You either understand the rules or you don't. I have no dog in the fight but that's not 2
Wrestling Rutgers Dual Thread 1/16
- Thread starter Oopie46
- Start date
As much of a blue and white glasses type of guy that I am, I still have no idea, nor any justification for how Hidlay wasn't given his two.
Exactly correct. You only get the TD without reaction time with rear standing control BEFORE the hand touches. In both Nolf/Hilday and here, there was no rear standing control, so control *is not established* until they have cleared reaction time.
Last edited:
You are misinterpreting the rule book.
Reaction time has to do with establishing control. Control can be established in rear standing and it is still not a takedown. But if the hand then hits the mat reaction time is not relevant.
Same with the 4 point stance or on the mat for that matter. Once control is established BEYOND REACTION TIME - takedown. But reaction time is a factor in the position that is pictured. If Beau gains that position but VB whizzers before the admittedly subjective reaction time, no takedown.
I’m starting to appreciate the refs a little more.
Thank you for your insights Mrs Van Brill, you can show yourself out now.
Here is the definition from the rule book;
Reaction Time. The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous.
...and it does matter in this case.
Last edited:
Nice explanation Dice. And all true. That was not a takedown.
I was going to explain it to him as well but I don't think he understands things well enough to even try.
Nice job explaining things to your fan base. Everyone is looking at things thru blue & white glasses so they're gonna think that's 2 all day long. Glad the educated fans are correcting them. The more people that understand the rules the better
I agree, Dice's explanation was superb. To make the statement, unquestionably, "That was not a takedown.", while agreeing that reaction time is subjective (again, in Dice's post) is where I'll have to disagree. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I could reasonably see some referees calling it a takedown, arguing that the whizzer was beyond reaction time.
To me, that's where the discussion should be. That and whether a referee should be reviewing his own calls.
Last edited:
Unlikely for next year, unless an uber-compelling case can be made. Rule changes happen, almost always, in 2-year cycles. We are in the first year of the current cycle. Next rule changes are for 2023-24 through 2024-25.
What was more controversial, IMO, was the lack of points for BB for neutral danger on MVB in OT. It sure seemed like MVB’s back was exposed for more than enough time. What do people think?
I think it was close--but you don't always get the close calls. The best thing Beau could have done (other than maybe firing off a few more of his very high-percentage shots throughout) would have been to work for the go behind at the end of SV1. Good learning experience for him--I'm sure the coaches won't chew him up too badly for going for a fall, but that's situational awareness. Beau's got a great head on his shoulders--I bet he has already learned his lesson.
Good question. I re-watched that sequence a dozen times trying to get a 3-count, but couldn't. The split second that a flopping Van Brill goes vertical, the count has to start over. I got to two, but never three. As nerf says, it was close.
Disagree. The rules interpretation section of the rulebook very clearly states that the bottom wrestler must have a "deep whizzer" in position to prevent a wrestler in this clear control position (fully behind opponent, arm around waist and opponent in a 4-point stance) from being awarded a TD. IOW, being subjected to this clear "control position" in the absence of a "deep whizzer" is a TD. Even if you granted this silly notion that you can create a "deep whizzer" on "reaction time" (which is defined in rulebook as only slightly more than instantaneous..... - reaction time in track meets and drag racing tracks has been measured to be less than one-half second which is consistent with NCAA Rulebook's description of slightly more than instantaneous) from a 4-point stance where top wrestler has clearly already gained a "control position" (which is an absurd notion to begin with) VB DOES NOT GAIN A DEEP WHIZZER POSITION when he initially reaches back - he merely grabs Bartlett's armpit which falls WAY SHORT of what the rulebook says is required to defeat this top-wrestler "control position". It quite clearly states that a "DEEP WHIZZER" is required - not "an attempt at a whizzer".
Actually, what he should have done is throw a leg in on VB's far leg (i.e., same side his arm was wrapped around VB's waist) - this position is a TD regardless of whether VB attempts whizzer, or not (ditto if he would have Merkled near leg I believe).
Forget about "Neutral Danger" - during the sequence where VB was turned completely on his back - VB let go of Batlett's leg so he could fight off his back position and get back to his stomach. Bartlett was chest-to-chest with VB, VB had let go of his leg and VB was completely on his back for a couple seconds - that is a clear TD anywhere-&-everywhere except Rivera's magic kingdom.
Sure--if he got a leg in, that would be fine (and would also have meant he was making an effort to cover the hips, or at least get close).
I'll say this and jump back out of the discussion because this is not meant to be agreement with his position.
As a former baseball official, there was the Rule Book, a separate Interpretation Book and a separate Case Book to help officials how to apply different situations. Can't speak for Wrestling, but my guess is he may be referencing a separate publication.
Carry on....
Humor us all. You laid the trap, lets see if you catch a bushwood.
Same with wrestling (2-year Rules Interpretation Book, plus a Case Book), but the language being referenced doesn't exist.
Since were here though, I'll add that there's also a "Corrections/Clarifications" document for typos/forgotten text/whatever. It's very short.
There is such a section and it references only one type of whizzer preventing a clear behind bottom-wrestler control position - specifically states "a deep whizzer". It then goes on to describe circumstances when "control" is established and a takedown should be awarded even when a "deep whizzer" is present.
I just skimmed over the actual rule book. There is no way someone that doesn’t know the sport could referee a match strictly by studying and going off of what the rule book says. In my opinion it is quite vague especially what constitutes a takedown. I didn’t look at the casebook or interpretations but I’d hope they are more specific on things. Lol
I'm glad those publications exist in wrestling as well. They were very helpful in baseball. That said, as per this particular case, I'm a bystander. I know wrestling rules to a decent degree, but nowhere near as much as many on here. My eyes and gut tell me that it was not a takedown, but not enough to argue that position. I was simply hoping to clarify that using the word "interpretation section" may have meant something outside the general rulebook
So do tell, at the very end of SV1, when Bartlett had rolled VB directly onto his back, Bartlett was chest-to-chest with VB and VB had let go of Bartlett's leg so he could give maximum effort to fighting his way of his back.... and ultimately rolled to his side after squirming for a couple seconds.... then to his stomach.... and after finally rolling to his stomach, VB desperately reaches out and re-grabs Bartlett's forward leg at the knee, this doesn't count as a TD due to "reaction time"?
Last edited:
It's the same with all sports. I umpired baseball up through what was called Teener League, girls' softball through my daughters early teenage years, and refereed basketball. These are sports society is very familiar with, yet few (and I mean VERY few) could ever be an official.
Wrestling, soccer, ice hockey and the rest of the next tier of sports are even less well-known, rulebook-wise.
Sorry, not sorry, but you have failed my reasonable person rule, so I'll not be responding fyi. Doesn't happen often, KK was the last.
So, we get your interpretation and opinion on everything else..... but not as to whether this falls within YOUR same interpretation of the same concept, "reaction time", made by the same Ref.... go figure! LMAO. Got news for you, that situation at the end of SV1 is a TD for Bartlett anywhere-&-eveywhere except Rivera's magic kingdom, but was absurdly called "reaction time" by Rivera again. LMAO - a complete joke call just like his first one.
Similar threads
Match Thread Nebraska dual thread - Jan. 17
