Cox

[minnhawkeye]

Just curious noticed no threads on the Cox dq over here.
Any opinions from you guys.
Myself I have always thought the score table was always to close to the mat.
Luckly Wellenton had no serious injury but have read on the mat someone said he would be out a month.

 

[amalone]

Minnhawk.... I saw the video six or seven times. I thought J'Den didn't have to drive him so hard out of bounds. He could have let up. The proper decision was made.

 

[minnhawkeye]

I agree amalone he had the dq coming for sure.
Also watch it again they where both OB when Cox did the lift and throw.
We where just luckly that the headlines didn't read "wrestler has a concussion from being throwed into scoring table" ...just saying

 

[lionlover]

I agree amalone he had the dq coming for sure.
Also watch it again they where both OB when Cox did the lift and throw.
We where just luckly that the headlines didn't read "wrestler has a concussion from being throwed into scoring table" ...just saying

Or...wrestler permanently paralyzed....or dead.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

I agree with the call but also think that the space between the edge of the mat and various obstacles (including the scoreboards at the NCAAs!) is just too close for comfort. It's a miracle more wrestlers haven't been hurt even when NOT slammed.

 

[RoarLions1]

My opinion only...
-- The right call was made
-- J'den is a great guy off the mat, by all accounts, but it appears the "heat of battle" got to him
-- J'den has a history with Wellington, even losing to him a couple years ago
-- The topic of distance from the wrestling circle come's up every year.

 

[PSU Mike]

Just curious noticed no threads on the Cox dq over here.
Any opinions from you guys.
Myself I have always thought the score table was always to close to the mat.
Luckly Wellenton had no serious injury but have read on the mat someone said he would be out a month.

There were a few comments, but I believe they were confined to the Misery/OU thread with Cox's name in the title.

 

[a_mshaffer]

few comments on previous strings. Couple of thoughts,,,
- he has to be trying to score or he'll get a stalling call for pushing off of the mat
- I personally think he could have stopped, although I think then, based on initiating a move properly and with commitment, that they may have both hit the table - but on their feet as they disengaged from the hold..
- general thought - I always thought the mat is too small, especially for the big guys (I know the difficulties of larger mats)

Anyone remember why the NCAA (or whomever) made a rule for mat size? ....Believe it was after Iowa created a mat the size of their gym. Not sure if that story is factual but it consisted of a plot to ensure an opponent who used the edge of the mat to their advantage the prior year wouldn't do it again for their upcoming meet.
Not sure of details but something along those lines. Feel free to add-on, modify, correct!

 

[barndog42]

Where is the video?

 

[barndog42]

espn3 sorry found it finally. but wouldn't replay...

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Just curious noticed no threads on the Cox dq over here.

Pretty much an entire thread about it, though the Subject line might not call attention to it. You can view the prior discussion at THIS LINK.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

-- The topic of distance from the wrestling circle come's up every year.

I know it does. But is it going to take someone being paralyzed before somebody does something about it? What's the rule for the amount of mat space that must be outside of the outer circle? Why not mandate more area ... not immediately of course as the mat manufacturers would need time to respond, but over time?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

What's the rule for the amount of mat space that must be outside of the outer circle?

Mats
1.8 Dimensons
Mats shall have a wrestling area between 32 and 42 feet in diameter There shall be a mat area (or apron) with a minimum width of 5 feet that extends entirely around the wrestling area The apron area shall be designated by use of either contrasting colors or a 2-inch-wide line This 2-inch-wide line that outlines the edge of the wrestling area is a part of the wrestling area and therefore in bounds (See llustration below.)

This year's rules added a point of emphasis concerning mat area which reads:

The matted apron shall extend at least five feet between out-of-bounds lines when two mats are side-by-side and at least five feet from the out-of-bounds line and any obstruction such as a table, bleachers or walls.

 

[RoarLions1]

I know it does. But is it going to take someone being paralyzed before somebody does something about it? What's the rule for the amount of mat space that must be outside of the outer circle? Why not mandate more area ... not immediately of course as the mat manufacturers would need time to respond, but over time?

This is an interesting discussion. My work life is safety, so the first question I would ask is "what is the hazard?", and "what is the risk?". Sure, we could play "what if" and say someone might be paralyzed, but the evidence doesn't support that position. Heck, no one should ever cross the street, fly in an airplane, or take a bath, given that serious injury is at least in the realm of possibility doing any of those things.

I estimate over 20,000 matches per year wrestled in D1 alone, and I can't remember a serious injury from striking a table, wall, or any other rigid object. Add in D2, D3, NJCAA, and NAIA, and we're talking hundreds of thousands of matches per year. Given the sample size, anyone remember a serious injury solely caused by the location of a table?

The wrestling interpretations manuals are available back to 2001, and it was 5' back then, so I'm guessing way prior to that year it was deemed that 5' is safe, and nothing that's happened on the mat since then has created a need to change it. It's my opinion that the human component (Cox losing control of his emotions a little) is a bigger factor here.

 

[Azchief32]

RoarLions FTW with some ORM.

 

[lionlover]

This is an interesting discussion. My work life is safety ( Condom Producer), so the first question I would ask is "what is the hazard?",(Breakage) and "what is the risk?" (Pregnancy). Sure, we could play "what if" (It doesn't break) and say someone might be (Impregnated) but the evidence doesn't support the (Missionary) position. Heck, no one should ever (Have sex) in the street, ( in) an airplane, or ( in the) bath, given that (Unplanned Child birth) is at least in the realm of possibility doing any of those things.Director of Product Safety, Trojan Condoms, USA RoarLions1

@RoarLions1

 

[tikk10]

My opinion only...
-- The right call was made
-- J'den is a great guy off the mat, by all accounts, but it appears the "heat of battle" got to him
-- J'den has a history with Wellington, even losing to him a couple years ago
-- The topic of distance from the wrestling circle come's up every year.

To that last point, it's interesting that since the rule change effectively expanding what constitutes "in bounds" (to include all "out of bounds" territory so long as even a foot remains in bounds), the physical area beyond the circle hasn't expanded in kind to account for the increased potential wrestling area. Consequently, at tournaments you have situations where two adjacent matches are taking place well within the other's sphere Yeah, that's always been the case, and it's more or less dictated by necessity and practicality, but it's now the case to a greater degree. And obviously, the scorer's table hasn't moved back either. Not that any of this is directly relevant to the Cox incident, but it's worth pointing out.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

To that last point, it's interesting that since the rule change effectively expanding what constitutes "in bounds" (to include all "out of bounds" territory so long as even a foot remains in bounds), the physical area beyond the circle hasn't expanded in kind to account for the increased potential wrestling area. Consequently, at tournaments you have situations where two adjacent matches are taking place well within the other's sphere Yeah, that's always been the case, and it's more or less dictated by necessity and practicality, but it's now the case to a greater degree. And obviously, the scorer's table hasn't moved back either. Not that any of this is directly relevant to the Cox incident, but it's worth pointing out.

+1000

Or to put it in Risk Management terms for those that prefer it: while the consequence has stayed the same, the likelihood has increased due to new out of bounds rules. Risk management says your safety case needs to be reassessed ;-)

 

[RoarLions1]

Agree completely. Rule changes should be reviewed for it's impact on the safety and health of the athletes. Say what you want about the competence of the NCAA, and maybe they move a bit too slow at times, but the NCAA Wrestling Committee has shown it's commitment to the safety and health of student-athletes with the rule changes to weight management (hydration), skin infections and recently, concussions.

Just guessing here, since none of us were in the room when they discussed the changes for wrestling on the edge, but the 5' rule, more likely than not, was discussed for safety. If so, was it a good decision to leave it alone? Time will tell, though there's no evidence that it needs to be changed.