Brown v McKinney near fall controversy

kbiz

Well-known member
Not sure what the name of the move is, but McKinney, from bottom flipped Brown directly to his back and the referee spent quite a few seconds checking to see if Brown’s back was in criteria for near fall, or at least to determine whether or not to award a reversal. Meanwhile the whole time McKinney is holding Brown in this position, his back is exposed (self inflicted, attempting the 5 point move). A stale mate is called and after a brief consultation with the assistant ref, Brown was awarded 3 near fall. Yes, that’s not a typo. Brown was awarded the near fall.

In my opinion, this would be equivalent to a bottom wrestler hitting a Peterson, and the bottom guy fighting so hard to prevent near fall, eventually gets back on top and the TOP guy getting 3 points because the bottom wrestler exposed his back while attempting a Peterson. This seems wrong to me but a fascinating case-study for officiating mat-wrestling.
 

CoachHoversten

Well-known member
Well, you can not score near fall without control, so if they never award a reversal, then the bottom wrestler (you said McKinney was on bottom) can not score NF here.

That said, as an official, I am not a fan of awarding NF retroactively with no count given...because if the bottom wrestler knew he was giving top wrestler NF, he may have abandoned the move without giving up 3 points.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Not sure what the name of the move is, but McKinney, from bottom flipped Brown directly to his back and the referee spent quite a few seconds checking to see if Brown’s back was in criteria for near fall, or at least to determine whether or not to award a reversal. Meanwhile the whole time McKinney is holding Brown in this position, his back is exposed (self inflicted, attempting the 5 point move). A stale mate is called and after a brief consultation with the assistant ref, Brown was awarded 3 near fall. Yes, that’s not a typo. Brown was awarded the near fall.

In my opinion, this would be equivalent to a bottom wrestler hitting a Peterson, and the bottom guy fighting so hard to prevent near fall, eventually gets back on top and the TOP guy getting 3 points because the bottom wrestler exposed his back while attempting a Peterson. This seems wrong to me but a fascinating case-study for officiating mat-wrestling.
Unsure McKinney ever really had control but the biggest problem in my opinion was him not knowing back points were being counted against him. It was a very odd sequence for sure but the official awarded the points after the period and conferring with his partner and never awarded them in real time.
 

kbiz

Well-known member
It was a whirly bird (also called a shin whizzer tilt) and is usually hit from neutral, but 100% McKinney had control and should have been awarded a reversal and backs in my opinion.
As a former ref myself, one of the indicators we were taught to recognize when to award the reversal and start counting backs if criteria is met is when you notice the “top” wrestler fighting off his back. That seemed to be the case in this example. And yes, I agree with others here - that if you aren’t counting nearfall, you shouldn’t be awarding points. At the very minimum, the ref should be able to make a credible case that he was doing a silent count. Neither of that was the case here. In case you missed it, the head ref decided to retroactively award nearfall based on his assistant’s recommendation. I can only assume that the assistant told the head ref that he did his own silent count since it was clear that the head ref never noticed criteria against the bottom wrestler.
 
It was a Jonsey tilt. Should have been two as soon as brown was in criteria and then 3 near falll. . If the official has never seen a jonsey or a standing jonsey he should not be officiating a state tournament imo, and the called it a stalemate. This official should be embarrassed… the state finals no less
 

GrizzlyDad

Active member
I believe the asst ref was telling the head ref, if you don’t have a change of control then you are going to have to award backs to the man in control as Mcckinneys back was exposed the whole time in the move. At this point the head official knew he had messed up.
 
I would agree the sequence seemed to dictate that McKinney should have had 2 + NF, but if you do not give him the reversal you have to give Brown the NF because Brown was still on top and McKinney was on his on back in NF criteria. I don't necessarily agree with the way it played out as I thought McKinney should have had 2 + NF, but by not awarding him the reversal you have to award Brown the NF in this situation.
 

snapspinscore

Well-known member
I'm not sure McKinney ever really had control, but say you had a ref that did call the reversal, the most he is getting is 2 NF, then Brown immediately gets back on top of him with ankle hooked, possibly working for NF himself if they did not stop it to talk about it. So its either 3 NF for Brown, or 2+2 for Mckinney, then 2 reversal for Brown, which makes it 5-5 at worst.
 

WGTJ

Well-known member
I'm not sure McKinney ever really had control, but say you had a ref that did call the reversal, the most he is getting is 2 NF, then Brown immediately gets back on top of him with ankle hooked, possibly working for NF himself if they did not stop it to talk about it. So its either 3 NF for Brown, or 2+2 for Mckinney, then 2 reversal for Brown, which makes it 5-5 at worst.

Yep - I would have had it 5-5 or 6-5 if they give McKinney 3 NF, but 5-5 sounds accurate. Makes it a hell of a lot different than 6-1.

And I would disagree with him not having control. He held him there long enough to get a reversal and two backs. Again, just my opinion, which I know doesn't mean much (no dog in the fight either).
 
Last edited:

Deem2323

Member
It was a Jonsey tilt. Should have been two as soon as brown was in criteria and then 3 near falll. . If the official has never seen a jonsey or a standing jonsey he should not be officiating a state tournament imo, and the called it a stalemate. This official should be embarrassed… the state finals
Felt terrible makes it to the final to have the most controversial call of the tournament go the other guys way. So many stalemate calls when wrestlers were still improving postion.. I was close to the match and he looked like he had control when the guy that was on top can't get off his back there is your criteria kid was robbed
 
Last edited:

WGTJ

Well-known member
Felt terrible for the kid wasn't supposed to make it out of his district according to the ranking makes it to the final to have the most controversial call of the tournament go the other guys way. So many stalemate calls when wrestlers were still improving postion.. I was close to the match and he looked like he had control when they guy that was on top can't get off his back there is your criteria kid was robbed

Wait, you're saying that McKinney wasn't supposed to make it out of his district?
 

snapspinscore

Well-known member
Yep - I would have had it 5-5 or 6-5 if they give McKinney 3 NF, but 5-5 sounds accurate. Makes it a hell of a lot different than 6-1.

And I would disagree with him not having control. He held him there long enough to get a reversal and two backs. Again, just my opinion, which I know doesn't mean much (no dog in the fight either).
Yeah, I do not think that is a bad opinion at all. I do not share the same opinion, but you can definitely have an argument for your side of the case. If he got the reversal and NF, I wouldn't be on here arguing against it. It was one of those situations where it just depends on the ref. I do not think it is a travesty of a call, its not that egregious.
 

Hot_Takes

Active member
McKinney turned him twice with the same move. Then they went into a scramble position and the stalemate was called. From a neutral fan perspective, if you can turn the guy twice and put him in a position to fight off his back it seems you have enough control to be awarded a reversal and nearfall.
 

GrizzlyDad

Active member
I see that now my mistake had a McKinney mix up in my head still not the right call and I don't feel quite as bad now he has two more opportunities
Kaiyon has more state runner ups then anyone counting grade school and jr high and high school. Kids is a phenomenal athlete and is great wrestler. Hoping he gets a title before he’s done.
 

Old&Grumpy142

Active member
As a former ref myself, one of the indicators we were taught to recognize when to award the reversal and start counting backs if criteria is met is when you notice the “top” wrestler fighting off his back. That seemed to be the case in this example. And yes, I agree with others here - that if you aren’t counting nearfall, you shouldn’t be awarding points. At the very minimum, the ref should be able to make a credible case that he was doing a silent count. Neither of that was the case here. In case you missed it, the head ref decided to retroactively award nearfall based on his assistant’s recommendation. I can only assume that the assistant told the head ref that he did his own silent count since it was clear that the head ref never noticed criteria against the bottom wrestler.
Watching it again I'm even more confused. In my mind McKinney hits gains control at 5:58 mark. Brown is clearly (to me) fighting off his back, I get a 3 count - but from the camera angle, can't see Browns back. At 6:06 mark Heff stands up and calls for NF for Brown, Assistant Ref looks directly at Heff, and I think forms an opinion based on what he just heard. At 6:09 McKinney climbs up on top and hits the tilt again - which in my mind erases all doubt about red having control - maybe a 2 count, 10 seconds later they stalemate. Refs talk, award 3 for green, boos rain down, 7:09 Heff points at Ref and says "Good Call"....

I like the analogy previously motioned to a Peterson, and I think the Refs didn't understand that position. Even so, I don't get how the Ref makes the case of a silent 5 count when neither wrestler was in NF criteria for 5 seconds. I'd be good with no change and a stalemate or 2+2 for red, but I can't comprehend the 3 NF green call. In close calls, why not reward the guy trying to score, rather than the guy trying to defend being scored upon?


 
Last edited:

Crab Ride

Well-known member
Watching it again I'm even more confused. In my mind McKinney hits gains control at 5:58 mark. Brown is clearly (to me) fighting off his back, I get a 3 count - but from the camera angle, can't see Browns back. At 6:06 mark Heff stands up and calls for NF for Brown, Assistant Ref looks directly at Heff, and I think forms an opinion based on what he just heard. At 6:09 McKinney climbs up on top and hits the tilt again - which in my mind erases all doubt about red having control - maybe a 2 count, 10 seconds later they stalemate. Refs talk, award 3 for green, boos rain down, 7:09 Heff points at Ref and says "Good Call"....

I like the analogy previously motioned to a Peterson, and I think the Refs didn't understand that position. Even so, I don't get how the Ref makes the case of a silent 5 count when neither wrestler was in NF criteria for 5 seconds. I'd be good with no change and a stalemate or 2+2 for red, but I can't comprehend the 3 NF green call. In close calls, why not reward the guy trying to score, rather than the guy trying to defend being scored upon?


You cannot watch that and know anything about wrestler and defend Ed's getting that call. It was a Jonesy tilt and it will be hit numerous times this coming weekend where real officials will recognize the position and award the points to the correct wrestler. Why in God's name isn't there an official at each table that has some semblance of knowledge of the rules to ensure this doesn't happen in a finals match? Score should have been 6-3 with a minute left with McKinney on top. Brown is a great wrestler but this was just horrible.
 

Hot_Takes

Active member
You cannot watch that and know anything about wrestler and defend Ed's getting that call. It was a Jonesy tilt and it will be hit numerous times this coming weekend where real officials will recognize the position and award the points to the correct wrestler. Why in God's name isn't there an official at each table that has some semblance of knowledge of the rules to ensure this doesn't happen in a finals match? Score should have been 6-3 with a minute left with McKinney on top. Brown is a great wrestler but this was just horrible.
Watching it again I'm even more confused. In my mind McKinney hits gains control at 5:58 mark. Brown is clearly (to me) fighting off his back, I get a 3 count - but from the camera angle, can't see Browns back. At 6:06 mark Heff stands up and calls for NF for Brown, Assistant Ref looks directly at Heff, and I think forms an opinion based on what he just heard. At 6:09 McKinney climbs up on top and hits the tilt again - which in my mind erases all doubt about red having control - maybe a 2 count, 10 seconds later they stalemate. Refs talk, award 3 for green, boos rain down, 7:09 Heff points at Ref and says "Good Call"....

I like the analogy previously motioned to a Peterson, and I think the Refs didn't understand that position. Even so, I don't get how the Ref makes the case of a silent 5 count when neither wrestler was in NF criteria for 5 seconds. I'd be good with no change and a stalemate or 2+2 for red, but I can't comprehend the 3 NF green call. In close calls, why not reward the guy trying to score, rather than the guy trying to defend being scored upon?



Take a deep breath. He isn't taking Ed's side...he stated it should have been a no change and stalemate or 2+2 for McKinney (red) and no idea how Brown (Green) got the silent3 NF points.
 

pete

Member
And nobody thought the tights under the uniform for McKinney should have been a single color? ;)
"any other undergarment that extends beyond the inseam of a one-piece uniform shall be a tight-fitting, single solid color,..."
 

Crab Ride

Well-known member
Take a deep breath. He isn't taking Ed's side...he stated it should have been a no change and stalemate or 2+2 for McKinney (red) and no idea how Brown (Green) got the silent3 NF points.
Not sure where you’re confused but my comment had nothing to do with a poster. The fact is it was a horrible call that likely cost a kid a state title.
 

GrizzlyDad

Active member
You cannot watch that and know anything about wrestler and defend Ed's getting that call. It was a Jonesy tilt and it will be hit numerous times this coming weekend where real officials will recognize the position and award the points to the correct wrestler. Why in God's name isn't there an official at each table that has some semblance of knowledge of the rules to ensure this doesn't happen in a finals match? Score should have been 6-3 with a minute left with McKinney on top. Brown is a great wrestler but this was just horrible.
There is an evaluator at every table they had a blue sport coat and grey slacks on. They still aren’t overturning calls.
 

GrizzlyDad

Active member
And nobody thought the tights under the uniform for McKinney should have been a single color? ;)
"any other undergarment that extends beyond the inseam of a one-piece uniform shall be a tight-fitting, single solid color,..."
They gave Brown three point for it obviously 😂😂
 

jj150

Member
You cannot watch that and know anything about wrestler and defend Ed's getting that call. It was a Jonesy tilt and it will be hit numerous times this coming weekend where real officials will recognize the position and award the points to the correct wrestler. Why in God's name isn't there an official at each table that has some semblance of knowledge of the rules to ensure this doesn't happen in a finals match? Score should have been 6-3 with a minute left with McKinney on top. Brown is a great wrestler but this was just horrible.
Watching it again I'm even more confused. In my mind McKinney hits gains control at 5:58 mark. Brown is clearly (to me) fighting off his back, I get a 3 count - but from the camera angle, can't see Browns back. At 6:06 mark Heff stands up and calls for NF for Brown, Assistant Ref looks directly at Heff, and I think forms an opinion based on what he just heard. At 6:09 McKinney climbs up on top and hits the tilt again - which in my mind erases all doubt about red having control - maybe a 2 count, 10 seconds later they stalemate. Refs talk, award 3 for green, boos rain down, 7:09 Heff points at Ref and says "Good Call"....

I like the analogy previously motioned to a Peterson, and I think the Refs didn't understand that position. Even so, I don't get how the Ref makes the case of a silent 5 count when neither wrestler was in NF criteria for 5 seconds. I'd be good with no change and a stalemate or 2+2 for red, but I can't comprehend the 3 NF green call. In close calls, why not reward the guy trying to score, rather than the guy trying to defend being scored upon?


With zero dogs in this match and less of a clue about each wrestler, Watch the situation closely The assistant ref looks at Ed’s coach instead of match he has zero idea of who should get backs or is in control as he is watching and listening to Ed’s coach. Then he makes the decision (talking to head ref) to award backs. It is pretty funny when you actually see it
 
.
Top