D 1 106 Final
- Thread starter Redflagday
- Start date
ShootNation
Well-known member
I'll also add on here that last year in the state tournament a very similar situation was incorrectly ruled ILLEGAL by the officials on the mat. The difference in this one was that the opponent was grounded at the start of the move and therefore rule 7-1-5w does not apply because it only concerns the maneuver when the opponent is standing. I've attached two frames from that match to this to illustrate the difference
Given that the officials would have ruled these situations correctly Myers would have scored the match winning takedown legally with the flying squirrel and Bickerton would have been assessed a 1 point penalty and the match restarted from neutral with roughly 1 second remaining on the clock
Given that the officials would have ruled these situations correctly Myers would have scored the match winning takedown legally with the flying squirrel and Bickerton would have been assessed a 1 point penalty and the match restarted from neutral with roughly 1 second remaining on the clock
Well after watching the video a few dozen more times it looks as if his legs were on the side like a spin versus a flying squirrel where the person leaps over the opponent. I would say the move was legal. I just didn't think he established control to get the TD points. I will say I have seen the grey haired ref before and have not been impressed with him at all.
When he was behind Dodds and Dodds had both hands on the mat.
ShootNation
Well-known member
It does not matter what direction the legs go, they are irrelevant to the rule. What does is the term "hurdle" which I think those who have not sat in in the rules interpretation meetings are misconstruing to mean the same thing it does in football or track and field. In the NFHS rules the term "hurdle" means to jump over regardless of methodology or posture while doing it. The second Bickerton leaves his feet and makes contact with his opponent who is not grounded the move is deemed illegal and the match should be stopped.
If we buy into the premise that there was not enough reaction time in this case, then there can be no takedowns ever initiated with two seconds, landed in the last second because one can argue no matter what the position, you get more than that to scramble. There is no time to scramble, the clock expired. Scrambling has to be before the clock expires. If we accept that, then blow the whistle at two seconds and end the match, because a takedown is impossible.
He vaulted around the side, not over. Not much different than an arm drag if the offensive wrestling swings himself around. Grabbed the opponent, left his feet, went around the side, in this case higher than the opponent reacted to with his hands, and came around back. The rules interpretation then (2017) was to not have the offensive wrestler launch OVER for fear of a defensive slam, and not to land on the back with the head down and feet up (flying squirrel) for fear of a piledriver if the defensive wrestler sat down.
Here was the 2017 interpretation. Offensive wreslter doing front flip over the top, head down on the back. Not what happened in this match.
Attachments
ShootNation
Well-known member
If this is not the definition of jumping OVER somebody, nothing is. I implore you, please, read the rules and examine the provided examples from NFHS then watch the video of the event back at half speed. I can not explain to you any more thoroughly or with more documentation that this move was indeed illegal and the officials on the mat missed the call.
And regarding you assertion that the angle of the attacking wrestler's head matters, which it doesn't, and that if it were pointed down and on the opponents back the move would have been illegal that exact scenario transpires only moments later
Last edited:
ShootNation
Well-known member
And here's a series of stills for those questioning reaction time, control, and the clock
These stills span roughly .6 seconds of time with the first still being where Bickerton beats Dodd's leg block, the second still is where the official awards 2 (note: Dodd's hands are not touching the mat) and third still is when time hits zero. Make of these what you will but "reaction time" is far too ambiguous of a wording to stay in the NFHS rules beyond this rule. It needs to either be defined specifically or taken out entirely
These stills span roughly .6 seconds of time with the first still being where Bickerton beats Dodd's leg block, the second still is where the official awards 2 (note: Dodd's hands are not touching the mat) and third still is when time hits zero. Make of these what you will but "reaction time" is far too ambiguous of a wording to stay in the NFHS rules beyond this rule. It needs to either be defined specifically or taken out entirely
I know I've seen escapes with 2 seconds on the clock, can't remember seeing a reversal. LOL!! Not all take downs involve a scramble. I've seen cat like ankle picks that are like the wink of an eye.
jj150
Active member
I am asking is what he did (hurdle an opponent/leave your feet to go over an opponent) legal or illegal. If legal congrats to the coaches and kid. If not legal, it will be a great teaching video for future use. Just curious how you see it as ref. The whole reaction time vs anticipation time is kind of worthless verbiage (to me) as it is not an actual time thing but an eyes of the beholder/ref/coach/yappi board thing. .
WBbleacher creature
Member
So you want the rule book to say what exactly? If you give a specified time I would bet that isn't done correctly as from you to me we have a different concept of time. Eliminating a time frame makes this a takedown the instant he gets behind. Scrambling or not wouldn't matter.
This sport is unlike any other in that there is no simple A to B to C equals victory. You put the ball in the goal in most other sports. Wrestling has almost an unlimited combination of movements to score. Wrestling is gray and so is the rule book.
I have no problem with this being considered a TD if it were a legal maneuver. The wrestler was in a proper position behind the arms before the opponents hands pushed back into a standing position. While doing this he was bearing the weight of himself and scoring wrestler. If it wasn't control I feel the defensive wrestler would have had his hands up before the wrestler got to the behind position.
ShootNation
Well-known member
At least with a specific time there's objectively correct and incorrect calls, as it stands now there's far too much variance between what each official deems reaction time to be and the context and situation of the match seems to change it even more. I want it black and white, right and wrong, even if that leaves some bad officials out to dry on some bad calls
usawrestling
Active member
so what is a official going to do, start a stop watch on reaction time.. it will always have some judgement in the call and you indicated when the referee gave him two, you do understand there is also a reaction time between mentally seeing the two and physical raising hand to award two.. What the end of match and the thread discussion after proves that the move and call was debatable on both sides about legal or not, take down or not etc... but what it is NOT is an egregious error by the officials, if that was the case we would not be debating it back and forth like we are.
usawrestling
Active member
agree.. he actually pulled the left shoulder of Dodd, when his low stance he actually was leaning forward and low , he was able to jump up and swing to to side and around him .
ShootNation
Well-known member
No different than any other time element that's already officiated. Set a criteria, aim to be close with the understanding that there will be slight inconsistencies but at the very least you have a target to aim for. And as far as the debate on the legality of the move it's a moot point, it's 100% illegal just not a rule that many people actually even know exists
usawrestling
Active member
Your idea is not realistic and your interpretation of move in match is debatable ... enough said moving on
.
If that’s true that this is a new rule and it was described exactly as demonstrated by Bickerton, the rules committee needs to explain better why they took a perfectly safe and exciting move away from the sport. IMO backflips are dangerous in wresting. Front flips seem unnecessary and potentially dangerous. I don’t know exactly what they mean by “hurdle” unless they mean to just jump over an opponent. But it seems that some members of rules committee got a little overly excited about the prospect of having a legacy in the rulebook without stopping for one second to ask themselves what problem they were attempting to solve or what the unintended consequences might be. I hope they revisit this rule if it means that Bickerton ultimately used an illegal move to win the match.
Or become a member of the committee to correct this silly rule.
ShootNation
Well-known member
I would imagine next year the wording will be updated and include a more detailed description of the act in the actual rule and not require the viewing of secondary sources to understand
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
Well, believe it or not, debating a call that I did not make and that I can not change seems like a waste of my time.
Not a single one of you that is debating this three days later has ever been in the position of this official and likely never will be.
Whether you like it or not, and I am guessing many of you will not like it, you have the ability to watch a replay multiple times, freeze frame whenever you like and then decide that the officials erred. The official on the mat does not have that luxury. He gets one bite of the apple and has to make a snap judgement on what he just saw. I think most of you would agree that this entire action took well less than one second.
Can he get it wrong? Certainly but I am very sure that he felt it was correct at that moment. Maybe later he might feel differently but maybe he is still good with his call. I don't know and I don't care because nothing is going to change.
Then you get into endless debating over the definition of the words "hurdle", "vault", and other nonsense like did he go over the top or off to the side? The official certainly did not have time to think about any of this. Pretty easy from behind a laptop.
Now of course this will lead to more "he is just sticking up for another official". The truth is that I have a view, like all of you, from a fixed position. It is NOT the view the official had and that is the one he has to use.
I will tell you that even when I am observing an official, I almost never judge the actual call. Instead I ask them, what was your thinking when you made the call? When you think about it, and if you are honest, we learn far more from mistakes than we ever do from being "right" all the time.
With that, carry on.
Last edited:
Old&Grumpy142
Well-known member
Fair enough Jim, but as the resident Ref on this message board, I think it would be instructive to the rest of us monkeys if you could clarify how something seemingly ambiguous as "reaction time" or "control" might be interpreted in that type of short time situation.
I'd sure hate to have to make that call, there was a lot going on there to process in that brief moment ... dive/hurdle? control established beyond reaction time? time on clock? From my untrained eye and perspective, I thought the TD was awarded too quickly - not saying I'm right.
Last edited:
Old&Grumpy142
Well-known member
OK, thanks Buck, I think I get it now. When your guy wins he's the champ. When the other team wins they are CHEATERS....
Got it!
Last edited:
LOL. He’s not my guy. The only thing I know about the kid is that he’s the Champ. The University of Michigan football team are Cheaters, not because they won anything- but because they cheated. Bickerton won- he’s the Champ. Michigan football cheated- they are Cheaters. It’s not as hard to understand as you are making it.
And I’m flattered that you researched my post history. I clearly excite you in some way. But you should know I’m happily married. Don’t make it creepy.
Old&Grumpy142
Well-known member
Not looking for a fight (or a date for that matter). You took it there. Great match between two great kids who are absolute studs. I have no rooting interest in either kid and no strong opinion on the outcome. I'm just interested in the interpretation of the rule set and the TD call.
Last edited:
Jim, I have to correct you. I am doing this from behind a desktop.
I am more trying to learn and understand the rules. I have no desire to become an official but always looking to gain knowledge and understanding. At the time it happened I had no idea, but then seeing all of the back and forth I read the rule and rationale to understand and take an informed position. At the end of the day, it is over, but that shouldn't stop the learning process.