Reaction Time? / Injury/ Potentially Dangerous Stoppage? Coaches Running on Mat?

[Wisconsin Wrestling Fan]

Reaction Time / Injury seems to be an issue that has popped up this year. Also, I have a comment on coaches running onto the mat.

Here are 3 instances that came up in recent duals that I noticed - There are plenty more.

Smith (Nebraska) lets Barnett go - as Barnett turns to face him, Smith shoots in immediately; referee ruled it to not be an escape. That felt like the right call. You have to let the opponent face you and be prepared to defend or go on offense.

In overtime, as Wells - Minnesota is in the process of taking down Rivera, they land on the mat and Rivera immediately rolls through and pins Wells. 3 Minnesota coaches run onto the mat screaming and they throw the brick. Referee rules takedown Wells.

Questions - While Wells was on top, he really did not do a wrestling move to secure the takedown. Was this the right call? Should it be ruled the same way in the future? An analogy would be an NFL receiver needs to make a football move to secure the catch. Or is landing on top enough to secure the takedown? Secondly, Minnesota was penalized one team point. Should it have been 3 team points because 3 different coaches ran onto the mat? It was kind of ridiculous. I realize the call was controversial and emotions are running high, but just throw the brick. The level of intimidation was high.

Zargo in behind Rathjen Iowa 4-0 in the 3rd. Zargo has a low single and right as he is about to secure the takedown Rathjen screams just as Zargo secures both legs. Zar5go grabbing both legs was simultaneous with the ref's whistle. Looked like a takedown to make it 4-3. Rathjen did appear to be hurt - a minute later he was 100%. Zargo would have chosen neutral after injury stoppage to make 4-3, just needing a takedown to win the match. This falls into the category of grabbing the legs right when it stops. Instead, it was 4-0 and Zargo needed two takedowns to win which was much more difficult. Was this a takedown? Was the ref's ruling correct?

Most of us are familiar with the Hardy-Nebraska vs Bartlett-Penn State match. Similar situation to Zargo. Just as Hardy was securing the takedown, the ref stopped the match for injury time/potentially dangerous at around 30 seconds left. This seemed ridiculous. Nebraska's bench exploded. No takedown was awarded - Bartlett then easily fought off Hardy from the feet to win. Hardy looked like he was about to secure the takedown - with a rideout Hardy would have won. Did the ref make the right call on the potentially dangerous? Should Hardy have been awarded the takedown even after injury stoppage? He had the far ankle. Hardy to his credit on Twitter made light of the situation and said he was potentially dangerous! 

Hamiti escapes and turns to face Caliendo. The ref awards 1 escape. and Hamiti immediately shoots and scores. Ref waves off the escape and calls it a reversal. Hamati could have scored a 1-point escape and a 3-point takedown; instead, he was awarded a 2-point reversal. To me this was the wrong call. Caliendo was prepared when giving up the escape. Hamiti just executed a great takedown. Dean probably heard the ref award the escape. Pure baloney in my view.

I am concerned squealing to prevent a takedown could start being rewarded. Are refs scared of the higher profile coaches in some cases?

[vsmf2010]

All great points and I had questions about every single one of the calls you mentioned above. I am especially concerned about the squealing or putting yourself in a "potentially dangerous" situation to get a stoppage to avoid a takedown. A TD in a tight match is so valuable that a wrestler will do anything they can do avoid it.

[Vir Fortis]

All great points and I had questions about every single one of the calls you mentioned above. I am especially concerned about the squealing or putting yourself in a "potentially dangerous" situation to get a stoppage to avoid a takedown. A TD in a tight match is so valuable that a wrestler will do anything they can do avoid it.

I think the only answer has to be awarding a TD IF you think a TD was imminent. Stop the match if the guy screams. These are D1 Wrestlers, I don't believe they're faking or squealing (usually). I think in a situation like Zargo was in, he's in on the leg, got his shoulder on the knee(I believe I'm just going off memory). Wells may have felt something or just as likely he thought he was hurt. Barnett the same.

But you still have to award the TD.

The Rivera match where he gets the pin...I have no clue. They called 3 for Wells, they let it play out. I don't think Minnesota should have been penalized as a team more(I think that was a bit of a joke, 3 points for 3 coaches, but if it wasn't, I think 1 point is plenty there and I don't even know if that's called for).

I think they ended up making the right call there. He's behind him, finished the TD. What is the securing TD move you're looking for? Drop down and hang on to both legs so you can't roll through? That's a desperation scramble and it was a great one by Rivera. I'd just rather see Wells in OT there, when he's on the offense and he gets the TD, I'd prefer to see him rewarded. But it was quick. If they give Rivera the pin there, I would certainly understand Minnesota feeling a certain way about it.

And then the Hamiti TD. Again, that's why reversals should be 3 points. If you're going this route where TDs are 3, then you're deciding gaining control is 3 points. I like that. Otherwise, you can have a guy get two TDs and early in the 2nd period, it's a 4-3 match with 2TDs and 3 Escapes. But then why isn't a reversal worth three? Aren't you still going from no control to gaining control? The entire point of the sport?

[Ghetto]

And then the Hamiti TD. Again, that's why reversals should be 3 points. If you're going this route where TDs are 3, then you're deciding gaining control is 3 points. I like that. Otherwise, you can have a guy get two TDs and early in the 2nd period, it's a 4-3 match with 2TDs and 3 Escapes. But then why isn't a reversal worth three? Aren't you still going from no control to gaining control? The entire point of the sport?

Absolutely this 👆

Isn't it more difficult to reverse control from the bottom compared to gaining control from neutral?

I like the three point takedown and reversal.  I'm ready for it to move into HS.

[vsmf2010]

All great points and I had questions about every single one of the calls you mentioned above. I am especially concerned about the squealing or putting yourself in a "potentially dangerous" situation to get a stoppage to avoid a takedown. A TD in a tight match is so valuable that a wrestler will do anything they can do avoid it.

I think the only answer has to be awarding a TD IF you think a TD was imminent. Stop the match if the guy screams. These are D1 Wrestlers, I don't believe they're faking or squealing (usually). I think in a situation like Zargo was in, he's in on the leg, got his shoulder on the knee(I believe I'm just going off memory). Wells may have felt something or just as likely he thought he was hurt. Barnett the same.

But you still have to award the TD.

The Rivera match where he gets the pin...I have no clue. They called 3 for Wells, they let it play out. I don't think Minnesota should have been penalized as a team more(I think that was a bit of a joke, 3 points for 3 coaches, but if it wasn't, I think 1 point is plenty there and I don't even know if that's called for).

I think they ended up making the right call there. He's behind him, finished the TD. What is the securing TD move you're looking for? Drop down and hang on to both legs so you can't roll through? That's a desperation scramble and it was a great one by Rivera. I'd just rather see Wells in OT there, when he's on the offense and he gets the TD, I'd prefer to see him rewarded. But it was quick. If they give Rivera the pin there, I would certainly understand Minnesota feeling a certain way about it.

And then the Hamiti TD. Again, that's why reversals should be 3 points. If you're going this route where TDs are 3, then you're deciding gaining control is 3 points. I like that. Otherwise, you can have a guy get two TDs and early in the 2nd period, it's a 4-3 match with 2TDs and 3 Escapes. But then why isn't a reversal worth three? Aren't you still going from no control to gaining control? The entire point of the sport?

Lots of good stuff here. The team point thing is ridiculous and has got to go. I did not even realize that happened in the MN dual. I was not paying any attention to the team score. No other sport does that. Give the coach a warning or 2 and then eject them but leave the team score alone. Can you imaging taking points away in any other sport because of the coach arguing a call. People would lose their mind!

[PAUL]

Great stuff - of course there are no easy answers on this.  I would be concerned that this happens during a huge match in March - such as in the NCAA Finals.  Having the referee(s) basically decide who wins or loses based on a single 50/50 call (such as the Rivera one) which ends the match would not be good in a high-profile match-up.  Especially if they are taking sh*t from the coaches and the fans and the pressure is turned up high with everyone waiting on the call. 

[hornbuckleb]

And then the Hamiti TD. Again, that's why reversals should be 3 points. If you're going this route where TDs are 3, then you're deciding gaining control is 3 points. I like that. Otherwise, you can have a guy get two TDs and early in the 2nd period, it's a 4-3 match with 2TDs and 3 Escapes. But then why isn't a reversal worth three? Aren't you still going from no control to gaining control? The entire point of the sport?

Absolutely this 👆

Isn't it more difficult to reverse control from the bottom compared to gaining control from neutral?

I like the three point takedown and reversal.  I'm ready for it to move into HS.

Not this again