State Tournament Officiating

[facenthecrowd]

haha wait to turn that around on me! But no I would agree with the stall call on mosley that was different. All he did was shoot with no intention to score. And every time Berz would try to tie up he would dive for his ankle. And in the rule book, one of the criteria for stalling is "Grasping one leg without a follow through with a take down, or any intention to score." But Either way yall need to stop arguing about it. It's over! they are both solid wrestlers. One had to come out on top, I'm glad it was Berz

 

Flip flop. Flip flop. How do you know what Moseley's intentions were? You do not. Berz never attempted an offensive move, or was it 1? the rule book states specifically, "Continuously avoids contact with the opponent" and "is not attempting a takedown". These two are in the rule book and fit McCallie to a tea on this match. As I stated earlier, do not pick and choose what suits you best, you have to be fair to all and consider all of the stalling rules.

 

Amazing how the explanation you gave for 138 lbs semis is exactly what occured in the 160 lb finals but you changed.

 

Thank you for showing your true colors.

Edited February 20, 2012 by facenthecrowd

[mocs2011]

Great thread, love to see this kind of passion for state finals. My opinion, looking at the rules, Mosely was not trying to score but just kill time by hanging on the leg. Did this several times in a row and should have changed to a different offensive move. The referee made the right call, though arguably it should have been earlier in the match. OT was a fair way to decide the match and Berz won. Congrats to both wrestlers on an exciting finals and great careers!

[ramseyl]

I wanted to add my two cents about the officiating as a whole. I feel that this is the best season I have seen throughout the year and at the state tournament, my only gripe is the waste of having two officials the entire tourn, due to the reluctance of the refs to discuss close calls with each other. I'm sure it happened at some point, yet I never saw them discuss a single call through Friday night. One match in particular with one of my wrestlers there was a questionable reverse situation that my kid recieved an escape instead of a reverse.I didn't challenge the call, I just asked the ref to confere with the assisting ref before moving on and he said no because it would be questioning his judgement. After the match, I heard the refs discussing the call as they walk off the mat and the ref said that he almost gave him two but wasn't sure, then asked the other ref what he thought. At that point, its moot. If there was any question take the time and discuss it, I know it slows it down a little, but to me the work kids put in over the year earns getting it right in crucial moments. Again, it was a close enough call I wouldn't want to make but if there is help then use it. I can understand tough calls, blown calls, etc..but I know most refs do it for the love of the sport and kids so why not ensure accuracy?

[yoadrian]

Great thread, love to see this kind of passion for state finals. My opinion, looking at the rules, Mosely was not trying to score but just kill time by hanging on the leg. Did this several times in a row and should have changed to a different offensive move. The referee made the right call, though arguably it should have been earlier in the match. OT was a fair way to decide the match and Berz won. Congrats to both wrestlers on an exciting finals and great careers!

Let's see. Low level ankle attack at 1:00 left, sprawl and block, crappy dive in at 46 sec, sprawl and block, nice high crotch at 33 sec, sprawl and block, another dive in at 15 sec, sprawl and block then the call. 3 different attacks, unless you think all single legs are alike. In OT ry kid attacks single again, sprawl and block for a stalemate (for the life of me I can't see how you don't call stalling on the ryan kid here since it's the EXACT SAME SHOT that got the stalling call 15 SECONDS ago). Then the last shot by ryan and the sprawl and td by Mc. So even if you feel the call is correct, there is obviously a problem with consitancy in application.

[mohawke]

[GoBrothers]

EVERY OFFICIAL AT SOME TIME HAS ALSO COACHED, I CANNOT SAY THAT EVERY COACH HAS EVER BEEN IN FRONT OF 3000 AND OFFICIATED A MATCH. MANY HAVE TRIED AND GONE BACK TO COACHING.

 

 

I know several officials that have never coached....

[dogless]

Both wrestlers should have been hit with the stalling calls.

 

Congrats to all that competed, refereed, and generally sacrificed for this sport. See you next year so we can disagree on something different.

[ScottOsters]

27 years as an official. After reading and re-reading this thread I see one glaring error.

 

CONSISTENCY.

 

For good officials it truly is our only goal. To CONSISTENTLY apply the rules while doing our best to insure the safety of all participants. To make the calls CONSISTENTLY from the first whistle to the last. To tighten or loosen the application of rules during a contest is the single, and really the ONLY, legitimate complaint that a participant, coach or fan can have. And simply put, the 160# DII finals match was NOT CONSISTENTLY OFFICIATED. Period. To pass on making a call (or calls) early does NOT make it ok to make that call later. Similar plays require similar calls. Time, score and situation are magnified over the course of a contest. Therefore, if a rule interpretation is applied early, that same rule interpretation must be applied later.

 

After reading the majority of the posts in this thread, it is very obvious that WHATEVER side of this fence one sits, the fact that rules were not applied consistently turned out having a decisive impact on this match. And while a legitimate argument can be made that a takedown determined the outcome, an equally legitimate argument can be made that the winning takedown never should have happened.

 

My congratulations to both kids, who fought their hearts out. Truth be told---they both went to sleep Saturday night as champions.

[reftn]

Reftn,

If the call would have been made much earlier in the match during similar postions, we have to assume that Moseley's strategy/offense would have also changed, especially, if it cost him a point or two.

That being said it does not matter which side of the argument you take, the call should have been made consistently thoughout the match or not at all.

 

Consider this.

 

Most of the time, and in this thread, an official is accused of injecting himself in a match. Tell me what is injecting more; calling stalemate or stalling? You said above that had stalling been called earlier, it may have altered the FR wrestlers stategy/offense. Really? Since stalling wasnt called and the FR wrestler was allowed to follow his "stategy", what does it appear his strategy was? Get 3 points and stalemate it out?

 

It is a risk for any wrestler to consider using stalling as a strategy, but you do. And should to an extent.

The rules book says you can stall 4 times if you can afford it (W-1-1-2). When a wrestler chooses to bring stalling in as a strategy, he is bringing subjectivity (risk) into the match, when his number one goal should be to REMOVE all subjectivity particularly from someone on the mat he cannot control (the official). It is the wrestler that controls how much subjectivity can be brought into a match, not the official.

 

By stalemating the first 3 or 4 times, the official was (IMHO) allowing the wrestlers to settle it on the mat with as little interference from him as possible.

Edited February 20, 2012 by reftn

[sweeptheleg]

Consider this.

 

Most of the time, and in this thread, an official is accused of injecting himself in a match. Tell me what is injecting more; calling stalemate or stalling? You said above that had stalling been called earlier, it may have altered the FR wrestlers stategy/offense. Really? Since stalling wasnt called and the FR wrestler was allowed to follow his "stategy", what does it appear his strategy was? Get 3 points and stalemate it out?

 

It is a risk for any wrestler to consider using stalling as a strategy, but you do. And should to an extent.

The rules book says you can stall 4 times if you can afford it (W-1-1-2). When a wrestler chooses to bring stalling in as a strategy, he is bringing subjectivity (risk) into the match, when his number one goal should be to REMOVE all subjectivity particularly from someone on the mat he cannot control (the official). It is the wrestler that controls how much subjectivity can be brought into a match, not the official.

 

By stalemating the first 3 or 4 times, the official was (IMHO) allowing the wrestlers to settle it on the mat with as little interference from him as possible.

 

you have failed yet again to address the issue. The McCallie wrestler did nothing in the entire match. Isnt a stalemate when TWO opponents can not better their position? So wasnt the McCallie wrestler at fault for doing nothing but sprawling and holding on? Wasnt the McCallie wrestler simply waiting om his opponent to shoot the entire match so he could drape over him and grab an ankle? Was the McCallie wrestler not as guilty of causing the stalemates if not more so. At least Mosley was trying to shoot although because his opponent was much longer and grabbed his ankles each time you feel it was stalling. Ok, thats your opionion and you are entitled to it but let me sk you this and lets see if you have any credibility or are you just always going to take the side of the official. Give us an example of a bad call you have seen? Did you watch the state duals between Baylor and Cbhs? Did you see the last match? I felt that was the worst officiated match I have ever seen. What are your views on that one?

[slipperypeat]

It was the right call in my opinion. Those of you that are arguing that it was not consistent with the rest of the match, look at it this way; If the whistle blows and the one wrestler moves backwards and does not create action do you hit him for stalling? No, he has to repeatedly back up before he gets hit. How about if a wrestle collar ties and plants his head in the others chest and blocks off? At first that can be looked at as defense, but it will eventually be called as stalling.

 

It looked to me as the FR wrestler was initially trying to score early in the match but by the 3rd he realized that he could simply dive under and hold on. He was much quicker than the McCallie wrestler and that was his strategy to slow the match down. The McCallie wrestler was not offensive for most of the match but he never backed up. How can you expect the McCallie wrestler to create offense in the last min when the FR wrestler would dive in every time they were reset? It was stalling because the FR was only taking that shot to stop McCallie from scoring. No other reason. If he wanted to score he would of set it up and use much better technique. It takes a very knowledgeable ref to call that the right way.

[sweeptheleg]

It was the right call in my opinion. Those of you that are arguing that it was not consistent with the rest of the match, look at it this way; If the whistle blows and the one wrestler moves backwards and does not create action do you hit him for stalling? No, he has to repeatedly back up before he gets hit. How about if a wrestle collar ties and plants his head in the others chest and blocks off? At first that can be looked at as defense, but it will eventually be called as stalling.

 

It looked to me as the FR wrestler was initially trying to score early in the match but by the 3rd he realized that he could simply dive under and hold on. He was much quicker than the McCallie wrestler and that was his strategy to slow the match down. The McCallie wrestler was not offensive for most of the match but he never backed up. How can you expect the McCallie wrestler to create offense in the last min when the FR wrestler would dive in every time they were reset? It was stalling because the FR was only taking that shot to stop McCallie from scoring. No other reason. If he wanted to score he would of set it up and use much better technique. It takes a very knowledgeable ref to call that the right way.

 

Its easy to score off of someone diving in with their head down. You hand fight and take away his hands, you downblock, you catch him in a front headlock. he did none of these things and in fact let Mosley get in deep on his leg everytime and then draped across him and grabbed ankles.