I thought Snyder should have been given a stall warning.
- Thread starter therod
- Start date
Don't go on Twitter then. Scores of OSU fans are ripping Coon for not doing anything and whining that he should be called for stalling all the time. They seem to feel he just waits for Snyder to shoot, and then sprawls and lays on him with his big body. I agree that neither did much in the match in the way of shooting, but it is HWT after all. Coon is pure Greco, and to the untrained eye he may not be shooting and therefore they think no action. But he is certainly working upper body for sure.
And as far as the weight difference, give me a break already folks. Snyder has had ample opportunity to put on weight if so chose to. It's his decision to stay where he is for freestyle purposes. Coon's accomplishments shouldn't be downplayed because of that decision.
What I recall is Snyder taking the few shots that were in the match. Coon attempted counters but when did he initiate anything from Neutral?
Also give Snyder credit late, when he was starting to gas, he got the take down when it counted, when he had to or lose the match. Just for the record, I was rooting for Coon to win but thought of the two of them, Snyder the more agggressive
Isn’t perspective an interesting aspect of fanship? 2 teams fans, watching the same bout, came away with different views.
I thought the officials did it right. Two titans decided it on the mat, and even though there wasn't much scoring it still had me glued to the match. I can't wait for act 3.
Exactly, Snyder is a freestyler who does folkstyle. He is not going to let folkstyle affect his freestyle. Given the international weight classes, starting at 197 in folkstyle, he could have wrestled 189 or 211 internationally. Too big to make 189, went to 211. From there he decided that cutting down to 197 would harm freestyle so he went 285 in folkstyle. He has chosen to weigh in the 225 to 230 range to be able to make 211 in freestyle. Ohio State fans need to stop complaining about the weigh disadvantage.
I am a huge fan of Captain America's. OSU fans in general walk around with an assholes edge and believe they are entitled.
Snyder initiated almost all of the offensive wrestling. Coon's offense was pretty much a reaction to Snyder's, but neither guy was retreating to edge to do nothing. It never occured to me that one of them should be hit with a stall call.
Not what I saw. Coon was always trying to collar tie and Snyder would get on his bicycle and flee. Coon was always chasing him down and confront him straight up. Snyder time and time would flee with Coon in pursuit. As far as shooting in on legs, difficult for a 285 lb man standing 6'6" to shoot against a much smaller man.
I saw mostly Coon working hard to get the body lock and Snyder working hard to not get body locked.
This pretty well sums it up.
I thought Coon made a tactical error by getting to his feet; Snyder was not going to be able to do anything with that ankle with Coon's weight on him.
Snyder always shoots his leg/crotch shot to his own left and his low ankle shot to his right.
OK.
I assume therod is a reference to Rodriguez?
So you are a Michigan fan, and your take on it is Snyder did not want Coon controlling ties and therefore Snyder stalled.
You and I see it differently.
said the exact same thing, Coon gave up his biggest advantage in that scramble, his weight on top of Snyder
I didn't see Coon force anything. Waited for Snyder to initiate and then countered. Tried to work some upper body stuff but Snyder did a good job fighting it off.
I think Snyder needs to use that weight against Coon. It really looks like he's leaning out over his toes. I think he could drag him if he wanted to.
Wish they would go to a 30 sec UTB instead of winning because you had 2 more secs riding time.
If RT is so important, why not give 2pts for RT of 2 mins or more. Thats more deserving than the current tiebreaker rules imo
If RT is so important, why not give 2pts for RT of 2 mins or more. Thats more deserving than the current tiebreaker rules imo
I wish they'd just repeat the OT cycle until there's a winner. Deciding on RT edge is dumb -- especially when it's really who's the best top staller. Likewise, hate hate hate the 30 sec stall-out periods.
I'm also OK with a longer mat period -- say 1 min each. Long enough that escaping is likely. Therefore top has an incentive to score NF and maybe even (gasp!) work for a fall. And, if an escape happens, there may be time to score on feet.
As is, the refs call the 30-sec periods as if top stalling is not just acceptable but the goal. (Which it is.) Damn near impossible to get dinged for top stall without a 5 count on legs or a pushout. Horrible. Not wrestling.
The ref is in the way, so it's hard to tell, but it sure looks like the action was out of bounds when the ref called escape Snyder during the last rideout (11:07 mark is where this starts below)
Kinda surprised Michigan didn't challenge that.
Also, question: My understanding is that there used to be more matches - like in the regular season - that ended in ties. A, is that right? B, does anyone know how those were scored for the team score in a dual meet?
Kinda surprised Michigan didn't challenge that.
Also, question: My understanding is that there used to be more matches - like in the regular season - that ended in ties. A, is that right? B, does anyone know how those were scored for the team score in a dual meet?
Wrestling officials are trained, in a tiebreaker rideout period, to call quick stalemate as though it were in place of a stall call. I'm not sure if that's what the college rule book says, but that's what PIAA rules interpreters say.
Therefore, you will not see them call stalling. Just a quicker stalemate.
I don't think it would be at all fair to the top wrestler to call it otherwise.
But that gets back to the real problem with rideouts, which you're correctly getting towards. The purpose of riding in regulation is or should be to work towards near fall points and ultimately a fall. So, in regulation, the purpose is to score points. In these rideouts, the explicit purpose is to stop your opponent from scoring points. It's a concept that is structured towards producing boring wrestling. It's a concept that produces what we would otherwise call stalling! What choice does the top wrestler have but to do what we normally consider stalling?
They should get rid of it entirely, in my opinion.
Agree about settling it on your feet, problem is some of these matches could go a while waiting for someone to shoot especially with the 285's. As these guys get more fatigued, the lack of offense gets even worse. Eventually you need some way to force the conclusion of the match.
That would be fun.. Remember Suriano vs Fix at Who's #1? Turn off the clock until someone scores. That was awesome drama.
However, in a tournament can you imagine going 30 mins in OT and then having to get ready for your next match?
At least with Suriano and Fix that was non-stop action. Imagine an unlimited OT on the feet of Stoll and most other heavies not named Snyder. You might be waiting for one of them to fall down before someone got a takedown.
So some of you guys want OT to be a take down event? There are 3 facets to the sport and I feel that all 3 need to be wrestled in OT
I think the order of periods in OT should be reversed. Alternating top bottom first and SV second with the same rules as we have now
I think the order of periods in OT should be reversed. Alternating top bottom first and SV second with the same rules as we have now
I believe we agree more than disagree. Lack of offense, and they shouldn't win, imo...so I'm still for settling it on their feet, regardless of fatigue.
A couple of things in response
First of all, as the format currently is, if someone scores a takedown in the first SV, then OT is automatically simply a "take down event" without any of the other facets you want. In fact, probably the vast majority of time, there is no rideout after SV. Just SV. Speaking practically, most of the time wrestling OT is just a "take down event" as is.
Second, as has been described above, the current format of the OT actually encourages top wrestlers to functionally stall. I fail to see how that is a good thing.
I thought they were well out of bounds watching live and when Mich didn't challenge figured they were out of challenge bricks..
We do agree. Like in soccer, shootouts stink, much more in favor of reducing the number of players on the field in overtime to eventually get a goal.
They did challenge the ultimate takedown, though, so who knows?
But, yeah, they were totally out! Maybe the ref was just scared to not call it otherwise in front of Tan Tom?
That is what I am saying.. they had the brick.. should have challenged the escape.. if it had been overturned and Coon given top position, all he had to do to win it was finish the ride out of the remaining time in the 30 second period.. instead it went to SV and Snyder got the TD which they did challenge and lost the challenge.. I'd have challenged the escape..
Speaking of bricks, seems like refs reviewed several calls/no-calls at B1Gs without a coach throwing a brick, based only on jawing by the offended coach. I don’t recall seeing refs “throw their own brick” to such an extent before. Am I wrong about that and just haven’t noticed it before?
The review system is still a work-in-progress from what I see. In your example, it's possible a coach could initiate a review with a verbal comment to the ref, and the ref being unsure enough about his call that he decides to do a Referee's Video Review. If the ref is sure of his call, he should not allow it, and restart the action asap. Here's the language...
Art. 8. Referee's Video Review.
a. When there is no significant action, the referee may stop the match to conduct a video review if:
1. there is reasonable certainty an error was made regarding timing, scoring or the proper positioning of the wrestlers;
2. the situation is reviewable; or
3. the outcome of a review may have an impact on the result of the match.
b. There is no restriction on the number of times a referee may stop the match for a review and there is no time limit to conduct a review, but the referee(s) should strive for each review to be efficient and timely.
Not supposed to work that way. Refs should be confident in their calls, and only hit the video review screen when they question their own calls. At this level, it should be rare that that happens. If a ref folds under incessant pressure from any coach, they shouldn't be a college referee.
Similar threads
