Freaking refs tick me off. Nebraska iowa
- Thread starter razpsu
- Start date
Both were reviewed? First one, there was only 1.8 seconds on clock, so that was easier to call. 2nd one, definite? Reviewed as well. Didn’t look like 2 seconds to me either, so we can agree to disagree. But I don’t agree with “definite.”
Definite! He pushed his knee into him and was stagnant over but don’t think camera angle helped the review. Ref just sitting there and Nebraska couldn’t beleive it
So let’s go to the replay.
Labriola takes him to his back at :50, but I don’t think this matters until the ref awards the takedown. One can argue that the ref was slow to get into position.
At :48, ref calls takedown
At :46, Kemerer has rolled through
So that’s 2 seconds. Refs didn’t award 2 backs, so Nebraska challenged it. I believe that the refs can see down to tenths of a second where the broadcast doesn’t show that. So I’m assuming the refs did the math and it came out to less than 2 seconds.
But if you say from your couch that it definitely was 2 back points, then I’ll have to agree with you.
Definitely 2 back points. The ref was slow. First pic, zoom in hYes he was damn slow.
you don’t have to agree.
later in the heavyweight bout he called lance for stalling twice while trying to get out from Underneath and all cass did the entire time was lay on him with out trying to turn him but no stalling there. I could care less who wins nebraska or iowa but geez the refs were terrible against nebraska
Don’t think it mattered in the match as it would have been 2-0 but still.
Attachments
-
11B6F97B-A2EC-466D-B9E1-CBDDB3EF9EF6.jpeg
huh? I'm going from memory, but I think Lance was hit with a stall warning in the 2nd period when he was in neutral. Lance was also called for stalling in the 3rd period when he was on bottom, which gave Cass 1 point.
I don't need to zoom in it. I can see that he went to his back at :50. You're right. I don't have to agree, and I don't. But you're portraying it as if the refs were biased in favor of Iowa and that the call was obviously egregious. Neither were true. I'm not an Iowa fan or a Nebraska fan, so I could care less, but I'm communicating that I don't think it was DEFINITE. And it was also reviewed. Maybe it was 2, maybe it wasn't.
Maybe Tom could speak to the time it took for the ref to get into position to start the count. It was a wild scramble, and somehow Kem ended up on his back. Refs are not cheetahs, and he had to react to what was going on. The time it took him to get in place seemed reasonable to me. Now what I am unsure of is whether the review could have awarded the takedown at :50 instead of when he awarded it on the mat at :48. If the review could or should have awarded it at :50, then I agree with you - at least 2 should have been awarded.
My problem was the reversal. He had control before 1.8 seconds. Ref was slow to call it. Refs are human and it ultimately didn't change the outcome. I have seen much worse.
If he was I didn’t see that. As I said before brands has figured out how to stall without retreating. Make it look like your doing something without doing anything. Refs fall for it. Cass didn’t try anything when he was on top.
He was slow on that one but it was the second one later that the pic shows should have been two. The refs never gave two at any point.
And I stand corrected. It wasn't reviewed. Nebraska jumped up seeking to challenge but didn't have one. Iowa threw the brick, thinking Nebraska was awarded back points but pulled it back when they realized points weren't awarded. PERHAPS if it was reviewed, they would have awarded the takedown at :50 and given the two back points.
But my point is that there are two amazing athletes going full speed and rolling all over the place, and I perceive that the ref moved as quickly as he could to confirm the takedown and start the count. It's a bang-bang play, and I didn't see any anti-Nebraska bias in that call or the first one.
And this stalling nonsense is getting ridiculous. I don't know what stalling is anymore. I can't remember which match it was yesterday, but someone got hit with stalling for parralel riding. Seems like good call. Then, guys get called for bottom stalling when both legs are in and their face is being rubbed into the mat. I realize there are rules on the book for stalling, but it still seems to be a subjective call and applied differently by different referees. But everyone screams how bad the refs are or how biased they are when applying their own best interpretation of the rule.
That said, I agree with you! Cassiopi did not work for a turn those last 2 minutes, and I think Lance even got hit with a stall. Now, why in the hell would Lance not be working to escape when the match and entire dual relied on his escape?!? Perhaps because there was a 300 pound guy laying on his back! And I believe that Cass might have been hit with a stall warning if it wasn't the 3rd period. So yes, I think (my opinion) that the rules are applied slightly differently depending on the period.
I have no clue what the answer is. A top wrestler is rewarded with a point for holding a wrestler on the mat for a minute. So why would a wrestler want to risk that reward by trying too hard to turn? The rewards aren't in sync. Same is true for riding after a minute or two. There's really no penalty for riding. Maybe (unlikely) you get hit with a stall. Maybe (even more unlikely) you get hit with two stalls and a point. Big deal. The reward is greater than the penalty.
But my point is that there are two amazing athletes going full speed and rolling all over the place, and I perceive that the ref moved as quickly as he could to confirm the takedown and start the count. It's a bang-bang play, and I didn't see any anti-Nebraska bias in that call or the first one.
And this stalling nonsense is getting ridiculous. I don't know what stalling is anymore. I can't remember which match it was yesterday, but someone got hit with stalling for parralel riding. Seems like good call. Then, guys get called for bottom stalling when both legs are in and their face is being rubbed into the mat. I realize there are rules on the book for stalling, but it still seems to be a subjective call and applied differently by different referees. But everyone screams how bad the refs are or how biased they are when applying their own best interpretation of the rule.
That said, I agree with you! Cassiopi did not work for a turn those last 2 minutes, and I think Lance even got hit with a stall. Now, why in the hell would Lance not be working to escape when the match and entire dual relied on his escape?!? Perhaps because there was a 300 pound guy laying on his back! And I believe that Cass might have been hit with a stall warning if it wasn't the 3rd period. So yes, I think (my opinion) that the rules are applied slightly differently depending on the period.
I have no clue what the answer is. A top wrestler is rewarded with a point for holding a wrestler on the mat for a minute. So why would a wrestler want to risk that reward by trying too hard to turn? The rewards aren't in sync. Same is true for riding after a minute or two. There's really no penalty for riding. Maybe (unlikely) you get hit with a stall. Maybe (even more unlikely) you get hit with two stalls and a point. Big deal. The reward is greater than the penalty.
WV lion & razpsu, upon further review, I agree with you that 2 backs should have been awarded. I was taking Gibbons word for it that the review showed there was only 1.8 seconds on the clock when the reversal was rewarded. If a schmuck like me can review it and see something completely different, what's the purpose of review? (Unless the clock on TV is not in sync with the table's clock.)
Here, ref awards 2 reversal with 3 seconds on the clock.
With 2 seconds on the clock, it looks pretty clear (to me, at least) that his shoulders are past 90 degrees.
Again, though, I don't attribute this to anti-Nebraska bias or Iowa favoritism. I just attribute it to sport - calls aren't always black-and-white.
90 deg doesn't matter. The rule states shoulders must be past 45 deg for 2+ sec.
That is funny. 2 legs in and face I. The mat for stalling. Stalling definition has changed and I don’t understand. Yes the person has to try to get up but the top guy has to work to turn him as well. Definitely strange times with how they call it. I have seen some matches where they call stalling 30 seconds in. Crazy.
Damn you, El Jefe! (Thank you for clarifying.) On further review of the still above, Kemerer appears to be at 62.5 degrees. I used my protractor.
You know, it's funny, I don't think I knew it was 45. I can just hear in my head announcers like Sparks and Gibbons, or maybe even Byers, saying "past 90." I have "past 90" in my brain and can't recall anyone saying "past 45."
What about now? I’ve got this measured at 43.2 degrees, and it only gets flatter over the next 2+ seconds.
Again, this all started because I disagreed that these calls were definitively in favor of Iowa. My point was I didn’t see them as definitive. They’re close calls. That’s supposed to be what replay is for, but even that’s not perfect. Maybe Nebraska got hosed on both, but I’ve seen much worse. And if the match were at CHA, I’d be more inclined to say that the refs might’ve been “gently” swayed by the crowd and coaches for a call to go in Iowa’s direction.
But give Labriola even more credit. Both calls didn’t go his way and he still won. That’s really how you do it. You can’t count on the refs or the replay.
Get unlimited access today.