Iowa vs. Michigan thread

[Theo Brixton]

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

Here is the sequence 

 

Thanks for posting this. Not sure if it was already mentioned but why in the "duck duck goose" is Spencer allowing himself to be put into such compromising positions (like the opening sequence) in such an inconsequential match? I would have figured that he would be far more cautious but apparently not. One saving grace of freestyle for Lee is that some of the more dangerous scrambling positions (safety-wise)  that he commonly finds himself are where his opponent exposes his back.   

[D3UC157]

7 hours ago, fishbane said:

At the end of the 2nd period after Big Tone got that TD what was the call exactly?  Was it that Parris was <90 long enough to trigger neutral danger and get Big Tone the TD, but after the TD award Parris never broke 45 for at least 2s to trigger a NF?  If so why wasn't Big Tone called for locked hands?  I thought you had to have your opponent in NF criteria to legally lock/keep your hands locked when in control.

The refs looked at the replay and changed nothing.  That may have been a Brands challenge or their own review it wasn't clear on the broadcast.  Anyway they neither awarded NF or a point for the technical violation.  How is that possible?  Did they just miss the locked hands?  Do I not understand the rule?

Merkel, cradle, 3/4 Nelson, power half, assassin, all allow locked hands, even before any exposure.

Parris’ s back was exposed, precursor to near fall, locked hands for pinning combo allowed.

[Dark Energy]

I believe NF criteria must be in place for locked hands  …. Almost doesn’t work.  Swipes need to be happening.  Others can confirm.

[Offthemat]

Cradle?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 hours ago, VakAttack said:

....I can't believe the ref called a stalemate 2 seconds after a takedown, and also just watched as Parris layed on top of Cass for 45 seconds later in the same match.  Parris is the better guy, but yeesh.

Wasn't Parris was on the leg and should have been on a 5 count?

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

2 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

Merkel, cradle, 3/4 Nelson, power half, assassin, all allow locked hands, even before any exposure.

Parris’ s back was exposed, precursor to near fall, locked hands for pinning combo allowed.

None of those techniques involve clasping around the torso or legs without an arm encircled.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

8 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't know that this is home cooking it just makes no sense.  The ref awarded the takedown with 9 seconds left in the period and Big Tone kept his hands locked for the remainder of the period.  I thought the only way that would be allowed without a locked hands call is if he had Parris in NF criteria, yet no NF was awarded.

I believe that was locked hands.  It is also possible that the refs (and coaches) missed a similar one late in Bonnacorsi/Trumble.

For whatever reason, even good wrestling minds miss locked hands on chest wrap type positions.  I am talking about chest wraps that happen in flurries when one man is already on top.  I think it is because they look like neutral positions, but the top man is still in control, so it should be called a clasp.

[1032004]

I don’t see how he didn’t get nearfall if he got the danger takedown, seemed like Parris didn’t really move.   Is danger a different angle required?

[1032004]

11 hours ago, PortaJohn said:

WTF Amine.  Coward

It’s Bormet, not the wrestlers, clearly

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I don’t see how he didn’t get nearfall if he got the danger takedown, seemed like Parris didn’t really move.   Is danger a different angle required?

Just saw Willie asked the same question.  Apparently neutral danger takedown is past 90, didn’t realize that

[MPhillips]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Apparently neutral danger takedown is past 90

Isn't it 45...

[Nailbender]

9 hours ago, fishbane said:

At the end of the 2nd period after Big Tone got that TD what was the call exactly?  Was it that Parris was <90 long enough to trigger neutral danger and get Big Tone the TD, but after the TD award Parris never broke 45 for at least 2s to trigger a NF?  If so why wasn't Big Tone called for locked hands?  I thought you had to have your opponent in NF criteria to legally lock/keep your hands locked when in control.

The refs looked at the replay and changed nothing.  That may have been a Brands challenge or their own review it wasn't clear on the broadcast.  Anyway they neither awarded NF or a point for the technical violation.  How is that possible?  Did they just miss the locked hands?  Do I not understand the rule?

ND is 90° NF is 45°

ETA sorry fishbane, didn't mean to quote you.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Nailbender

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Isn't it 45...

Hofstra head coach:

 

 

[D3UC157]

40 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

None of those techniques involve clasping around the torso or legs without an arm encircled.

Bear hug/body lock

[1032004]

9 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't know that this is home cooking it just makes no sense.  The ref awarded the takedown with 9 seconds left in the period and Big Tone kept his hands locked for the remainder of the period.  I thought the only way that would be allowed without a locked hands call is if he had Parris in NF criteria, yet no NF was awarded.

I thought it just had to be a pinning  situation or something, not necessarily meeting NF criteria, but could be wrong 

[fishbane]

5 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

Merkel, cradle, 3/4 Nelson, power half, assassin, all allow locked hands, even before any exposure.

Parris’ s back was exposed, precursor to near fall, locked hands for pinning combo allowed.

I finally stopped being lazy and looked up the rule.  Rule 5.8 

"Interlocking Hands — Description. Wrestlers in the position of advantage may not interlock or overlap their hands, fingers or arms around their opponent’s body or both legs unless all of their opponent’s weight is supported entirely by the defensive wrestler's feet or the defensive wrestler’s pinning area is meeting a near-fall criterion. The opponent of a wrestler committing this technical violation shall receive one match point."

I think every one can agree that with 9 seconds left after the TD was awarded that

• Big Tone had his hands interlocked around Parris's body
• Parris's weight was not entirely supported by his feet (standing position).

The only remaining question is if Parris was in NF criteria.  I suppose there can be differing opinions on that, but it would seem that the person with the best view, the referee, did not think Parris was in NF criteria because he did not award Big Tone any NF points.  The only way for this to be possible would be if Parris was oscillating back and forth between NF and not NF criteria.  NF for 1s, back >45 for 1s, back to NF for 1s ... until the end of the period.  Still when NF criteria is broken to stop the NF clock it would be locking hands.

It would seem that no NF and no locking hands is an impossible outcome.  The ref has one out but it really isn't a very satisfying one - reaction time.  5.8 allows for reaction time in the call

"Interlocking Hands — Reaction Time. Reaction time for interlocking hands exists in all areas except for the locked hands call down on the mat."

Since this was locked hands maintained after a TD call the referee could allow for reaction time.  Still 9 seconds of reaction time seems excessive.  Typically we think of reaction time as less than a second, but in the rules there is a definition for reaction time in rule 2.2

"Reaction Time The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous."

So 9s of reaction time would be allowed within the rules if the referee determined it to be.  I don't think that would be a reasonable determination.  Locking hands around Parris's body in that situation definitely helped Big Tone keep him in a near- NF position.  Since it was a neutral danger/scamble situation it seems likely that control could change at any time.  One could argue that allowing Big Tone to lock his hands for 9 seconds in a position he was not allowed to cost Parris an opportunity at an escape or reversal before the end of the period. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by fishbane

[D3UC157]

27 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I finally stopped being lazy and looked up the rule.  Rule 5.8 

"Interlocking Hands — Description. Wrestlers in the position of advantage may not interlock or overlap their hands, fingers or arms around their opponent’s body or both legs unless all of their opponent’s weight is supported entirely by the defensive wrestler's feet or the defensive wrestler’s pinning area is meeting a near-fall criterion. The opponent of a wrestler committing this technical violation shall receive one match point."

I think every one can agree that with 9 seconds left after the TD was awarded that

• Big Tone had his hands interlocked around Parris's body
• Parris's weight was not entirely supported by his feet (standing position).

The only remaining question is if Parris was in NF criteria.  I suppose there can be differing opinions on that, but it would seem that the person with the best view, the referee, did not think Parris was in NF criteria because he did not award Big Tone any NF points.  The only way for this to be possible would be if Parris was oscillating back and forth between NF and not NF criteria.  NF for 1s, back >45 for 1s, back to NF for 1s ... until the end of the period.  Still when NF criteria is broken to stop the NF clock it would be locking hands.

It would seem that no NF and no locking hands is an impossible outcome.  The ref has one out but it really isn't a very satisfying one - reaction time.  5.8 allows for reaction time in the call

"Interlocking Hands — Reaction Time. Reaction time for interlocking hands exists in all areas except for the locked hands call down on the mat."

Since this was locked hands maintained after a TD call the referee could allow for reaction time.  Still 9 seconds of reaction time seems excessive.  Typically we think of reaction time as less than a second, but in the rules there is a definition for reaction time in rule 2.2

"Reaction Time The amount of time a wrestler is provided by the referee to react to individual scoring or wrestling situations. Reaction time is provided in all situations except the hand-touch takedown and for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous."

So 9s of reaction time would be allowed within the rules if the referee determined it to be.  I don't think that would be a reasonable determination.  Locking hands around Parris's body in that situation definitely helped Big Tone keep him in a near- NF position.  Since it was a neutral danger/scamble situation it seems likely that control could change at any time.  One could argue that allowing Big Tone to lock his hands for 9 seconds in a position he was not allowed to cost Parris an opportunity at an escape or reversal before the end of the period. 

I was looking at the rule yesterday too and it definitely leaves a lot of area uncovered.
 

Since you don’t lock your hands once you get to near fall. You lock the move then turn the opponent over typically. So there has to be some kind of referee intermediate interpretation of,  is this approaching near fall or imminent possibility of near-fall. 
 

Right?
 

[With the danger rule added it makes me think if you’re giving up a take down due to back exposure danger, that should be threat of near-fall if you remain in the situation or go between 45° and 90°.]

 

[MPhillips]

43 minutes ago, D3UC157 said:

Since you don’t lock your hands once you get to near fall

Depends mightily on the move to NF doesn't it?

[D3UC157]

4 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Depends mightily on the move to NF doesn't it?

Feels like most moves are locked while the bottom guy is belly facing the mat right?

 

And feet to back(scramble as well) is even more of a loose scenario with what you had locked before hitting the mat.

[fishbane]

14 minutes ago, D3UC157 said:

I was looking at the rule yesterday too and it definitely leaves a lot of area uncovered.
 

Since you don’t lock your hands once you get to near fall. You lock the move then turn the opponent over typically. So there has to be some kind of referee intermediate interpretation of,  is this approaching near fall or imminent possibility of near-fall. 
 

Right?
 

[With the danger rule added it makes me think if you’re giving up a take down due to back exposure danger, that should be threat of near-fall if you remain in the situation or go between 45° and 90°.]

 

I don't see uncovered area.  I also don't see the precursor to near fall that you mentioned earlier. None of your earlier examples are really applicable as they don't involving locking hands around the entire torso/both legs so there would never be a locked hands call for those.  Your later example of bear hug is applicable. If you bear hug someone from neutral where it's legal and take them straight to their back then you can keep the lock if they are in NF criteria otherwise you have reaction time to release the lock. You cannot bear hug or body lock from top and then work the guy over to NF.  That's a locked hands call every time.  From a TD or mat return it's a tricky play to keep the lock because it might help you hold them and get the fall/points, but if they squirm out you could give up a point.

One somewhat related example to this discussion is the guillotine.  This is the turning move with a leg in where the top wrestler grabs the defensive wrestlers far arm and puts it behind his back using it to turn him over.  The offensive wrestler can lock his hands around the defensive wrestlers head once NF criteria is established a move that would otherwise be an illegal headlock.  This would result in an illegal hold penalty and not a technical violation like we had been discussing, nevertheless there is no mention of near fall precursor or imminent possibility of near-fall in this rule. 

"Locked Hands — Guillotine. The offensive wrestler cannot lock hands around the head of the defensive wrestler when using the guillotine until the offensive wrestler meets a near-fall criterion."

In practice there might be some margin. Where say you lock your hands before NF criteria in a way that is only legal in NF criteria (ex. bear hug or around the head w/guillotine) and turn the guy real fast.  The referee might not notice or call it.  Then again they might notice, stop action, and award a point.

The neutral danger rule 4.2.3 doesn't add anything in the way of modifying locking hands from my reading.

[MPhillips]

2 minutes ago, D3UC157 said:

Feels like most moves are locked while the bottom guy is belly facing the mat right?

Agreed.

What NF do you lock hands and then unlock when they go to their back? 

[D3UC157]

11 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Agreed.

What NF do you lock hands and then unlock when they go to their back? 

Power half, would be the only one I think of? 

Cradle that turns into a half? But thats more transition than intention.

[MPhillips]

Just now, D3UC157 said:

Power half, would be the only one I think of? 

Cradle that turns into a half? But thats more transition than intention.

That's what I thought. Just making sure...

[D3UC157]

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I don't see uncovered area.  I also don't see the precursor to near fall that you mentioned earlier. None of your earlier examples are really applicable as they don't involving locking hands around the entire torso/both legs so there would never be a locked hands call for those.  Your later example of bear hug is applicable. If you bear hug someone from neutral where it's legal and take them straight to their back then you can keep the lock if they are in NF criteria otherwise you have reaction time to release the lock. You cannot bear hug or body lock from top and then work the guy over to NF.  That's a locked hands call every time.  From a TD or mat return it's a tricky play to keep the lock because it might help you hold them and get the fall/points, but if they squirm out you could give up a point.

One somewhat related example to this discussion is the guillotine.  This is the turning move with a leg in where the top wrestler grabs the defensive wrestlers far arm and puts it behind his back using it to turn him over.  The offensive wrestler can lock his hands around the defensive wrestlers head once NF criteria is established a move that would otherwise be an illegal headlock.  This would result in an illegal hold penalty and not a technical violation like we had been discussing, nevertheless there is no mention of near fall precursor or imminent possibility of near-fall in this rule. 

"Locked Hands — Guillotine. The offensive wrestler cannot lock hands around the head of the defensive wrestler when using the guillotine until the offensive wrestler meets a near-fall criterion."

In practice there might be some margin. Where say you lock your hands before NF criteria in a way that is only legal in NF criteria (ex. bear hug or around the head w/guillotine) and turn the guy real fast.  The referee might not notice or call it.  Then again they might notice, stop action, and award a point.

The neutral danger rule 4.2.3 doesn't add anything in the way of modifying locking hands from my reading.

Does near-fall criteria start once a pinning combination is applied?

I lock a 3/4 Nelson there is no near-fall occurring but my hands are locked. Or any of the other arm captured moves. (Irregardless of the cassiopi situation)

 

 

[fishbane]

2 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

Does near-fall criteria start once a pinning combination is applied?

I lock a 3/4 Nelson there is no near-fall occurring but my hands are locked. Or any of the other arm captured moves. (Irregardless of the cassiopi situation)

 

 

The 0.75 nelson would never be a technical violation/locking hands.  It is considered a distinct hold from the full nelson illegal hold and illegal headlock.  It is specifically an example of a legal hold cited in the rule book.

The near fall criteria rule 4.5 specifies the near fall criteria thusly 

"Near Fall Criteria A near fall is a position in which the offensive wrestler has the opponent in a controlled pinning situation in which any one of the following three criteria are met:

a. The defensive wrestler is held in a high bridge or on both elbows;

b. Any part of one shoulder or scapula, or the head is touching the mat and the other shoulder or scapula is held at an angle of 45 degrees or less to the mat; or

c. Any part of both shoulders or both scapulae are held within four inches of the mat.

In any pinning situation, a near fall may occur if any part of either wrestler remains in bounds."