If you haven’t seen it yet.
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...g/d1/men/Apr2019D1MWR_AnnualMeetingReport.pdf
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...g/d1/men/Apr2019D1MWR_AnnualMeetingReport.pdf
NCAA Wrestling Committee Meeting Report
- Thread starter nerfstate
- Start date
Does improve the optics on the video review change--could he be that self aware, though? Nah.
These are good changes. Interesting footnotes on weigh-ins 2 hrs before competition each day.
I’d put a time limit on reviews. 30 or 60 seconds. If you haven’t seen enough to make a determination by then, the call stands. These interminable replays totally kill the flow of matches and are a net negative for sports.
I'm a fan of getting it right, regardless of sport. We agree that time could/should be discussed. 30 seconds isn't enough imo.
Ryan's term expires August this year. Same with Brian Smith. Lame duck committee member??
In hockey, the 'getting it right' mandate has run into a wall, as can be seen with the reviewable offside rule. In the past offsides calls weren't reviewable but then a crucial playoff goal was scored by a player who was easily 3 feet offsides, so the video review was expanded to include offsides calls.
The play that begat the rule was pretty rare--most offsides calls are razor thin (did his skate fully cross the line a millisecond before the puck?) and yet the NHL now has dozens of goals overturned for offsides calls that had zero impact on that resulting goal.
Using video to determine whether the puck crossed the goal line makes a ton of sense. But getting everything "right" has a cost: the flow of the game, the fans' patience, and common sense. Every sport has its own line, and the NHL has crossed it. I think wrestling crossed it when they combined video review with hands to the face calls.
Please don't take the getting it right quote out of context. There's not a system developed that is without flaw in those one-in-a-million situations. Bringing smarts to the table is needed for those that develop the rules.
Back to wrestling...as an fyi...
-- at the 2018 NCAA Championships, there were 66 reviews (about 10% of all bouts)
-- 11 calls were overturned
-- 5 challenges were inconclusive
-- 50 calls were upheld
-- What's missing is the average time to do the review, wish I had that to share.
Sorry if you thought I was making it about you, I was just making a point about the larger debate as it's developed, because there is a 'get it right at all costs' side that's been winning the debate for some time now. My point is that while video review has improved things on the whole, I believe we're also finding the sensible limits of its utility. Author Michael Lewis makes the point, in speaking about refereeing, that refereeing has objectively improved on the whole, yet fans are more likely perceive unfairness directed toward their side. Increased use of video review is in large part a response to that general feeling, but it's not solved anything on the perception side, so we continue to chase the fairness rabbit down an endless hole with ever-expanding use of video review.
Tikk - I have determined that all of your posts are great - even before you draft them
If we wanted to get ** everything ** right, we'd have video replays of coaching box violations for team point deductions.
Obviously there are limits to "everything."
Obviously there are limits to "everything."
I vote for shock collars to keep Coaches in the box
Brands with a shock collar. Nobody would watch the wrestling
Numder 3 under Informational Items at the bottom is going to end our string of being able to leave Session 2 early enough to hit the bars early.
I know the average time to do the review, TOO long. The fact that so few were overturned also means (to me anyway) that to many reviews are being made. I'd like to see a time limit on reviews (although I agree 30 seconds is to short), but also there should be some penalty for a review that is not overturned, like in freestyle where it is a point for the other wrestler. In folk I think a stalling call would be appropriate, since many of the reviews, IMHO, are made for that very purpose.
I totally agree with a reasonable time limit being assigned to review, despite the potential a bad call might not get reversed otherwise. 30 seconds is unrealistic, but 60-90 seconds should be the max.
Wrestling like few other sports is a war of attrition with conditioning and a wrestler's gas tank a significant factor. A 3 minute delay can absolutely inadvertantly help change the outcome of a match. A well placed challenge by a coach despite the risks could be used just for the purpose of giving his kid a week needed breather during a critical match (TT). A long break gives an advantage to the lesser conditioned athlete.
Watching Nick Lee break Mckenna last year was one of my favorite moments, and serves as a perfect example. The final 30 seconds of that match we're huge for both the match and the dual.
They’re planning on a stall warning for lost challenges, yes? Or was that proposed change skipped over?
Numder
Nova, I know this is a just a typo and I am not making fun...but I think I will start saying numder instead of number (like I say hundy instead of hundred and sammich instead of sandwich). It's got a certain Ralph Wiggum cachet to it.
I think numder is what the doctor did to the woman before she gave birth
a lot of challenges are coming at the end of the match when there is 'nothing to lose'.... most of those are a complete waste of time.
Well said, this is my biggest problem with replay taking so long is that it has direct affect on the match..
The reason why I think it takes so long is that it seems like a bunch of amateurs rewinding the footage and not being able to find it quickly enough. Hopefully this third party review is more professionally done. A simple DVR should be easy enough.
You watch some of these tourneys on Track or Flo with the mat side camera and mic and you hear the table. "No, back further". "no, not that". It's like the person operating the video has no wrestling knowledge or context of the match they are watching. Which is probably completely true.
And I think this type of thing is why it takes so long. Sometimes maybe it's the refs watching it over and over but I think for the most part it is just that they see it 2-3 times, it just takes 5 min to see it 2-3 times.
Agree, there should be a consequence for a review. It would stop (I believe) most of the abuse (lungers, etc.).
A time limit would be good too, except as someone else noted, there's several variables, including the skill sets of those operating the video equipment. Here's what the rulebook states: "
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." It's ok as is, to me.
I wonder how much of this is fan's impatience. Blood time and concussion protocol are unlimited-time events, and it's disappointing hearing fan comments during bouts when these things happen, though admittedly it's few that vocalize it. Is the numder of coaches reviews that horrible now? And if a consequence was implemented so abuse is minimized, is that enough change?
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting NitBits: Where does Penn State stand for several key targets and more- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-