|
Rotated ads 2/8/12 top to bottom
| |
4 point NF if violation occurs
| You
make the call Posted by
Dave G on 1/23/2010, 9:45 pm
One thing I have noticed is
that it is hard for everyone to keep up on all the rules, including
coaches and this year I have had three different occasions when I made
a call based on a rule that the coach did not know existed. Today I
had it happen for the third time this year and each one was a
different rule. Here is the scenario so lets see who can make the
correct call.
Red has green in near fall criteria for 10 seconds and during that
time green also put hands to the face of the offensive wrestler. Green
eventually works his way off his back and gets to his hands and knees.
What should be done at that time and how many points are awarded? Lets
see how everyone does on this. By the Book can not play!
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by sww fan on 1/23/2010, 9:48 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
| The match is stopped and 3
point nearfall in addition to a 1 point illegal hold? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Just made this call today!
Posted by By the Book 
on 1/23/2010, 9:52 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
Dave,
I just made this very call today! So, I will recuse myself from this
one.... |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: Just made this call today!
Posted by How bout on 1/23/2010,
10:00 pm, in reply to "Just
made this call today!"
| Award the 3 pt. Nearfall
and stop the match and award the 1 point technical |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: Just made this call today!
Posted by Dave G on 1/23/2010,
10:03 pm, in reply to "Re:
Just made this call today!"
I'm going to bed now as
I have to be at weigh-ins at 7:00 but I'll be anxious to see
what people come up with. I'm not saying if either of those who
posted is right or wrong. Not yet anyway.
PS: I just learned that rule last year. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Also,
there is controversy regarding this call
Posted by By the Book
on 1/24/2010, 6:15 am, in reply to "Re:
Just made this call today!"
Dave,
I think it's important to inform the audience that there is
controversy regarding this particular call. The NFHS Rules
Book and NFHS Case Manual actually do not agree how this
situation should be ruled.
Most folks are getting close to the "approved"
interpretation. One item that non-officials are not
including in their response is that action will stop when
awarding the points. For illegal holds, which is what
putting the hands to the face would be ruled, the referee
will stop the action when the penalty is awarded.
Beyond that, I'll leave it to Dave to determine when he
wants to reveal the full answer to everyone. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Guess on 1/23/2010,
10:30 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| Remove kids hands while
happening . Award nearfall plus 1 point technical violation .
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: no
such thing as four point near fall...
Posted by kl wrestler
on 1/23/2010, 10:49 pm, in reply to "Re:
no such thing as four point near fall..."
| ya, i was talking
about the other person's post. they said something like
'nothing happens, award 4 point nearfall'. if nothing happens,
then why would the nearfall be 4 points? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Jim Burchett on 1/23/2010, 10:28 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
| 4 point near fall and one
penalty point. 5 total points. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Observer on 1/24/2010,
1:20 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| The eldest boy has to
wrestle in the girl's bracket for the next two events.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
not sure... and btw, question about refing...
Posted by kl wrestler
on 1/23/2010, 10:38 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
i guess it would just be
three near fall? or maybe three near fall + one point red for
unnecessary roughness?
I want to be a middle school ref so I really need to get a rule book
and get updated on the rules. anyone know where i can get a rule
book? also, anyone know where i can get info on how to be a middle
school ref. thanks. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Middle School officiating in King County
Posted by By the Book
on 1/24/2010, 5:56 am, in reply to "not
sure... and btw, question about refing..."
| If you want to officiate
Middle School wrestling in King County for the Spring season (mid
February thru end of March), please contact Pacific Northwest
Wrestling Officials Association at (877)397-6962, extension 1. Or
simply email me. I will be conducting training sessions for new
officials on Feb. 8 and 9. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Click on
the mail icon
Posted by By the Book
on 1/24/2010, 12:22 pm, in reply to "Re:
Middle School officiating in King County"
| Just click on the
mail icon next to my name and it should open up an email with
my email address already populated in the "To" field.
Otherwise, just call the number I posted. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Dan M on 1/23/2010, 10:39 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
| Both kids are tried as
adults and if found guilty, green receives life imprisonment without
possibility of parole. Meanwhile, red is awarded 3 near fall, 1 for
technical violation, the state championship, a turkey weighing no
less than seventeen pounds, and thirteen maidens of virtue true. Did
I win? Can I finally stop? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by big points on 1/23/2010, 10:40 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
| 3 pt nf. 1 pt hands to the
face. 1 pt match stoppage. 5 total. |
Post
a Response
|
|
I saw it at Tahoma Classic ...
Posted by Jhall
on 1/24/2010, 6:39 am, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
Wrestling continues
during the back exposure, and the hand (s) in face violation,
during which the Referee is speaking to defensive wrestler to
remove hands ... Once the back exposure is over (in this case out
of bounds) the ref stopped the action, awarded the NF points,
added a caution, and then 1 point for hands in the face, and then
restarted the wrestlers down on the mat.
3 points for near fall
Stoppage of action
1 caution/warning
1 point for hands in the face
restart match.
2 angry coaches in the penalized wrestler's corner.
That was how that particular situation ended up, and I felt it was
accurate. However ... I suspect I'm missing something.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: I saw it at Tahoma Classic ...
Posted by How bout on
1/24/2010, 7:02 am, in reply to "I
saw it at Tahoma Classic ..."
| When I was trained by
BTB last year, he instructed us to do just what Jhall just
explained, he said don't stop the action while the wrestler is
on his back, but slap away the hand, caution the wrestler and
award the penalty point if he gets off his back. Which sounds
both fair and accurate |
Post
a Response
|
|
Multiple
cautions
Posted by Jhall
on 1/24/2010, 11:47 am, in reply to "Re:
I saw it at Tahoma Classic ..."
While allowing the
action to continue ... could indeed result in a DQ.
After I thought about this a bit:
Defensive wrestler is putting hands to face, Ref doesn't
want to stop action due to potential pin, yet after several
cautions, the defensive wrestler is still defending with
hands to the face, it's a DQ. |
Post
a Response
|
|
don't
confuse "cautions"
Posted by dude on
1/24/2010, 12:32 pm, in reply to "Multiple
cautions "
a "caution" is a
term used for starting position and false start voilations.
it's better not to confuse the terminology.
the ruling I would give is to allow the action to continue
while the defensive wrestler is in criteria. Instruct the
defensive wrestler to get his hands out of the face of his
opponent and if he doesn't, then try to remove them
without disturbing action. when the situation ends, out of
bounds or time or the defensive wrestler gets off his
back, I would stop action, award a three point near fall
and then penalize the defensive wrestler for an illegal
hold/maneuver. and then restart action. if the hold was
repeated more than once it would be a judgement call on
the ref to as how many penalties to call. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Correct answer by Jhall (and some others)
Posted by Dave G on 1/24/2010,
4:38 pm, in reply to "I
saw it at Tahoma Classic ..."
I stopped the action
once they came out of the pinning situation and I gave a 4 pt
near fall and 1 penalty point for a total of 5 points for the
situation then resumed action in the referee's position. By the
Book is right that this situation is covered in the Case Book
and Manual but apparently is not in the rule book. Another ref
and I spent a while trying to find it in the rule book to
confirm and couldn't find it there but we found it in the Case
Book. It is on page 23 section 5.11.2 situation F through
situation H.
I just put that out there as something for all of us to think
about. I have had coaches remind me a couple of time on a
conference of something I missed and I changed my call as a
result. There are little things that a coach, wrestler, parent,
official, etc may miss so it is best for all to get and read a
rule book each year. The one thing Jhall got wrong was the two
mad coaches. These two coaches weren't mad at all, they were
just asking for a clarification. They were perfect gentleman and
just weren't aware of an obscure rule. |
Post
a Response
|
|
match
stoppage Posted
by Jim Nielsen
on 1/24/2010, 10:26 pm, in reply to "Correct
answer by Jhall (and some others)"
my question to Dave
is this, was the match stopped because of illegal action, or
blood or injury while he was on his back?
if there is match stoppage, then there is near fall earned and
a stoppage point, plus the penalty is there is one.
Is stoppage due to time running out or out of bounds or
getting off his back, then is there a stoppage point given?
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Difference between the Rules Book and Case Manual
Posted by By the Book
on 1/25/2010, 12:03 am, in reply to "match
stoppage"
Jim,
Your question hits upon the controversy with this situation.
You see, if you read the NFHS Rules Book in Rule 5-11-4i,
you will see that the additional near fall point(s) should
only be awarded when the illegal act causes the official to
stop the pinning situation.
However, in the Case Manual, with the case situation Dave
referenced, the additional NF point is awarded even though
the pinning situation continued. There is a phrase in that
particular ruling which describes the principle upheld by
that ruling - (paraphrasing) "The offender shall not profit
from his illegal action". What the case illustrates is that
we should be increasing the near fall award regardless of
whether the illegal action caused an immediate stoppage. In
plain language, this case ruling is telling wrestlers "don't
even try it" because you'll get treated the same way whether
the official blows the whistle at that moment or not.
NFHS needs to revise their publications to bring these two
things into alignment. As written, the case situation ruling
is not supported by Rule 5-11-4i since the pinning situation
did not need to be stopped. But personally, I support the
principle upheld by the Case Manual. And, the officials I
dialogue with around the country have agreed that the
consistent interpretation to stick with is the Case Manual,
not the Rules Book. So, as we await the publications to
become internally consistent, I'm going along with the
consensus of our peers and using the Case Manual as the
guiding source in this particular situation. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re:
Difference between the Rules Book and Case Manual
Posted by Dave G on
1/25/2010, 8:39 am, in reply to "Difference
between the Rules Book and Case Manual"
| BTB is right that
it is one of a few things that are out of sync with the
rule book and case book. Just like his association, the
SCWOA also follows the case book on this and we covered
this rule (with much discussion) in one of our meeting
last year. |
Post
a Response
|
|
so you
changing your name to By the Case Book and Manual?
Posted by Jim Nielsen
on 1/25/2010, 8:55 am, in reply to "Difference
between the Rules Book and Case Manual"
I agree with you
in the spirit of holding the kids accountable for their
actions in wanting the books to be aligned and not
contradict each other but if you stand by your "name" then
you should follow the "rules book". and I really shouldn't
have to say anything more.
Jim Nielsen |
Post
a Response
|
|
Is
there any subjectivity in this?
Posted by wrestler on
1/25/2010, 9:22 am, in reply to "Difference
between the Rules Book and Case Manual"
Without seeing
the actual language in the case book, I don't agree with
the interpretation.
"The offender shall not profit from his illegal action".
To me, this means that IF the offender (in the judgement
of the official) "profits" from an illegal action (meaning
avoids a pin or gets off his back), THEN an additional
point should be awarded for stoppage.
This seems to be more in line with the additional nearfall/stoppage
rule for injuries and crybabies, in which the bottom
wrestler is not allowed to profit from his action (a real
or imaginary injury).
Now, I can understand why the interpretation you list
(extra point every time) would be better, as it forces the
official to make a difficult judgement while they are also
quite preoccupied looking for neafall/pinfall. I agree
that it is very subjective to judge whether a hand in the
face immediately or subsequently helps a guy get off his
back.
However, I don't agree that the RULE BOOK (or case manual)
supports this 100% interpretation. It's not a matter of
interpretation, it is making up a rule where one does not
exist. Sort of a bit of judicial activisim by the
officials. Granted, I think an official in most situations
could justify giving the extra point by saying it helped
the bottom wrestler, but I'd like to see the rule book
fixed and made to read as the officals are currently
applying it.
An official's job is tough enough without poorly written
rules such as this one. |
Post
a Response
|
|
I
agree - publications need to be fixed
Posted by By the Book
on 1/25/2010, 10:48 am, in reply to "Is
there any subjectivity in this?"
I was an
advocate in my discussions on the NFHS forum of adhering
to what the Rules Book language says:
Rule 5-11-2i: In f-h, when an imminent or near-fall
situation IS STOPPED DUE TO A DEFENSIVE WRESTLER
COMMITTING a technical violation, applying an illegal
hold,.....
But, in discussing this with officials around the
country, they were applying the interpretation from Case
5.11.2G where the illegal action doesn't cause a
stoppage. Instead, the out of bounds or time expiring
causes a stoppage and the higher near fall award is
given in addition to the penalty point. So, we have a
conflict between publications. But, the case example is
trying to illustrate the spirit of the rule - DON'T EVEN
TRY IT. I think it's important that kids do not consider
this as a means of ending a NF situation without any
additional consequence if the referee decides that the
pinning situation might continue anyway. And I also feel
it is important for officials to be consistent across
geographies when we have some lack of clarity about
specific interpretations. As a point of comparison, for
any of you that have studied law, a "swing and a miss"
is still considered an assault - the law does not
require that you actually succeed at hitting the person.
So, this is a matter that is left to the NFHS rule
revision process. And, in the meantime, officials can
agree to be consistent in the interpretation. There are
other conflicts in the publications, and those need to
be corrected too. If you want a prime example, look at
the difference between when blood or injury occur when
near fall criteria has been met for less than 2 seconds.
Rule 5-11-2 says (correctly so I will add) that we
should award a 2 point near fall. Rule 9-1-5 says award
a 3 point near fall. NFHS has been told about this
discrepancy for the past 6 years and still hasn't fixed
it. |
Post
a Response
|
|
your last statement
Posted by Jim Nielsen
on 1/25/2010, 11:26 am, in reply to "I
agree - publications need to be fixed"
Bob, I don't
read what you read.
"Rule 9-1-5 says award a 3 point near fall. NFHS has
been told about this discrepancy for the past 6 years
and still hasn't fixed it. "
9-1-5 reads, the wrestler in the advantage position is
awarded two points when near-fall criteria is met for
two seconds or if the defensive wrestler is injured or
bleeding occurs just prior to near-fall criteria being
met. When the criteria is met for five seconds, or if
the defensive wrestler is injured or bleeding occurs
after near-fall criteria has been met, a 3-point near
fall shall be awarded. If the defensive wrestler is
injured or bleeding occurs after a 3-point near fall
has been earned, a 4-point near fall shall be awarded.
now, I don't see the conflict between that and 5-11-2
f-h. Yes 9-1-5 says to award a 3 point near fall but
only if a 5 count has been earned or if injury or
blood stops the match after a two count near fall has
been earned.
just checking. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: your last statement
Posted by By the
Book
on 1/25/2010, 1:08 pm, in reply to "your
last statement"
Rule 9-1-5
is saying to award 3 point near fall when the
blood/injury occurs after meeting near fall
criteria. So, in this rule, zero near fall points
have been earned (anything less than 2 continuous
seconds in near fall criteria = no points earned)
but 3 points shall be awarded if stopping for
blood/injury.
Rule 5-11-2 is saying award 2 point near fall when
the blood/injury occurs after meeting near fall
criteria. In this rule, zero near fall points have
been earned but 2 points shall be awarded if
stopping for blood/injury.
Here's an illustration to highlight how the rulings
would differ if blood/injury occur and the wrestlers
have achieived the following:
a) Imminent near fall - criteria not met (e.g.,
shoulders at 75 degrees but heading toward 45
degrees)
5-11-2: 2 point NF
9-1-5: 2 point NF
b) NF criteria with only a 1 count
5-11-2: 2 point NF
9-1-5: 3 point NF |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: your last statement
Posted by Jim
Nielsen
on 1/25/2010, 11:04 pm, in reply to "Re:
your last statement"
| Bob,
you're killing me, read the first sentence of
9-1-5 and tell me again if it doesn't say, award a
2 pt "if the defensive wrestler is injured or
bleeding occurs just prior to near-fall criteria
being met". |
Post
a Response
|
|
Second sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the problem
Posted by By
the Book
on 1/26/2010, 3:42 am, in reply to "Re:
your last statement"
In your
earlier post, you said you didn't see the
conflict between Rule 5-11-2 and Rule 9-1-5.
I gave you two illustrations (a and b). In
illustration a, an imminent near fall situation,
the two rules agree on the amount of near fall
points to award. In illustration b, near fall
criteria met but for less than 2 seconds, the
two rules disagree on the amount of near fall
points to award.
So, the first sentence in Rule 9-1-5 is fine.
It's the second sentence that isn't fine.
"When the criteria is met for five seconds, or
if the defensive wrestler is injured or bleeding
occurs AFTER NEAR-FALL CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET, a
3 point near fall shall be awarded."
After near fall criteria has been met doesn't
merit more than 2 points of near fall until
criteria has been held for at least 2 continuous
seconds before injury/blood.
Where is the confusion on this one? NFHS needs
to update the second sentence of Rule 9-1-5, to
read as follows:
"When criteria is met for five seconds, or if
the defensive wrestler is injured or bleeding
occurs after near-fall criteria has been met FOR
AT LEAST 2 SECONDS AND LESS THAN 5 SECONDS, a 3
point near-fall shall be awarded." |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: Second sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the
problem
Posted by
Dave G on 1/26/2010, 8:11 am, in reply to "Second
sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the problem"
In
reading the rule and case book again on 5.11
(my head is starting hurt! )
The intent of the wording does seem mixed up.
If you commit the violation during a 3 point
near fall and the pinning situation ends by
going out of bounds you give up 4+1. Same
thing if time ends BUT if you get out of that
pinning situation after the illegal move is
released then you only give up 3+1. That
really doesn't make sense to me on why
they(NFHS) would want it to be that way. Is
that what you see BTB? How about John?
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Here's a test
Posted by
By the Book
on 1/26/2010, 9:07 am, in reply to "Re:
Second sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the problem"
John,
Try this test.
Ignore Rule 5-11-2 during this situation.
Use only Rule 9-1-5.
Red, the offensive wrestler, puts Green
into NF criteria. The official has counted
to "one" when he sees blood spurting out
of Green's nose. The official blows the
whistle to stop action and start the blood
time out. How many NF points should Red be
awarded per Rule 9-1-5? And be ready for
the coach to open up his rule book to page
44 if he calls a conference after your
ruling. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: Here's a test
Posted
by watching on 1/26/2010, 9:14 am, in reply
to "Here's
a test"
|
According to the second sentence that
would be three points. Crazy.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
NFHS apparently intends to award match
stoppage regardless of stoppage
Posted by
By the Book
on 1/26/2010, 9:01 am, in reply to "Re:
Second sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the problem"
Dave,
Case 5.11.2G is setting a standard that the
end result of the violation is meaningless
regarding the NF award. Whether the
violation causes the official to stop the
action or not, the higher NF award will be
given because the defensive wrestler
committed the act during NF. Other states
have reported that NFHS has instructed them
to adhere to the case, not the stricter
language of the rule. So, NFHS needs to
revise the rule and remove the requirement
that a violation has to cause a stoppage
before the higher NF points would be
awarded. That would bring the rule and the
case in sync. |
Post
a Response
|
|
You missed one detail
Posted by
John Barry
on 1/26/2010, 9:06 am, in reply to "Second
sentence of Rule 9-1-5 is the problem"
The
term "near-fall criteria" receives 2
definitions in 5-11-2. The first is the state
of the defensive wrestlers shoulders, and the
second is that state of the defensive
wrestlers shoulders after a period of time.
I agree with you that the language in 9-1-5 is
bad, but because we have clear precedent
established in earlier pages of the book we
should not read a conflict in 9-1-5. Because
of the use of multiple definitions it is
possible for the term in the second sentence
of 9-1-5 to be the alternate definition. It is
a level of ambiguity that makes it clear that
the position of "editor" of the wrestling
rules book is not much different from being
the "queen" of England. It is a nice title,
and an important position, but there is
clearly no editing of the rules book done.
Editing involves reading and correction. How
about the sentence structure in 9-1-4? What
the heck are those commas doing there? Do we
care? If we do and if we use this to set
precedent then we need to award 2 points to a
wrestler who is in the defensive position who
has earned a reversal at ANY time during the
match, not just after the wrestler earns a
specific reversal.
Rule 9 is a brief summary of points being
awarded. It is not a precedent setter for
interpreting earlier rules. The near-fall rule
is clearly presented (in all cases except
bleeding) in rule 5-11-2. Reversals are
clearly explained in 5-16-3. There is a lot of
horrid language in the rules book, but I do
not see a reason to be upset about the
statements in rule 9. |
Post
a Response
|
|
The case book and rule book agree!!!!!!!
Posted by John Barry
on 1/25/2010, 10:41 pm, in reply to "I
agree - publications need to be fixed"
Read the case
book again. It is in agreement with the rules book.
You are definitely reading WAY too much into this case
book interpretation. The phrase "the offender shall
not profit from his illegal action," refers to an
offender profiting from illegal action. The offender
may profit from legal action and be penalized for
illegal action if the actions are separate...read the
case manual carefully. Careful reading sees the phrase
"due to the grabbing action, A loses the pinning
combination..."
If you fail to notice this phrase, then you will
assume that no matter what, the offending wrestler
will be penalized the stoppage point when there are,
per the rule book and case manual, circumstances where
the offending wrestler should not be penalized for a
stoppage point.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Read again Case 5.11.2G
Posted by By the
Book
on 1/26/2010, 3:30 am, in reply to "The
case book and rule book agree!!!!!!!"
I'm not
reading anything into the cases. Read Case 5.11.2G.
The situation is a near fall situation where the
defensive wrestler grabs the offensive wrestler's
headgear. The official removes the hand and allows
action to continue. Time expires or out of bounds
occurs.
RULING: The referee shall award four points for the
near fall and one point for grasping ear guards. The
offending wrestler shall not be allowed to profit
from the illegal action.
The illegal action did not stop the pinning
situation, yet the official is instructed to award a
4 point NF. So, the defensive wrestler tried to
cheat, didn't succeed, but still generated the
additional near fall point.
Rule 5-11-2i: In f-h, when an imminent or near fall
situation IS STOPPED DUE TO a defensive wrestler
committing a TV, illegal hold,etc.....
This statement in the Rules Book is in conflict with
the ruling in Case 5.11.2G. In the case, the
situation was not stopped by the illegal action. Yet
we are told to award 4 point near fall. The
publications need to be brought into alignment. And
I still agree with the philosophy of the case ruling
- that defensive wrestlers should not be encouraged
to try illegal actions while being pinned. They
should pay a price whether they 'succeed' in ending
the near fall or not. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Read 5.16.2D
Posted by John
Barry
on 1/26/2010, 8:29 am, in reply to "Read
again Case 5.11.2G"
This is a
case where the case book is helpful and useful and
serves its purpose, just like in 5.11.2G. The
cases do not set precedent for ruling in unrelated
situations, they set precedent for ruling in
related situations. Going out of bounds and time
expiring always create uncomfortable situations
for officials if action is mixed or if there is a
scramble. The rule book doesn't address going out
of bounds in the middle of a reversal, so the case
book does. If this same reversal attempt were
taking place in the middle of the mat during time
you would not award a 1 point escape when it was
50% complete. Perhaps the offensive wrestler would
regain control at the last moment before the
completion of the reversal. When the action goes
out of bounds or time expires you cannot know what
would have happened if the wrestlers were in the
middle of the mat and time continued, so you rule
based on where the situation is and how the case
book instructs us to interpret the situation.
It is still possible that the illegal action from
a defensive wrestler could have given him an
unfair advantage that would have caused the
pinning situation to end. You can't know because
the round ended or the action went out of bounds.
Bottom line is that the two cases discussed in
5.11.2G-H are discussing two different situations.
The situations are unrelated, and one does not set
precedent for the other.
Based on your statement perhaps we should penalize
the offensive wrestler 2 points if he applies a
full nelson. If a 1 point penalty is encouraging
illegal maneuvers then we should surely force all
wrestlers to pay the real price. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: Read 5.16.2D - has nothing to do with NF
situations
Posted by By
the Book
on 1/26/2010, 8:56 am, in reply to "Read
5.16.2D"
John,
You are now reading something into the case. The
case 5.11.2G situation is very straightforward:
- Near fall criteria has been met.
- Defensive wrestler commits a violation.
- The violation does not cause the NF situation
to be ended. Again, the violation DID NOT CAUSE
STOPPAGE.
- The violation has ended, action continues.
- Time passes (could be a moment, could be
1:50).
- NF criteria has been achieved for 5 continous
seconds somewhere in all of this. A 3 point NF
has been earned now.
- Time expires or the wrestlers go out of
bounds.
- Official awards 4 point near fall + 1 point
penalty.
Per Rule 5-11-2i, this situation would only be
awarded a 3 point near fall + 1 point penalty
because the violation did not cause the NF
situation to be stopped.
We don't need to make illegal holds worth more
points. Near fall situations have been set aside
by NFHS because of the potential for the
ultimate victory in this sport - the pin fall.
And NFHS has taken steps to discourage bad
behavior by defensive wrestlers who are trying
to get out of the predicament by committing
violations which, by rule, would normally cause
the match to be stopped. The blood/injury time
out during NF is another situation where NFHS
knew they needed to do something to compensate
the offensive wrestler because a NF situation
would be terminated when the opponent declared
injury or started bleeding - thus the "match
stoppage" point came to birth.
Case 5.11.2G establishes a precedent that now
applies to all of these NF situations with a
violation involved. If the official feels the
action can continue because the illegal act has
ceased AND the risk of injury has been
eliminated, then the "match stoppage" will still
be awarded. Put simply, match stoppage will be
applied regardless of whether the match must
stop because of the illegal action. This serves
notice to wrestlers that if they try something
illegal, the additional NF will be awarded -
regardless of whether they "succeed" in stopping
the NF situation from their action. And this is
where the rule and the case are in conflict. I
would share with you that our fellow officials
around the country are applying the
interpretation from the Case Manual and not
sticking to the limitations of the rule.
Personally, I don't like when the publications
are inconsistent but NFHS has apparently given
guidance to some states where they have told
them to follow Case 5.11.2G. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re:
Correct answer by Jhall (and some others)
Posted by Dave G on
1/25/2010, 8:42 am, in reply to "Re:
Correct answer by Jhall (and some others)"
| Yes, it was nice to
see him working with Paul. I didn't recognize him as they
just keep growing up. Remember when David and JJ used to go
at it with Maverick Port when they were just little kids?
That is probably how I will always remember David, as a 65
pounder.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
To Dave
and BTB Posted
by John Barry
on 1/25/2010, 9:20 pm, in reply to "Correct
answer by Jhall (and some others)"
If you read the
casebook carefully, it specifically refers to the defensive
wrestler getting back to his base BECAUSE of the illegal
maneuver. The other situation it mentions is the going out of
bounds or the end of the round. There is never any mention of
a wrestler who puts a hand over the mouth of the offensive
wrestler, takes it off, and then legally works his way back to
a base. I wonder where if you would penalize a wrestler in
this case, and, if so, where you would find the precedent to
do so?
Thanks!
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: To
Dave and BTB
Posted by John Barry
on 1/25/2010, 9:27 pm, in reply to "To
Dave and BTB"
I accidentally
typed an extra "where" in there. Sorry about that.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
To John
Barry Posted
by Dave G on 1/25/2010, 10:38 pm, in reply to "To
Dave and BTB"
| That is why I like
when these scenarios are discussed here, it makes us all
think about it and work towards consensus. Your thoughts
were not brought up at the meeting I was at when we
discussed this so I appreciate hearing them. After reading
your post I re-read the case book on this issue. It really
does appear that the official has the option of awarding
that extra point, or not, based on HIS JUDGMENT of whether
the illegal move caused the pinning situation to end or not.
Is that your take on it? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: To
John Barry
Posted by John Barry
on 1/25/2010, 10:44 pm, in reply to "To
John Barry"
| Yes. With the
exception of the out of bounds or end of round situation
which the case book makes blatantly clear shall be
penalized with the stoppage point...if the two wrestlers
are still in the same situation. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by wrestler#2 on
1/24/2010, 3:54 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| agreed N3 tv1 1 match
stoppage just like if the bottom wrestler was bleeding and the
match was stopped |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by wrestler on
1/24/2010, 4:07 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
NF 3 TV 1
no time stoppage penalty as the wrestler is not in a pinning
combination anymore? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You
make the call
Posted by No 4 NF on 1/24/2010, 5:29 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| I agree no 4 near
fall because there was no near fall createria anymore. They 4
near fall is due to stopping while in near fall critera
becasue the wrestler on his back cried out. Should be 3 + 1.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You
make the call
Posted by Medium guy on 1/25/2010, 12:07 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| I believe 4 pt nf
(1 extra for having to stop the match) then 1 pt for the
penalty. The ref has to stop the match to award the penaly
of the hand to the face. That is my take on it..
|
Post
a Response
|
|
You make the call - Part 2
Posted by jte on 1/24/2010, 5:04
pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
Which of these are
illegal...
1) Scissors of the head with an arm
2) Scissors of the head without an arm
3) Scissors of the body
4) Scissors of both legs
5) Scissors of one leg
6) Figure 4 of the head with an arm
7) Figure 4 of the head without an arm
8) Figure 4 of the body
9) Figure 4 of both legs
10) Figure 4 of one leg
Employees, contractors and agents of WWR are ineligible to play. And
of course so is BtB
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call - Part 2
Posted by wrestler#2 on
1/24/2010, 6:03 pm, in reply to "You
make the call - Part 2"
Just a guess but i think
all of these are illegal
2) Scissors of the head without an arm
5) Scissors of one leg
8) Figure 4 of the body
9) Figure 4 of both legs
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call - Part 2
Posted by nobody on 1/24/2010,
6:37 pm, in reply to "You
make the call - Part 2"
| Everyone except 3 and
10,6 and 7 are only legal if applied in a pinning combination.
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call - Part 2
Posted by WrestlingRef on
1/25/2010, 6:17 am, in reply to "You
make the call - Part 2"
1,2,8,9
and 6 & 7 are Technical Violations if they are in Nuetral position
|
Post
a Response
|
|
Winner! Posted
by jte on 1/25/2010, 7:41 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call - Part 2"
WrestlingRef got
it right (as a referee should!). And a tip o' the hat to VW for
pointing out that a draping scissors (with an arm included) is
also not illegal. I had not gone that far in the answer prepared
below.
Last week I heard a coach yell from the corner of the mat, "Hey!
That's a body scissors!" I wanted to yell back, "Yeah, and there
was a half nelson earlier, you should have seen it." But I
thought better of it.
Instead I channeled my exasperation into this addendum to
DaveG's pop quiz.
Here are the answers to "Which of these are illegal..."
1) Scissors of the head with an arm – Illegal hold
(Rule 7-1-5-e)
2) Scissors of the head without an arm - Illegal hold
(Rule 7-1-5-e)
3) Scissors of the body - Legal
4) Scissors of both legs - Legal
5) Scissors of one leg - Legal
(But an over-scissors of one leg that puts pressure on the knee
is an illegal hold. (Rule 7-1-5-o))
6) Figure 4 of the head with an arm – Legal
(But any figure 4 of the head from the neutral position is a
Technical Violation (Rule 7-3-5))
7) Figure 4 of the head without an arm – Legal
(But any figure 4 of the head from the neutral position is a
Technical Violation (Rule 7-3-5))
8) Figure 4 of the body – Illegal hold (Rule 7-1-5-r)
9) Figure 4 of both legs - Illegal hold (Rule 7-1-5-r)
10) Figure 4 of one leg – Legal
Summary…
>Numbers 1,2,8, & 9 are illegal
>Numbers 3,4,5,6,7, & 10 are legal.
However, there is a variation of 5 that can be illegal if
pressure is put on the joint, and numbers 6 & 7 can be Technical
Violations if initiated from the neutral position. A figure 4
around the head by the offensive or defensive wrestler is not a
Technical Violation.
The rule book is your friend. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Si or No? on 1/25/2010, 7:20 am, in reply to "You
make the call"
Hands to the face does not
automaticly mean illegal. Many refs assume this now a days. Covering
mouth, nose, fingers in eyes are all things an official should look
for, 'not just in the face'. Knock off the illigal in the face and
verbally tell him to keep it legal.
Nearfall points plus 1 point illegal without blowing the whistle
while nearfall is in progress unless there is a safety issue.Award
the points after the situation is ended. |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Coach on 1/25/2010, 4:19 pm, in reply to "You
make the call"
| This is a good thread.
Thanks for sharing! I've been seeing some things called that I was
unaware of. How can I get a copy of the rule book? Is it posted
online somewhere? |
Post
a Response
|
|
Re: You make the call
Posted by Dave G on 1/25/2010,
10:43 pm, in reply to "Re:
You make the call"
| You have to buy the book
at the NFHS web site. They don't post a free PDF version like USAW
does. |
Post
a Response
|
|
