refs don't even understand the rules so how can the public?
2026 B1G Tourney Session IV Thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
of there is time on the clock it's a TD reaction time is gone! so dumb
Look, i think it's safe to say there's likely a range of ref quality, though as Tom has noted, the guys at this level - Angel notwithstanding - are certainly going to be in the higher percentiles. Beyond that, I'm going to guess that when people go to ref school, and ref re-accreditation school, and take online ref CE courses, and maybe go through ref peer review if there is such a thing, there are probably about a gazillion videos they watch to teach the application of the rules in hard cases. So if anyone is going to understand them, it's likely going to be the refs, public be damned.
Blaze should think Freestyle mode. I know it's different but if you watch those matches he was way more active.
Thanks for this explanation. As a biased pro-Penn State diehard observer, I initially thought it was a takedown, but your explanation cleared some things up for me.
This situation kind of reminded me of those times when a top wrestler gets 2 1 count swipes rather than a 2 count, because the bottom wrestler turns back just enough before the 2 count. In the Rocco/Mac situation, Rocco lifted his hand just in time to avoid the initial takedown, and then the Granby attempt was ongoing when time ran out. So even though Mac ended up on top and in control, it was well after time expired...so even though it looked like a takedown to the lay person, it was in fact called correctly.
smh
1. the refs know the rules, forward and backward, and even the rules for arcane situations that don't occur very often. To think or conclude otherwise is just idiotic
2. you were replying to a post, which was a reply to a post where a poster just butchered the rules and then drew a number of inaccurate assumptions on their inaccurate understanding of the rules. But by all means, take that as the gospel
you're totally screwing up the rules.
reaction time is not gone -- it was just removed a few years ago for a certain type of TD that of itself was only awarded (just in college; never in HS) for a few years.
How many times do I have to repeat myself that gaining control/establishing control is the key factor? Reaction time is just a subset of evaluating (along with other factors) whether or not control has been established.
An offensive wrestler can attain a TD with under 1 sec left on the clock, in certain situations. I'm not going to spend time detailing each/all of them, but it can happen. I've awarded such TDs many times over my reffing career. And of course, the coach whose wrestler is awarded the TD agrees with the call, and the coach whose wrestler was taken down in that situation is certain that the clock had run out, or that control had not been established. And the fans pretty much take the same side as their respective coach. It's really quite amusing to be in that type of situation, and having half the gym cheering at your decision and sure that you were correct, the other half of the gym complaining and at times screaming about how incompetent you are, and as a ref it was a pretty easy decision. I said in another post, but I'll repeat it, that 1) refs are usually very aware that the end of the period is approaching, and 2) in sequences at the end, after you've reffed enough matches, you see things almost in slow motion, and mentally are checking off that all the criteria have been met and also listening for the horn, and then make the appropriate call after it sounds.
I didn't get a chance to read through this entire Session IV thread so I don't know if this has already been covered, but I'm wondering if Mr. Ferrari has commented on AJF's singlet grabs against Ghadiali. It happened at least once during the sequence where Michigan was challenging locked hands. In fact, at first I thought they were challenging the singlet grab.
It's pretty clear in the video below, even though the angle isn't great. I think the video should start at the right spot, but if not go to about the 5:40 mark. It doesn't look intentional to me, just like Rocco's.
Blaze needs to act a little like Nolf. He should force the issue a little more and if he gives up a takedown he can probably create and opportunity to do something when he's on mount. Davino is just so good on his feet. Nolf never worried about giving a TD, in fact he would bait guys to attempt a shot.
Barr has a little of Nolf/Nickel in him when on top. He tries to iniate the start of a release from top and then looks for a big move, assassin/cradle.
I do agree that the reaction time rule is not good. It allows for too much judgement by referee. Scoring is down. If hands are on the mat, it's 3. You can still review to confirm the call.
The inconsistent stall calls have been an issue for years .
This discussion borders on OCD for the complainers. Even if the refs were wrong. It is over. Umps and refs make mistakes every day in every sport. Sometimes we have been hurt, sometimes helped. It has always been part of sport. My ex wife likes to argue like that. She has OCD. Always give them the last word or there will be no last word.
Does you ex-wife have the online handle ‘MSU158’..?
Yep, the psychology baffles me. Especially when it's reviewed and upheld.
When Ferrari intentionally pulls the singlet, it's about a foot or so lower.
Somehow need to have Blaze make some of the same moves that P.J. Duke used to take down a defensive wrestler in Antrell Taylor.
I was hoping to get some opinions on a situation in the second period of PJ's match against Taylor. Taylor was trying to escape, but PJ had him in an over/under position while both were on their knees and PJ's head and upper chest were over Taylor's head and upper back. The position didn't change while the referee said, "Still you, green!" three times in succession. He then blew his whistle and gave Taylor the escape and said, "Stalemate". I have never seen an escape given in a situation like that. The call was bizarre to me. Had PJ not been in the lead and had Taylor on the ropes at that point I wouldn't have been surprised if our coaches challenged the escape call.
Yep, I thought it was odd too. Didn't matter, but I didn't understand what the rationale could have been.
I'm sure Tom and tell us the rules but this is a sore spot for some folks. I am assuming the ref didn't signal an escape in the event PJ used the hold to his advantage and somehow spun around and gained 'better' control and would get another TD. Didn't want to award the escape until there clearly was one.
The sore spot (such situations) is that the riding time clock still runs and admittingly the ref is saying no control.
No reaction time is just as bad if not worse. I think it was Beard/Dean where Dean lost because his hand brushed the mat while doing a granby
I think Frost meant to give the 1 he just forgot he got lost in the situation.
I have a question for Tom or other refs.
In the heavy weight final, after Ghadiali had the takedown, and Ferrari took injury time, it was Ghadiali's choice on the restart. Ghadiali requested down, most likely to get an escape point, but also to kill time when Ferrari needed a takedown.
Ferrari then said to start neutral. As odd as it seems to not accept the escape point, why wasn't Ferrari forced to start on top since it was Ghadiali's choice. At a minimum, this would have killed a few more seconds and with only 18 seconds left, starting neutral was to Ferrari's advantage.
In the heavy weight final, after Ghadiali had the takedown, and Ferrari took injury time, it was Ghadiali's choice on the restart. Ghadiali requested down, most likely to get an escape point, but also to kill time when Ferrari needed a takedown.
Ferrari then said to start neutral. As odd as it seems to not accept the escape point, why wasn't Ferrari forced to start on top since it was Ghadiali's choice. At a minimum, this would have killed a few more seconds and with only 18 seconds left, starting neutral was to Ferrari's advantage.
Because of this rule in the NCAA Wrestling Rules Book:
Art. 6. Granting an Escape. Before assuming an offensive starting position, the offensive wrestler may signal to the referee the neutral position. When this option is indicated, the defensive wrestler is awarded an escape, and wrestling begins from the neutral position
Possibly. I just can't remotely see how there was any loss of control there. And the funny thing was Taylor didn't think so either as when he returned to the circle he started to go back to the down position : )
Last edited:
I don't think that is the case because you can clearly hear him verbalize green was in control until he blew the whistle for stalemate.
I heard him but it's something I have never seen. I have seen it called 1 then a quick stalemate but points are never given in that situation after a stalemate so all I can think of is he messed and got confused in the situation
I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. If the intent of the rule is that control must be maintained for a minimum amount of time after the first instant all criteria are met, then the amount of time should be defined in seconds (or "counts" if you prefer). Focusing on, and defining, this amount of time as the ambiguous, unquantifiable and subjective "reaction time" is beyond silly. If control must be maintained for a period of time beyond the first instant of control, then quantify it (one count.... two counts....). Otherwise you will continue to see these calls all over the place where someone gets control of a second ankle at the boundry and the call is instantaneous..... to a Ref giving a defensive wrestler upwards of 4 or 5 seconds to set a whizzer.
Telling Officials to focus on the Defensive Wrestler's "reaction time" - which is utterly undefined and can mean different things to different people - rather than just simply stating, and quantifying how long the Offensive Wrestler must maintain control after the first instant of control is just silly and pointless. Worse than that, it results in massive inconsistencies in calls and outcomes from one call to the next with no basis to reverse a call made on the subjective and undefined "reaction time" - unnecessarily so. If it's all about the Offensive Wrestler maintaining control for a minimum amount of time after the instant of first control, then just state how long control must be maintained before it's a takedown.
For the pure sake of helping to develop a strong rivalry we should play the sit down Mark Manning clip the next time we host Nebraska.
similar situation occurred on mat 1 or 2 earlier in the tourney, can't recall what match
@Psalm 1 guy gave you the NCAA rule.
In essence, choosing position was all that Ghadiali gets on a stoppage due to an injury by AJ. As he chose bottom, then as in the case with all restarts from the mat, the top guy, AJ, can elect to give the escape and start in neutral.
I rather see scoring and take the judgement of reaction time out of the referees decision making.
If hand is touching its points.
I couldn't say it better. Thanks for the details.
Cenzo also gave up one of those to Martinez in the national finals. Thankfully it didn't affect the final score.
LOL then every ref has his own idea on the rule's!There was a match a few yrs back 3rd period both feet 1 second left kid got the TD to win!If refs know the rules why do they make so many bad calls?esp with replay and they still get it wrong
@Psalm 1 guy -- sorry, I thought I responded to this. I actually had started a post to comment about this event before you even posted about it. However, I ended up abandoning that post as there were so many other posts to respond to about rules, ref's actions, etc. Then, I'm pretty sure that I did compose a reply to you, but I guess I never posted it, or even saved it so that I could refine it and post it later. Anyway, I just saw your post, realized I had never responded, and remembered the above sequence of actions by me during the B1G tourney.
So a few things in this sequence. First, it was one of the only ref actions at the B1G Tourney where I thought the ref had erred.
Taylor had nearly gotten the escape. However, he didn't fully clear, or establish a neutral situation. And as you mentioned, the ref does repeatedly indicate that it's still green. (Refs can either just signal control is still maintained, or signal such while verbalizing the fact. Verbally saying that is better for the wrestlers, as they are rarely looking at the ref's signal. Maintaining control is more important in college than in HS, as riding time continues to accrue until the esc is awarded.)
My take at the time, and I still feel this after watching the video again, is that Duke still had control, as Taylor's head was stuffed under Duke.
Refs usually are somewhat slow to award an esc, especially when it's not clear that it has been attained, in part because the defensive wrestle may work around for a reversal, and it's not right to award 1 + 3 if control was still in question, when it should just be 2 for a REV for the defensive wrestler. Or, the offensive wrestler may adjust and establish control that nobody can doubt, and in that situation it's not really fair to either wrestler to award 1 for the esc and then 3 for a TD. (In case anyone misreads this, refs don't fail to award an esc when a lack of control is established -- they are simply waiting to see how things play out when control, while teetering, is still there for the offensive wrestler.)
So in the sequence in the Duke - Taylor match, my take is the following:
1. the ref was correct to verbally inform both wrestlers that it was still green, as Duke was still in control
2. the ref was too hasty to call the stalemate, when the sequence was still playing out (yeah, Duke would be happy to hang out with Taylor's head stuffed, as it ate clock, but Taylor deserved the opportunity to get the ESC or the REV, while Duke deserved the opportunity to allow RT to continue running)
3. the ref compounded the situation by awarding the ESC after the stoppage for a stalemate, when Taylor had not quite gotten out from under control by Duke
I hope that helps.