-
Happy 24th Birthday to Yappi.com!! Just made it with a minute left before the Birthday was over!! Link
Locking hands on starroci
- Thread starter wrestlfan
- Start date
Because the ref called a stalemate immediately after calling the td. It should have been locking hands.
UsedToBe103
Active member
Same
TopBottomNeutralDefer
Active member
If TR challenges that, does it get overturned?
NO
they prolly come up with some nearfall for stallrocci on top of it
MPhillips
Well-known member
It's why he/they should never throw the brick...
Since this had a mention of TR and since I'm pretty sure that is referring to Tom Ryan and the Cannnon/Fish match - I can say that I am still confused by what happened in that match. Did Ryan throw the brick because the ref never swiped for points when Cannon hit the reversal and had Fish on his back simultaneously? ie - that was immediately before Cannon turned Fish a second time and when the ref finally swiped twice and signaled for the 2 near fall points to be awarded.
Then on the review - did the refs look at the first time Fish was on his back - and consider that they should use the review to determine how many seconds he was in a near fall position immediately upon the reversal.
Failing that, why did they then go on to re-look at the points awarded and - take those away? Is it because any activity after the brick is thrown is negated? Unless Ryan already had the brick in his hand, there is no way he could have picked it up and tossed it before Fish was exposed a seond time for the near fall when the ref actually swiped twice.
I watched the replay several times. What I saw was after Fish got his reversal and rolled Cannon to a quick back exposure - then Fish lost control and Cannon gained control with Fish on his back. That is when the ref first signaled 2 points for the Fish reversal, then signaled 2 points for the Cannon reversal - and only then did he start the swipes for the back exposure -which was the second time Cannon had turned Fish (after Fish had gotten out of the immediate exposure. The ref started his swipes after the second tilt made by Cannon. That is when the ref signaled 2 swipes were made - and he signaled for 2 back points for Cannon (which were then taken away after the review).
I tried using the clock on the scoreboard super-imposed on the screen, but like in all other matches, it went from 1:30 left to 1:28 (without ever showing 1:29 on the clock). It looked to me that is when he clearly had the 2 seconds of back exposure for the near fall points. What irritates me is that the ref simply said "no back points" with no other explanation provided. Did he look at the first time Fish was put into a near fall situation? Did he even look?
Who can clarify what happened and whether I missed something in this explanation (as I saw it) after watching the replay this afternoon?
And I agree that Starocci had his hands locked around the legs of Keckeisen in that TD - without anything close to a near fall situation - and was not hit with the call. Its not like he had them locked for a split second - it was for a few seconds.
Then on the review - did the refs look at the first time Fish was on his back - and consider that they should use the review to determine how many seconds he was in a near fall position immediately upon the reversal.
Failing that, why did they then go on to re-look at the points awarded and - take those away? Is it because any activity after the brick is thrown is negated? Unless Ryan already had the brick in his hand, there is no way he could have picked it up and tossed it before Fish was exposed a seond time for the near fall when the ref actually swiped twice.
I watched the replay several times. What I saw was after Fish got his reversal and rolled Cannon to a quick back exposure - then Fish lost control and Cannon gained control with Fish on his back. That is when the ref first signaled 2 points for the Fish reversal, then signaled 2 points for the Cannon reversal - and only then did he start the swipes for the back exposure -which was the second time Cannon had turned Fish (after Fish had gotten out of the immediate exposure. The ref started his swipes after the second tilt made by Cannon. That is when the ref signaled 2 swipes were made - and he signaled for 2 back points for Cannon (which were then taken away after the review).
I tried using the clock on the scoreboard super-imposed on the screen, but like in all other matches, it went from 1:30 left to 1:28 (without ever showing 1:29 on the clock). It looked to me that is when he clearly had the 2 seconds of back exposure for the near fall points. What irritates me is that the ref simply said "no back points" with no other explanation provided. Did he look at the first time Fish was put into a near fall situation? Did he even look?
Who can clarify what happened and whether I missed something in this explanation (as I saw it) after watching the replay this afternoon?
And I agree that Starocci had his hands locked around the legs of Keckeisen in that TD - without anything close to a near fall situation - and was not hit with the call. Its not like he had them locked for a split second - it was for a few seconds.
brianwr112
Well-known member
I think there's a lot of people confused with the Cannon review for many of the reasons you listed. I wish TR would comment on what took place and what their thoughts were. For the most part I give coaches the benefit of the doubt because they have to requests reviews in real time without the help of other staff watching replays from a booth. That being said, TR seems to have a bad track record. Plus he uses them at the worst times. Hopefully we'll get answers
Can you explain how he didn't get hit for locking hands?
bkmk1
Well-known member
I can't. I agree there was locking hands. I guess like in many other sports, when you are the star, you get the benefit of the close calls.
Orin Swift
Well-known member
The phrase is “my 2 cents.”
Huckleberry
Well-known member
Are you sure? I can’t believe I have been doing it wrong all this time.
Orin Swift
Well-known member
You didn’t post that, it was bkmk1. A little early in the day to be drinking, Huck!Are you sure? I can’t believe I have been doing it wrong all this time.
There are bigger turkeys to fry my guy.
Orin Swift
Well-known member
For sure but disagree it isn’t important. The sporting world already thinks wrestlers are dumb jocks. Don’t need morons like bkmk1 to push that stereotype, especially if we’re trying to grow the sport.