Another interesting citation re: Heil v JG posted several years before their match (link)

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Here is a hot-link to the citation (refer to response #4) - HIT THIS LINK.

Here is the interesting and directly-applicable language to the OP's question in a post made on 3/5/2012:

But I see your point, if criteria was met out of bounds, then criteria would have been met inbounds as well, and reaction time is not that long.

....it clearly states in the rulebook a crotch lift does not prevent a takedown, nor does a body lock or nearly anything else that involves the defensive wrestler sitting on his butt. So actually the calls out-of-bounds are probably more correct than the ones in-bounds because the refs are allowing too much time for defenders to fight off their butts.

Interesting, this poster nailed the EXACT SITUATION last Sunday to a tee - Hagerty just plain ignored the rulebook for the given situation and allowed Heil to continue wrestling from his butt (AND THEN BACK IN THIS SITUATION) despite JG meeting every criteria for a TD in the situation.....and the referee having every reason in the book to call Heil's crotch-lock "negated" (especially given that Jimmy had turned the crotch-lock against Heil by hooking Heil's leg with the same leg that Heil was locked through and Heil pulling on it only made the "Stack" tighter and Heil flatter on his back).

A clarification should be issued that JG met all the criteria for a TD and should have been awarded 2 points and a NF Count (4 points) even if Hagerty never saw a full "one count" for the pin -- IOW, an acknowlegement should be made that rules were misinterpreted in that match and that NO WRESTLER should be encouraged to maintain a crotch-lock while sitting on their butt, let alone while being pinned to the mat with an offensive move by the other wrestler, as a useful "defense" to a TD AFTER the other wrestler has met ALL THE CRITERIA for a TD in that situation as defined in the Rulebook and Interpretations for that situation.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Here is a second citation I found to the topic in a discussion from TheMat.com in a string regarding the Snyder v Gwiz Championship Match last year - even includes a citation to the rulebook "control interpretations" for that situation along with picture:

Posted 21 March 2016 - 02:45 PM

Original Post:

Axe_Spartan, on 21 Mar 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

First of all, I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I just want an explanation, how that last takedown from Snyder was a takedown? Wasn't that chest lock from Gwiz preventing the control that needs to be established to score a takedown?

Response:

two legs on the butt is two, even with a chest lock of crotch lock (there is a picture of it in the rule book).

​

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Here is the picture of JG v Heil for comparison to the rulebook picture:

Jimmy has control of both legs and his entire body is above Heil's waist holding Heil in a clear "pinning position". This is clearly a TD and 2 points under the rule and picture referenced above (Heil's crotch lift is not only doing nothing, it is in fact DETRIMENTAL to Heil's position!) and should have triggered a NF Count -- Hagerty sitting there and staring at and doing nothing (note, he should be down on the mat executing a NF Count under proper officiating mechanics!!!) is just plain wrong. Given the significance and profile of the match, the Officiating Board should issue a clarification that this situation was not called correctly - encouraging a wrestler to roll to their back after they were clearly takendown under the rules as a "useful" defense to a TD (that the Rulebook clearly says IS NOT a defense to a TD) is only going to cause confusion on the topic and encourage both wrestlers to do the wrong thing or Officials to apply the "Control" Rules/Interpretations incorrectly at Nationals.

The manner in which Hagerty called this sequence, as well as the way he called stalling on Zain in the Colica match was EXCEEDINGLY confusing and frustrating relative to the actual written Rules Interpretations on these subjects. Cael even said that something should be officially said as these calls were exceptionally confusing and could easily impact outcomes at Nationals.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Here is a hot-link to the citation (refer to response #4) - HIT THIS LINK.

Here is the interesting and directly-applicable language to the OP's question in a post made on 3/5/2012:

​

Interesting, this poster nailed the EXACT SITUATION last Sunday to a tee - Hagerty just plain ignored the rulebook for the given situation and allowed Heil to continue wrestling from his butt (AND THEN BACK IN THIS SITUATION) despite JG meeting every criteria for a TD in the situation.....and the referee having every reason in the book to call Heil's crotch-lock "negated" (especially given that Jimmy had turned the crotch-lock against Heil by hooking Heil's leg with the same leg that Heil was locked through and Heil pulling on it only made the "Stack" tighter and Heil flatter on his back).

A clarification should be issued that JG met all the criteria for a TD and should have been awarded 2 points and a NF Count (4 points) even if Hagerty never saw a full "one count" for the pin -- IOW, an acknowlegement should be made that rules were misinterpreted in that match and that NO WRESTLER should be encouraged to maintain a crotch-lock while sitting on their butt, let alone while being pinned to the mat with an offensive move by the other wrestler, as a useful "defense" to a TD AFTER the other wrestler has met ALL THE CRITERIA for a TD in that situation as defined in the Rulebook and Interpretations for that situation.

BTW, I had screwed up link in OP, but have fixed it.

 

[Lyco1990]

By the book IMO you are 100% correct. Both legs are secured, head on outside. This is 2+. Some will defend the Official but he was wrong on several situations.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Here is the picture Foley just posted in his article on the topic for comparison to the Rules Book picture citing control in this situation:

This picture, like the one posted above - maybe even more so, exhibits all the "control" criteria listed in the NCAA Interpretation and illustritive picture for the situation.

 

[ZepGraffiti]

Serenity now, serenity now [quote from a different Frank]
Time to move on

 

[21Guns]

Serenity now, serenity now [quote from a different Frank]
Time to move on

No it's not. Jimmy is going to see him again and you can count on the same thing happening, if this isn't handled right now.

 

[21Guns]

Here is the picture Foley just posted in his article on the topic for comparison to the Rules Book picture citing control in this situation:

This picture, like the one posted above - maybe even more so, exhibits all the "control" criteria listed in the NCAA Interpretation and illustritive picture for the situation.

"Roll Through" LMAO.

Let's hear Jammenz thoughts on THIS photo.

 

[Rhino80]

If a spladle , banana split , or a Peterson is control , that is control

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

If a spladle , banana split , or a Peterson is control , that is control

Agree, especially the way Jimmy hooked Heil's leg with his own leg on the same-side as the crotch-lock was egaged -- this made Heil's crotch-lock a weapon against himself very similar to a spladle. Jimmy very clearly had a pinning combination in place - a Split-Scissors Stack and was holding Heil to the mat with clear "control". Should have been called a TD, NF Count should have been initiated and Fall called.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

Agree, especially the way Jimmy hooked Heil's leg with his own leg on the same-side as the crotch-lock was egaged -- this made Heil's crotch-lock a weapon against himself very similar to a spladle. Jimmy very clearly had a pinning combination in place - a Split-Scissors Stack and was holding Heil to the mat with clear "control". Should have been called a TD, NF Count should have been initiated and Fall called.

So if a TD was called, have to assume Heil let's go and gets off his back. Not sure there would have been any NF. But we'll never know and with the TD Jimmy wins anyway.

 

[johnstownsteel]

Earlier this week someone was trying to pinpoint Cael's alter ego on this board. I was thrown out because....well because no one pretends to be from Johnstown. Anyway, I'm gonna throw my guess out there and say it's Franklin. Cael is close to coach Franklin (hence the username) and Cael would like an official explanation or clarification of calls made during the OSU match. It's obvious Franklin is knowledgeable when it comes to the rule book and is passionate about this subject.

It's a no brainer right?

 

[Real-Lion]

Here is a hot-link to the citation (refer to response #4) - HIT THIS LINK.

Here is the interesting and directly-applicable language to the OP's question in a post made on 3/5/2012:

​

Interesting, this poster nailed the EXACT SITUATION last Sunday to a tee - Hagerty just plain ignored the rulebook for the given situation and allowed Heil to continue wrestling from his butt (AND THEN BACK IN THIS SITUATION) despite JG meeting every criteria for a TD in the situation.....and the referee having every reason in the book to call Heil's crotch-lock "negated" (especially given that Jimmy had turned the crotch-lock against Heil by hooking Heil's leg with the same leg that Heil was locked through and Heil pulling on it only made the "Stack" tighter and Heil flatter on his back).

A clarification should be issued that JG met all the criteria for a TD and should have been awarded 2 points and a NF Count (4 points) even if Hagerty never saw a full "one count" for the pin -- IOW, an acknowlegement should be made that rules were misinterpreted in that match and that NO WRESTLER should be encouraged to maintain a crotch-lock while sitting on their butt, let alone while being pinned to the mat with an offensive move by the other wrestler, as a useful "defense" to a TD AFTER the other wrestler has met ALL THE CRITERIA for a TD in that situation as defined in the Rulebook and Interpretations for that situation.

This is when WE need to yell " GET YOUR COUNT ",,,,Works every time and the ref starts counting or the wrestlers bails and gives up the 2....

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

Cael is too busy to bother with this forum ...

 

[dunkej01]

Earlier this week someone was trying to pinpoint Cael's alter ego on this board. I was thrown out because....well because no one pretends to be from Johnstown. Anyway, I'm gonna throw my guess out there and say it's Franklin. Cael is close to coach Franklin (hence the username) and Cael would like an official explanation or clarification of calls made during the OSU match. It's obvious Franklin is knowledgeable when it comes to the rule book and is passionate about this subject.

It's a no brainer right?

No.

 

[NittanyLion84]

He does not need too, he gets his reports directly from Spyker.