O'Toole vs. Carr on Feb. 15
- Thread starter Psalm 1 guy
- Start date
Just got home and watched the match. Great match by Carr. Those two end-of-period takedowns with ride outs were critical for Carr. His third period ride out wasn't necessarily exciting to watch, but it sure produced the results he wanted. It is very noticeable that the top NCAA wrestlers work hard on their top game.
Really fun match and Carr looked incredible. His first finish was textbook. Just kept slowly advancing his position and got the Td at the end of the period which is so important. The ride he put on Keegan was impressive as well. I’m very interested to see what adjustments Keegan makes for their next match. And even though js continues to say this match shouldn’t have any bearing on how we view Facundo in my eyes it does. To me it shows that he can be in every match even against the very best because of his elite defense. Carr only took Facundo down once while he took O’Toole down multiple times and pretty much drilled on Kennedy. If you can keep a match close against the very best you have a chance to win at the end and Alex has shown that ability
What sucks for Carr is the #1 seed had no bearing on tonight’s match. Whoever was going to win the second one for the conference title was always gonna be the #1 seed at nationals anyway, whether that was one of the wrestlers going 1-1 or 2-0… the second one is what matters and the loser of next matchup gets Griffith in the semis at Nationals.
I think Haines has a higher ceiling, he is younger and already has a more diverse offense and is a better scrambler.
You’re most likely correct. However, Carr won in dominant fashion, with a ride out and a 7-2 margin. If he loses their rematch 2-1 in SV, one could make the argument that Carr still deserves to be seeded ahead of O’Toole.
I've watched this a few times and don't think the action started rear standing. That gives reaction time. The standing control has to be fully established on the feet, and I don't think that was the case here.
I'm curious whether you think
in Max Dean's loss to Ethan Laird of Rider?
'Fully' established just begs for referee judgment, so if it hinges on that, well...
and also
Presents quite the conundrum.
Haven't seen it lately, but if you circle toward head - reach across neck with free arm and lock hands underneath far armpit of opponent, it's pretty much guaranteed pin (basically a "power" double-under).
I do think Laird was able to circle up and establish rear standing neutral control on the feet. I think that one was very close, and agree 100% on the judgement call provided to the official in those situations.
In the Johnson/Mauller match, it's pretty clear to me, though. Hand is on the mat, Johnson is on the side, THEN Johnson circles behind. Mauller has reaction time there, and it does not appear to me that hand stayed down beyond that reaction time.
Isn't there no reaction time for rear standing, w/ a point on the mat, by rule? Or not, because the point on the mat happened before rear standing was achieved? If that's a part of the rule, it's news to me (but that isn't all that rare).
It's one thing for the fans to argue what is or isn't a takedown I just think the officials are all over the place with it and that's the biggest problem. Am I being dumb to just want them to throw the touch and reaction time stuff out and just go with no takedown until at least one knee goes down?
Unsolicited friendly advice: Don't post your question this way on Go Iowa Awesome (formerly known as HR).
I think an incidental hand touch while executing a standing Granby roll is not what the current rule intended. I think referee judgment whether the hand is being used as a supporting point to defend against rear standing should be restored--especially now with reviews and challenges.
I think wrestling has to find a way to simplify the rules. Never gave it much thought until I started watching wrestling with a potential new fan (my girlfriend) trying to grasp scoring and such. You know how stupid I feel at times being a fan of the sport for 40 years and find myself struggling to explain why something was or was not a score? Lol
Yea, people don't always seem to realize that distinction sometimes (i.e., body position to establish "control criteria" for a TD). For a 3-point Rear Standing "no reaction time" TD - controlling wrestler must be fully behind with arms wrapped. Was watching a match on BTN the other day (I think it was duhO$U v UNL) where during a scramble one of the wrestlers had achieved a "front cradle" position (both wrestlers were down on mat) - fans started screaming for T2 but no call was made until wrestler in top position was able to circle back into a perpendicular position (the bottom wrestler was able to prevent him from achieving this for quite awhile with his cradled leg [hooking his hip with his foot] and his free arm on that side). In that position, even though the top wrestler has cradle locked, pretty sure they need to move behind the shoulder (perpendicular) before it is considered control and T2 awarded.
The old standby of the vague reply "from neutral the wrestler has to have brought the wrestler to the mat and established control for a takedown" just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
It's getting about as difficult as explaining locked hands.
FWIW IMHO - Folkstyle standing Granbys are exciting. Freestyle quadpods are boring AF.
Folkstyle hand touch from rear standing may be the worst of both worlds.
Folkstyle hand touch from rear standing may be the worst of both worlds.
I really really really shouldn't tell this story but it cracked me up so Im doing it anyway. I forget what match it was but a take down was called because of the hand touching and of course she asked why that was 2. As I'm trying to explain it she kept going back to "yeah, but shouldnt you actually have to take them down to get a take down." Lol. We were both so frustrated trying to end the conversation with some understanding. Out of nowhere, I think to just lighten things up she says, "well next time you try to get me to go down ill just swipe my fingers through the carpeting. " Lmao. She's generally not the type to crack jokes like that which made it even funnier.
Make sure to remind her that March 14 is right around the corner!
Shag carpet went out in the 70's...
After watching it in pause-and-go mode several times, this is where I'm at too. But it is close and I can understand seeing it both ways.
I personally like the hand-touch takedown rule. Maybe most of you forget the way this rule has progressed over the years; from "A takedown shall be awarded when in rear-standing position and beyond reaction time one or both hands of the opponent are bearing weight", to "Hand-Touch Takedown. To award a takedown, reaction time is not required in instances in which a wrestler has rear-standing neutral control of their opponent and from the standing position the defending wrestler's hand comes in contact with the mat."
The previous rule had tons of subjectivity, while the current rule has none. The question in the match we are discussing may be one of whether Paniro was in a rear-standing position when Mauller's hand was touching the mat. He wasn't to me.
Add to our discussion the idea of a quad-pod (like freestyle) as someone noted if this takedown rule is completely removed...I'm not a fan of doing that.
Finally, these refs struggled too, and they're the supposed experts. I have them in front of the monitor for over 5 minutes, which is unusually high. If the takedown isn't clear after that amount of time, I think they did the right thing. Since I'm talking referees, I'm glad they have third-party reviews at the post-season tournaments.
It doesn't really. This rule is actually pretty consistently officiated even though it sucks. Fully established just means full rear standing. Not out to the side, not for a split second as you spin behind. When both wrestlers are standing on their feet in your standard "mat return" situation that is established rear standing. From that point, any hand that hits is a takedown.
David Taylor would step over a whizzer all the time, even in international competition.
You disappoint me JTS! Don't you remember I did my mea culpa on Facundo a few weeks ago and explained how I was wrong about him and compared it to another case I was wrong about (Wittlake)? I even picked him to beat PK in the dual.
Facundo is good. I have him placing this year. He's a 6-r12 guy imo. His difficulty is that his path to victory against most AA caliber wrestlers is in SV or rideouts. He just doesn't score enough. He could very easily be in OT in the first round against a 20 something seeded wrestler.
In regards to this match, my Brands-Starocci comparison is perfect. There is a difference between close on the scoreboard and close to winning. I could come up with scenarios in my head to claim Brands is right there. He went in BJC against a 2x champ while banged up and held him to 0 offensive points. As close a loss as there is. And yet, if I'm being reasonable, I know if they wrestled that match 100 times that night, he loses all 100. The same goes for Facundo's Carr match.
Carr raised his level last night. This year he's had closer matches with Holden Heller (7-3) and Wyatt Sheets (5-3) than KOT. Are those guys suddenly on KOT's level? Be serious.
It's all about the angle and what you're trying to accomplish. DT stepped over right at or behind the hips to throw a far leg in. KOT hit the same thing on Carr later in the dual. It's hard for the defender to whizzer you over because they don't have the same leverage. Paniro jumped all the way over with no leg in and was super high. It was very easy for Mauller to hip him over.
Without looking at it again, I think Bo did against Dean to get his TD in the NCAA Championship.
My middle school coach probably didn’t like it then either.
I never said my middle school team was good.
But we were definitely not supposed to step over whizzers! (Too many of us must have ended up like Johnson).Listening to it on the Iowa State radio feed (Nate Carr) wasn’t convinced and was very loud about it. He did admit that he was wearing a particular brand though. Needless to say, his mic was not on during the last match, LOL!!
One big difference is that Bo worked his way into a position where he could step over and hook Dean's leg, with little risk.
Johnson tried to do this dynamically. Watch Johnson's left leg -- he's trying to figure 4 Mauller's leg during the roll. Very high risk sequence.
You're pretty right.
Carter beat Hidlay 10-3 last year because Hidlay engaged and just got manhandled by a much bigger Carter (Hidlay still can make 154 if anyone is wondering)
Styles make matchups.
Hidlay looked significantly smaller than he did last spring. Also, he made 158.7, as it was 70 + 2.
Actually, I thought the rule specified "three points of contact" from a rear-standing position to be a "no reaction time" takedown... So if a wrestler initiates a Granby Roll from a standing position and at least one of his feet has left the mat prior to his hand touch, I don't think it's a takedown.
Similar threads
