Dice's post) is where I'll have to disagree. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I could reasonably see some referees calling it a takedown, arguing that the whizzer was beyond reaction time.

To me, that's where the discussion should be. That and whether a referee should be reviewing his own calls.
 
Last edited:

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
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.
Unlikely for next year, unless an uber-compelling case can be made. Rule changes happen, almost always, in 2-year cycles. We are in the first year of the current cycle. Next rule changes are for 2023-24 through 2024-25.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hlstone

NittanyChris

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2001
8,458
7,803
1
What was more controversial, IMO, was the lack of points for BB for neutral danger on MVB in OT. It sure seemed like MVB’s back was exposed for more than enough time. What do people think?
 

nerfstate

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2017
7,872
18,952
1
What was more controversial, IMO, was the lack of points for BB for neutral danger on MVB in OT. It sure seemed like MVB’s back was exposed for more than enough time. What do people think?
I think it was close--but you don't always get the close calls. The best thing Beau could have done (other than maybe firing off a few more of his very high-percentage shots throughout) would have been to work for the go behind at the end of SV1. Good learning experience for him--I'm sure the coaches won't chew him up too badly for going for a fall, but that's situational awareness. Beau's got a great head on his shoulders--I bet he has already learned his lesson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyChris

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
What was more controversial, IMO, was the lack of points for BB for neutral danger on MVB in OT. It sure seemed like MVB’s back was exposed for more than enough time. What do people think?

I think it was close--but you don't always get the close calls. The best thing Beau could have done (other than maybe firing off a few more of his very high-percentage shots throughout) would have been to work for the go behind at the end of SV1. Good learning experience for him--I'm sure the coaches won't chew him up too badly for going for a fall, but that's situational awareness. Beau's got a great head on his shoulders--I bet he has already learned his lesson.
Good question. I re-watched that sequence a dozen times trying to get a 3-count, but couldn't. The split second that a flopping Van Brill goes vertical, the count has to start over. I got to two, but never three. As nerf says, it was close.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,366
2,484
1
Here is the definition from the rule book;
Reaction Time. The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the
referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is
provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands
calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee
and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous.

...and it does matter in this case.

Disagree. The rules interpretation section of the rulebook very clearly states that the bottom wrestler must have a "deep whizzer" in position to prevent a wrestler in this clear control position (fully behind opponent, arm around waist and opponent in a 4-point stance) from being awarded a TD. IOW, being subjected to this clear "control position" in the absence of a "deep whizzer" is a TD. Even if you granted this silly notion that you can create a "deep whizzer" on "reaction time" (which is defined in rulebook as only slightly more than instantaneous..... - reaction time in track meets and drag racing tracks has been measured to be less than one-half second which is consistent with NCAA Rulebook's description of slightly more than instantaneous) from a 4-point stance where top wrestler has clearly already gained a "control position" (which is an absurd notion to begin with) VB DOES NOT GAIN A DEEP WHIZZER POSITION when he initially reaches back - he merely grabs Bartlett's armpit which falls WAY SHORT of what the rulebook says is required to defeat this top-wrestler "control position". It quite clearly states that a "DEEP WHIZZER" is required - not "an attempt at a whizzer".
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,366
2,484
1
I think it was close--but you don't always get the close calls. The best thing Beau could have done (other than maybe firing off a few more of his very high-percentage shots throughout) would have been to work for the go behind at the end of SV1. Good learning experience for him--I'm sure the coaches won't chew him up too badly for going for a fall, but that's situational awareness. Beau's got a great head on his shoulders--I bet he has already learned his lesson.

Actually, what he should have done is throw a leg in on VB's far leg (i.e., same side his arm was wrapped around VB's waist) - this position is a TD regardless of whether VB attempts whizzer, or not (ditto if he would have Merkled near leg I believe).
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,366
2,484
1
What was more controversial, IMO, was the lack of points for BB for neutral danger on MVB in OT. It sure seemed like MVB’s back was exposed for more than enough time. What do people think?

Forget about "Neutral Danger" - during the sequence where VB was turned completely on his back - VB let go of Batlett's leg so he could fight off his back position and get back to his stomach. Bartlett was chest-to-chest with VB, VB had let go of his leg and VB was completely on his back for a couple seconds - that is a clear TD anywhere-&-everywhere except Rivera's magic kingdom.
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
Disagree. The rules interpretation section of the rulebook very clearly states that the bottom wrestler must have a "deep whizzer" in position to prevent a wrestler in this clear control position (fully behind opponent, arm around waist and opponent in a 4-point stance) from being awarded a TD. IOW, being subjected to this clear "control position" in the absence of a "deep whizzer" is a TD. Even if you granted this silly notion that you can create a "deep whizzer" on "reaction time" (which is defined in rulebook as only slightly more than instantaneous..... - reaction time in track meets and drag racing tracks has been measured to be less than one-half second which is consistent with NCAA Rulebook's description of slightly more than instantaneous) from a 4-point stance where top wrestler has clearly already gained a "control position" (which is an absurd notion to begin with) VB DOES NOT GAIN A DEEP WHIZZER POSITION when he initially reaches back - he merely grabs Bartlett's armpit which falls WAY SHORT of what the rulebook says is required to defeat this top-wrestler "control position". It quite clearly states that a "DEEP WHIZZER" is required - not "an attempt at a whizzer".
Show me the "deep whizzer" language in the rulebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6

nerfstate

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2017
7,872
18,952
1
Actually, what he should have done is throw a leg in on VB's far leg (i.e., same side his arm was wrapped around VB's waist) - this position is a TD regardless of whether VB attempts whizzer, or not (ditto if he would have Merkled near leg I believe).
Sure--if he got a leg in, that would be fine (and would also have meant he was making an effort to cover the hips, or at least get close).
 

WreslingFan0314

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2017
585
784
1
There is no such section in the rules.

I'll say this and jump back out of the discussion because this is not meant to be agreement with his position.

As a former baseball official, there was the Rule Book, a separate Interpretation Book and a separate Case Book to help officials how to apply different situations. Can't speak for Wrestling, but my guess is he may be referencing a separate publication.

Carry on....
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
I'll say this and jump back out of the discussion because this is not meant to be agreement with his position.

As a former baseball official, there was the Rule Book, a separate Interpretation Book and a separate Case Book to help officials how to apply different situations. Can't speak for Wrestling, but my guess is he may be referencing a separate publication.

Carry on....
Like the one @SpikingWhamos posted above?
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
I'll say this and jump back out of the discussion because this is not meant to be agreement with his position.

As a former baseball official, there was the Rule Book, a separate Interpretation Book and a separate Case Book to help officials how to apply different situations. Can't speak for Wrestling, but my guess is he may be referencing a separate publication.

Carry on....
Same with wrestling (2-year Rules Interpretation Book, plus a Case Book), but the language being referenced doesn't exist.

Since were here though, I'll add that there's also a "Corrections/Clarifications" document for typos/forgotten text/whatever. It's very short.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,366
2,484
1
There is no such section in the rules.

There is such a section and it references only one type of whizzer preventing a clear behind bottom-wrestler control position - specifically states "a deep whizzer". It then goes on to describe circumstances when "control" is established and a takedown should be awarded even when a "deep whizzer" is present.
 

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,308
13,796
1
Johnstown Pa
Same with wrestling (2-year Rules Interpretation Book, plus a Case Book), but the language being referenced doesn't exist.

Since were here though, I'll add that there's also a "Corrections/Clarifications" document for typos/forgotten text/whatever. It's very short.
I just skimmed over the actual rule book. There is no way someone that doesn’t know the sport could referee a match strictly by studying and going off of what the rule book says. In my opinion it is quite vague especially what constitutes a takedown. I didn’t look at the casebook or interpretations but I’d hope they are more specific on things. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: hlstone

El-Jefe

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2012
25,646
53,377
1
There is such a section and it references only one type of whizzer preventing a clear behind bottom-wrestler control position - specifically states "a deep whizzer". It then goes on to describe circumstances when "control" is established and a takedown should be awarded even when a "deep whizzer" is present.
Pic or link, or it didn't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

WreslingFan0314

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2017
585
784
1
Same with wrestling (2-year Rules Interpretation Book, plus a Case Book), but the language being referenced doesn't exist.

Since were here though, I'll add that there's also a "Corrections/Clarifications" document for typos/forgotten text/whatever. It's very short.

I'm glad those publications exist in wrestling as well. They were very helpful in baseball. That said, as per this particular case, I'm a bystander. I know wrestling rules to a decent degree, but nowhere near as much as many on here. My eyes and gut tell me that it was not a takedown, but not enough to argue that position. I was simply hoping to clarify that using the word "interpretation section" may have meant something outside the general rulebook :)
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,366
2,484
1
Same with wrestling (2-year Rules Interpretation Book, plus a Case Book), but the language being referenced doesn't exist.

Since were here though, I'll add that there's also a "Corrections/Clarifications" document for typos/forgotten text/whatever. It's very short.

So do tell, at the very end of SV1, when Bartlett had rolled VB directly onto his back, Bartlett was chest-to-chest with VB and VB had let go of Bartlett's leg so he could give maximum effort to fighting his way of his back.... and ultimately rolled to his side after squirming for a couple seconds.... then to his stomach.... and after finally rolling to his stomach, VB desperately reaches out and re-grabs Bartlett's forward leg at the knee, this doesn't count as a TD due to "reaction time"?
 
Last edited:

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
I just skimmed over the actual rule book. There is no way someone that doesn’t know the sport could referee a match strictly by studying and going off of what the rule book says. In my opinion it is quite vague especially what constitutes a takedown. I didn’t look at the casebook or interpretations but I’d hope they are more specific on things. Lol
It's the same with all sports. I umpired baseball up through what was called Teener League, girls' softball through my daughters early teenage years, and refereed basketball. These are sports society is very familiar with, yet few (and I mean VERY few) could ever be an official.

Wrestling, soccer, ice hockey and the rest of the next tier of sports are even less well-known, rulebook-wise.
 

STAND with PRIDE

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
4,383
6,381
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.
Just the notion that RBY would get called for stalling makes me laugh
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
So do tell, at the very end of SV1, when Bartlett had rolled VB directly onto his back, Bartlett was chest-to-chest with VB and VB had let go of Bartlett's so he could give maximum effort to fighting his way of his back.... and ultimately rolled to his side after squirming for a couple seconds.... then to his stomach.... and after finally rolling to his stomach, VB desperately reaches out and re-grabs Bartlett's forward leg at the knee, this doesn't count as a TD due to "reaction time"?
Sorry, not sorry, but you have failed my reasonable person rule, so I'll not be responding fyi. Doesn't happen often, KK was the last.