The News

News Sources

History/Records

Commitments

Videos

Links

Discussion

Forum Home

Forum Search

Register

Log in

Log in to check your private messages

Profile

Check the latest updates on Twitter at: @OWNetwork

► Add to the Discussion

Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jack Muni added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

When Hall came up for the reversal I thought Bo was going to bring him back down with his right arm around his throat, but he chose to put it across his chest and lost any leverage he had, along with letting Hall get his leg out of the leg lace??



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:

"If Bo gets the two that the ref reviewed...and which clearly appeared to be two....the rest of the match is different.

I just don't understand why he wasn't awarded the two. Perhaps he stopped rather than continuing to push for control (Rex Holman's observation)?"



It was simply a blown call. No guarantee of a win if call was made, but Bo's not rushing into Hall either. Disappointing for sure, but something many have to deal with.

Bo handled it with class.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jack Muni added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

People were comparing PSU to the old Iowa teams, but they, PSU, seem to be having more fun and are looser than the Iowa teams. They strike me as complete opposite cultures.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:

"If Bo gets the two that the ref reviewed...and which clearly appeared to be two....the rest of the match is different.

I just don't understand why he wasn't awarded the two. Perhaps he stopped rather than continuing to push for control (Rex Holman's observation)?"




i'm in agreement, i saw 2 & 2 as well, andi think video confirmed it -- but i think match changed when Hall chose down, 0-0 score, to begin 2nd period and Bo could only ride him 10 measly seconds, right then i felt momentum of match shift to Hall.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jason Russell added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

I have told multiple people this, and hopefully i am not wrong, but from what I have seen as a coach at the D3 level if the review had gone in favor of Jordan, everything after the overturned call is dead time. So it would go two for Jordan, no reversal for Hall.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Chris Thomas added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

I agree the momentum changed however, if the right call was made it would've been 3-3 going to the third BoJo's choice. The momentum would be in Bo's favor.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on March 19, 2017

Quote from Jason Russell's post:

"I have told multiple people this, and hopefully i am not wrong, but from what I have seen as a coach at the D3 level if the review had gone in favor of Jordan, everything after the overturned call is dead time. So it would go two for Jordan, no reversal for Hall."



This didn't make sense to me so I asked someone who is much smarter than I am especially on NCAA stuff.
After some searching, apparently we have an answer.

Updated 1-20-2017

Rule: 3.21 Video Review

Question: When a video review is executed and a correction to a call on the mat has been made does any/all of the action that occurred on the mat after that correction count?

Ruling: No, when a video review is made and a call on the mat is overturned, all wrestling action after that correction is considered dead time and shall be re-wrestled. This interpretation and practice has been in place and utilized for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 season (and likely before that) but is being updated in the master interpretations document now.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jason Russell added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

So it seems I was correct then. That is interesting, if the officials had overturned that call it would have screwed Hall a bit.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

Quote from Jason Russell's post:

"So it seems I was correct then. That is interesting, if the officials had overturned that call it would have screwed Hall a bit."



This was completely new to me but that sounds correct. It sounds to me as though there would have been no reversal awarded.
In my own mind I can't quite understand the reasoning (other than it is the way the rule must be written). There was continuous action and even if the TD was awarded, it rolled right into a reversal (which was scored as a TD). It was not like it was a bad time situation at all.
Oh well, not my call and not my problem.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Mike Stann added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:

"Bo Jordan appeared to have two points according to criteria as I understand them. Since control is not necessary for any appreciable amount of time, I have a very hard time understanding how that was not a 2 and 2 exchange. I'd love an explanation from the officials.

I do think there is a problem with the referee reviewing his own work via replay. There needs to be a matside review official."


I couldn't agree more. I was their and could not remember anytime they reversed their decision upon review (I know there must have been some but I didn't see them). It's just human nature to defend your decision.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
James Kessen added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

Quote from Mike Stann's post:

"

Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:

"Bo Jordan appeared to have two points according to criteria as I understand them. Since control is not necessary for any appreciable amount of time, I have a very hard time understanding how that was not a 2 and 2 exchange. I'd love an explanation from the officials.

I do think there is a problem with the referee reviewing his own work via replay. There needs to be a matside review official."


I couldn't agree more. I was their and could not remember anytime they reversed their decision upon review (I know there must have been some but I didn't see them). It's just human nature to defend your decision."



I know of 2 and they both went in PSU favor.

I don't think they should review a potential penalty. No other sports allows a review for a potential penalty.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

Quote from James Kessen's post:

" I don't think they should review a potential penalty. No other sports allows a review for a potential penalty."



Just a slightly different line of thought. Not right or wrong, just different.
It was not a "potential penalty", it was a "penalty" that went un-noticed at that time. There is a difference, at least to me.
I would compare it to a TD that was "missed". Upon review, all criteria for a TD have been met. It was a TD in the first place and review confirmed it.
How is a penalty any different? It still happened and there is a point value for it.
By not calling it, the match has been affected.
In the end, the intent (hopefully) is to get it right.
BTW, not that anyone cares but, I am not a fan of video review at all. However I agree that the review should be done by someone not on that mat.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
James Kessen added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

Quote from Jim Behrens's post:

"

Quote from James Kessen's post:

" I don't think they should review a potential penalty. No other sports allows a review for a potential penalty."



Just a slightly different line of thought. Not right or wrong, just different.
It was not a "potential penalty", it was a "penalty" that went un-noticed at that time. There is a difference, at least to me.
I would compare it to a TD that was "missed". Upon review, all criteria for a TD have been met. It was a TD in the first place and review confirmed it.
How is a penalty any different? It still happened and there is a point value for it.
By not calling it, the match has been affected.
In the end, the intent (hopefully) is to get it right.
BTW, not that anyone cares but, I am not a fan of video review at all. However I agree that the review should be done by someone not on that mat."



I understand what you are saying but no other sport allows a review to see if a penalty happened. Football reviews for a catch no catch to me are similar to TD no TD. Feet in bounds for a catch similar. But they don't review holding or pass interference calls.

I know these are 2 different sports that I'm arguing.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: NCAA thread
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on March 20, 2017

James,
I do understand your point but I would ask if there is any other sport that allows scoring (and winning) outside the boundary lines that are clearly marked?
I ask because I don't know of any (so there might be something) but in FB or BB you can't score off the field of play, right?.
In wrestling, as of about 3 years ago, you can not only score but pin WAY outside the circle.
As I said I am not a fan of the review but, if it is used, I guess it should be used for any possible scoring possibility.
Like MRod, I don't have the fan gene that most people have so it is a little easier to see both sides. What would I think if the situation was reversed 180*? I might see it differently.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

► Add to the Discussion

Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11