Upon Further Review

[nerfstate]

I generally feel “meh” about video review at all in the sport. It dramatically alters one of the most important factors in conditioning. I do, of course, like it that egregious missed calls can be reversed. So I tolerate it but want it to be much, much faster.

But the version of booth review we saw this year took that to a whole other level. Just not a fan of the huge breaks in a match, especially when the match is such high stakes, and the coaches have saved their bricks for all the yolo attempts they might want on Saturday. Add in the observation someone just made in another thread about the phones not working, then you go to the mat officials in RBY’s semi audibly admitting that the booth looked at the wrong footage in overturning the locked hands call—it’s not a good look. All that said, I was happy when Angel had one of his terrible takes overturned in the Woods/Alirez final. But in the end, if this is what "3rd party review" is going to look like, I am not going to be a supporter.

Perhaps it can be changed with tweaks. I am 100% in favor of a time limit, (90 seconds?) where the original call is upheld if you can’t see cause to reverse it in time. Phones that worked would help. So would the additional cost of showing the reviews on the streaming mats and/or including the "official expert opinion" type thing the NFL and CFB does (I know, $$$).

I generally did not have a good feeling when every time I watched a review, I didn’t know who was actually doing the review. Get off my lawn? Maybe. To me, there’s just something to be said, for the guy with the whistle having control of the parameters of the match that I find reassuring I guess.

What do y'all think?

 

[PSUer1989]

I hated the long reviews, but I think ultimately getting the call right is key. That overturned call changed the match. I would rather they get the right call, then rush to a wrong call. Having said that, they definitely need to figure out a streamlined way to review things.

 

[mcpat]

I want the calls right. But I also don’t want the long breaks as wrestling is a test of fitness too.

 

[jack66]

I would start by not hiring Angel to ref at the NCAAs.

 

[nitlion6]

I would start by not hiring Angel to ref at the NCAAs.

My God, the man needs to go back to doing junior hi matches to see if he can improve his skills.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Cardio and conditioning is simply such a critical component in wrestling, to have the review process either used as a tatically by coaches, or have incompetence by the officiating staff to give a wrestler who is near breaking an extended period to recover. There were some bad calls and ultimately a bad call could cost a champion, but on balance I like a 90 second cap, or the call is upheld process. This weekend was beyond the pale with many embarrassing, rediculous, outright unfair 5 minute long clown shows.

 

[apoharrow]

I dont understand one guy looks at the call other has time ready. Wish we had insider that can say what takes so long.

 

[mcpat]

In all sports, I’d like to do away with challenges and video review and instead just live with officials’ errors. (Until it negatively impacts who I am rooting for.)

 

[nitlion6]

Just a guess, but having someone sitting in a central location, communicating via phone with the referee who has a finger in an ear so he can hear and trying to determine exactly what timeframe needs to be reviewed and then verify the exact footage is being viewed takes longer than 90 seconds.

Each mat should have an independent reviewer who is right there, pull the review up, review it and decide. Referee can only answer direct questions from reviewer. Not sure what they were looking at when reviewing the locked hands in the RBY review but it wasn't the right video, the hands were locked prior to RBY getting to his feet and after the return. So a question the ref can accurately verify is are we reviewing the right segment.

As long as they continue to review as they did this year, the delays will be long. The NCAA way, do it wrong, repeat, act surprised.

 

[Ski]

I generally feel “meh” about video review at all in the sport. It dramatically alters one of the most important factors in conditioning. I do, of course, like it that egregious missed calls can be reversed. So I tolerate it but want it to be much, much faster.

But the version of booth review we saw this year took that to a whole other level. Just not a fan of the huge breaks in a match, especially when the match is such high stakes, and the coaches have saved their bricks for all the yolo attempts they might want on Saturday. Add in the observation someone just made in another thread about the phones not working, then you go to the mat officials in RBY’s semi audibly admitting that the booth looked at the wrong footage in overturning the locked hands call—it’s not a good look. All that said, I was happy when Angel had one of his terrible takes overturned in the Woods/Alirez final. But in the end, if this is what "3rd party review" is going to look like, I am not going to be a supporter.

Perhaps it can be changed with tweaks. I am 100% in favor of a time limit, (90 seconds?) where the original call is upheld if you can’t see cause to reverse it in time. Phones that worked would help. So would the additional cost of showing the reviews on the streaming mats and/or including the "official expert opinion" type thing the NFL and CFB does (I know, $$$).

I generally did not have a good feeling when every time I watched a review, I didn’t know who was actually doing the review. Get off my lawn? Maybe. To me, there’s just something to be said, for the guy with the whistle having control of the parameters of the match that I find reassuring I guess.

What do y'all think?

Reviews that overturn bad calls that affect the outcome of a match are a good thing. But in a sport where stamina and endurance are a factor, reviews that take forever can affect the outcome of a match just as significantly as a bad call can.

Set a time limit on how long the officials can review a call (60-75 seconds?). If they run out of time before making a decision, then the call on the mat stands. If a call is so close that it takes 5+ minutes to figure it out then I can live with continuing on with the wrong call so that the cure does not become worse than the illness, figuratively speaking.

When your sport is on its biggest stage where you can grow the number of casual fans of it then you don't want these potential fans sitting around bored to the point that they turn the channel and don't come back.

$.02

 

[Ski]

I would start by not hiring Angel to ref at the NCAAs.

In the age of DEI, Angel has a spot at the NCAAs for life. Competency takes a back seat.

 

[railbirrd]

I generally feel “meh” about video review at all in the sport. It dramatically alters one of the most important factors in conditioning. I do, of course, like it that egregious missed calls can be reversed. So I tolerate it but want it to be much, much faster.

But the version of booth review we saw this year took that to a whole other level. Just not a fan of the huge breaks in a match, especially when the match is such high stakes, and the coaches have saved their bricks for all the yolo attempts they might want on Saturday. Add in the observation someone just made in another thread about the phones not working, then you go to the mat officials in RBY’s semi audibly admitting that the booth looked at the wrong footage in overturning the locked hands call—it’s not a good look. All that said, I was happy when Angel had one of his terrible takes overturned in the Woods/Alirez final. But in the end, if this is what "3rd party review" is going to look like, I am not going to be a supporter.

Perhaps it can be changed with tweaks. I am 100% in favor of a time limit, (90 seconds?) where the original call is upheld if you can’t see cause to reverse it in time. Phones that worked would help. So would the additional cost of showing the reviews on the streaming mats and/or including the "official expert opinion" type thing the NFL and CFB does (I know, $$$).

I generally did not have a good feeling when every time I watched a review, I didn’t know who was actually doing the review. Get off my lawn? Maybe. To me, there’s just something to be said, for the guy with the whistle having control of the parameters of the match that I find reassuring I guess.

What do y'all think?

Agree with your posting. I feel the reviews should be more transparent to the wrestlers, coaches, and viewing public. Let us see what's being reviewed please.

 

[royboy]

Absolutely hate the long reviews. Disrupts the match and in some cases the delay itself can impact the results in terms of cardio conditions, etc.

Best sport I've seen in handling reviews is the NBA. Have the procedures down well, generally don't take too long, and are transparent in communications with the refs and explanations.

 

[Conewago]

All I have to say is O'Connor stalled in the 2nd period against Haines. 3All, and I mean ALL, that O'Connor tried to do in that ride was pinch down on Haines's leg or legs and immobilize him. He never made an effort to break down or turn, at all.

And then that Rock Harrison guy! What a ridiculous commentary he had to offer. "O'Connor's making a conscious effort to bring Haines to the mat." That was the opposite of true. Harrison says this just because he was pinching down higher than the ankles (which would be stalling eventually)?

You've got a guy who 1) refuses to make an effort to break down his opponent, 2) is flirting at the edge of what would be a 5 count and stalling, and doing that in spirit, and 3) is holding up the match from having action. Textbook stalling and infuriating.

O'Connor's ride, if on the ankles, is a 5 count and automatically stalling. But because he was up higher, it's fine? That's the status of rules enforcement in college wrestling now. And I'm just autistic enough that it is driving me insane. I simply don't understand the application of stalling in college folkstyle right now, and adding the 5 count on the ankles has only gotten rid of the most visually offensive stalling, not made the sport better.

 

[Cstroke]

It might be better as a hand waving but silent count..

 

[Conewago]

I would start by not hiring Angel to ref at the NCAAs.

I am extremely adamant about something:

Making a bad call in sports officiating, including wrestling, is easier to accomplish than fans or coaches realize.

Making an atrocious call regularly is far harder to accomplish than people realize.

 

[Cstroke]

Stop yelling most of us are nursing fat heads.

 

[Psugo823]

They embarrassed our sport badly and it needs addressed. Period.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I generally feel “meh” about video review at all in the sport. It dramatically alters one of the most important factors in conditioning. I do, of course, like it that egregious missed calls can be reversed. So I tolerate it but want it to be much, much faster.

But the version of booth review we saw this year took that to a whole other level. Just not a fan of the huge breaks in a match, especially when the match is such high stakes, and the coaches have saved their bricks for all the yolo attempts they might want on Saturday. Add in the observation someone just made in another thread about the phones not working, then you go to the mat officials in RBY’s semi audibly admitting that the booth looked at the wrong footage in overturning the locked hands call—it’s not a good look. All that said, I was happy when Angel had one of his terrible takes overturned in the Woods/Alirez final. But in the end, if this is what "3rd party review" is going to look like, I am not going to be a supporter.

Perhaps it can be changed with tweaks. I am 100% in favor of a time limit, (90 seconds?) where the original call is upheld if you can’t see cause to reverse it in time. Phones that worked would help. So would the additional cost of showing the reviews on the streaming mats and/or including the "official expert opinion" type thing the NFL and CFB does (I know, $$$).

I generally did not have a good feeling when every time I watched a review, I didn’t know who was actually doing the review. Get off my lawn? Maybe. To me, there’s just something to be said, for the guy with the whistle having control of the parameters of the match that I find reassuring I guess.

What do y'all think?

As long as you have biased cheating hacks like Angel Rivera reffing - you need independent booth review (had Rivera reviewed his own call as happens during regular season, the egregiously bad call would have stood). Rivera literally attempted to take 2 points away from Allirez to benefit Woods - Woods may have won that match wrongly if that call had been allowed to stand.).

 

[El-Jefe]

Just a guess, but having someone sitting in a central location, communicating via phone with the referee who has a finger in an ear so he can hear and trying to determine exactly what timeframe needs to be reviewed and then verify the exact footage is being viewed takes longer than 90 seconds.

Each mat should have an independent reviewer who is right there, pull the review up, review it and decide. Referee can only answer direct questions from reviewer. Not sure what they were looking at when reviewing the locked hands in the RBY review but it wasn't the right video, the hands were locked prior to RBY getting to his feet and after the return. So a question the ref can accurately verify is are we reviewing the right segment.

As long as they continue to review as they did this year, the delays will be long. The NCAA way, do it wrong, repeat, act surprised.

Matside review is more likely to hurt than help. Off-mat review room enables simultaneous viewing of all camera angles on large screens. Matside affords none of these.

That doesn't excuse the delays. Must have seamless operation. MLB has quick reviews, with a centralized NYC replay room for all games.

Supposedly part of the delays was the refs picking up the phone and not being able to reach the replay booth immediately. That is completely unacceptable, unless delegated to Flo, in which case it's an improvement.

 

[Franklinstheman]

I want the calls right. But I also don’t want the long breaks as wrestling is a test of fitness too.

I say have both wrestlers do jumping jack in their corners until reviews are completed

 

[El-Jefe]

BTW, (get the call right) vs. (decide quickly) is a false choice. Do both.

 

[KCLion]

All I have to say is O'Connor stalled in the 2nd period against Haines. 3All, and I mean ALL, that O'Connor tried to do in that ride was pinch down on Haines's leg or legs and immobilize him. He never made an effort to break down or turn, at all.

And then that Rock Harrison guy! What a ridiculous commentary he had to offer. "O'Connor's making a conscious effort to bring Haines to the mat." That was the opposite of true. Harrison says this just because he was pinching down higher than the ankles (which would be stalling eventually)?

You've got a guy who 1) refuses to make an effort to break down his opponent, 2) is flirting at the edge of what would be a 5 count and stalling, and doing that in spirit, and 3) is holding up the match from having action. Textbook stalling and infuriating.

O'Connor's ride, if on the ankles, is a 5 count and automatically stalling. But because he was up higher, it's fine? That's the status of rules enforcement in college wrestling now. And I'm just autistic enough that it is driving me insane. I simply don't understand the application of stalling in college folkstyle right now, and adding the 5 count on the ankles has only gotten rid of the most visually offensive stalling, not made the sport better.

Rock is an ACC announcer.

 

[Used2BEerie]

BTW, (get the call right) vs. (decide quickly) is a false choice. Do both.

And in some cases(locked hands review for one), they got the calls wrong slowly.

 

[KCLion]

As long as you have biased cheating hacks like Angel Rivera reffing - you need independent booth review (had Rivera reviewed his own call as happens during regular season, the egregiously bad call would have stood). Rivera literally attempted to take 2 points away from Allirez to benefit Woods - Woods may have won that match wrongly if that call had been allowed to stand.).

And also give 1 to Woods. The scoreboard in the arena read 4-3 during the entire review. It absolutely had to be either 4-2 or 6-2. Finally they got it right at 6-2.

 

[nitlion6]

Matside review is more likely to hurt than help. Off-mat review room enables simultaneous viewing of all camera angles on large screens. Matside affords none of these.

That doesn't excuse the delays. Must have seamless operation. MLB has quick reviews, with a centralized NYC replay room for all games.

Supposedly part of the delays was the refs picking up the phone and not being able to reach the replay booth immediately. That is completely unacceptable, unless delegated to Flo, in which case it's an improvement.

Whatever the problem, it needs fixed. However, repeat and act surprised is a model long in use in Indy.

 

[dsites52]

I always tell myself don’t voice problems without suggestions to fix them, otherwise you’re just b*tchin. But, since you asked, I think there is a problem that too many rules are left to interpretation. Stalling/Fleeing the mat is a big one. I HATE when a dude dominates a match for 6:30 and gets dinged for stalling when he’s on his horse the last :30 when the other guy has no stall calls.

 

[Lyons212]

Replay should be to fix egregious mistakes. If the review cannot be completed in a minute, the original call stands. If you lose a challenge, your opponent gets a point.

In the Lee-Ramos match, they had the right call on the mat, and made an egregious call with a takedown for Lee. They were both out of bounds prior to Lee establishing control and Ramos's hand hit off the mat which immediately calls for a stop in action.

Funny thing is, the Iowa challenge may have cost Lee the match.

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

I want the calls right. But I also don’t want the long breaks as wrestling is a test of fitness too.

I agree, therefore I want better refs than Angel.

My wife observed he tries to make himself part of the show.

 

[Lyco1990]

Replay should be to fix egregious mistakes. If the review cannot be completed in a minute, the original call stands. If you lose a challenge, your opponent gets a point.

In the Lee-Ramos match, they had the right call on the mat, and made an egregious call with a takedown for Lee. They were both out of bounds prior to Lee establishing control and Ramos's hand hit off the mat which immediately calls for a stop in action.

Funny thing is, the Iowa challenge may have cost Lee the match.

I just rewatched and you’re right this issue may deserve a thread of its own. I don’t believe Brands thought it would be overturned I believe 1 minute left, give Lee a Lunger, Ramos however got coached up. Good job T&T you may have cost the kid his dream.

 

[PD4thespawn]

Out of bounds is easy enough. Tennis has that Hawkeye thingy. Hey Is Hawkeye trademarked?

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

I would start by not hiring Angel to ref at the NCAAs.

Well to be fair, he's just as bad at conference tournaments and dual meets.

 

[Split shot]

Three things I believe would help in the review process and be easily implemented:

Simply have a pair of headphones available for the ref to use when communicating with reviewing official verses sticking a finger in his ear, like the NFL does. No downside to this right?

If you throw a brick and lose the challenge, a point is awarded to the other wrestler just like in freestyle. I think this would reduce Lunger Bricks significantly. Tom Brands and Tom Ryan are two, but by no means the only coaches who utilize this tactic. I really don't see a downside to this change.

Once the coach tells the ref what he is challenging, he can not approach the table again prior to the decision. Again, Ryan and Brands often mill around and hang out there at the table continuously attempting to engage the refs in conversation while the ref is trying to hear and talk to the reviewing official.

 

[mcpat]

Hey - did anyone see Beau's merkle TD? It was either the consi semifinal or final. No deep whizzer by his opponent.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Rock Harrison is good for our sport. Good color guy and former official. I think he is a solid fan. Be careful with wanting stall calls as our team likes sitting on the ankle as well. I don't think that is stalling based on other activity that is going on.

 

[Hey_Blue]

Did anyone else notice Jordan Burroughs commentary, and then prediction on the outcome of the reviewed calls; and that he was correct each time. Made some very helpful rule related points during the painstakily long waits during those reviews.

 

[nerfstate]

Hey - did anyone see Beau's merkle TD? It was either the consi semifinal or final. No deep whizzer by his opponent.

Yeah, it was his winner vs. his former Teammate at Wyoming Seminary in the 3rd place match.

 

[nitlion6]

Did anyone else notice Jordan Burroughs commentary, and then prediction on the outcome of the reviewed calls; and that he was correct each time. Made some very helpful rule related points during the painstakily long waits during those reviews.

Burroughs is great at announcing. So is John Smith.

 

[Psugo823]

Did anyone else notice Jordan Burroughs commentary, and then prediction on the outcome of the reviewed calls; and that he was correct each time. Made some very helpful rule related points during the painstakily long waits during those reviews.

Missed on Mikey L. Though...by a lot

 

[tullfan68]

who the hell the refs talking to on the phone??replays should take no more than 60 seconds you can watch it 3 times if you cant figure it out by then you shouldnt be a ref!2 refs right there,whats the problem??