Clark's illegal hold

[nearfall2]

I'm struggling with this call. First off the call was an illegal "kickback" not a "cutback."

The issue I have is that to be considered a kickback the feet have to kick the knees. Clark does not kick the knees. I've watched it a dozen times. He put him in the basket by blocking with the shin. He did not use a kickback. I would post pictures if I could. That call should have been reviewed.

 

[ih8iast8]

As much as it sucks, Cory is right there & he has a little more fuel in his fire now.

 

[who r u]

The issue I have is that to be considered a kickback the feet have to kick the knees. Clark does not kick the knees

Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...pretations_Clarifications_Master_20170120.pdf

its on page 10 and 11 with pictures

 

[pumpdog20]

Terry seemed to agree or at least respect the ref's call. So there's that.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Terry seemed to agree or at least respect the ref's call. So there's that.

I didn't notice our coaches' reactions to the call, but no doubt -- if Terry's OK with it, you can rest assured it's the correct call. He'll let them have it when he sees that they blew a call, but if it's correct -- even if it goes against his guy -- he'll respect it.

 

[Tcalumet]

As much as it sucks, Cory is right there & he has a little more fuel in his fire now.

Yeah - he definitely left that arena game w revenge on his mind

 

[AFHawk86]

Bottom line is it's a shame that a penalty that no one's ever seen called is the difference in the match, especially when there was a blatent and legitimate penalty that wasn't called and would have sent this match to OT where it should have been decided.

 

[jvclark]

Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...pretations_Clarifications_Master_20170120.pdf

its on page 10 and 11 with pictures

I can't say honestly that I am past this loss for Cory or the call itself. But seeing this hot woman do squats in that outfit will go along way in making me forget I even watched wrestling this past weekend

 

[ELIACO]

Who r u, great explanation. I couldn't believe the call either, but I rewatched the video on Flo and that's exactly what happened. Great call by the ref and I'm impressed with the call, although not happy that he didn't call the more obvious offense in the match. Should've gone to OT. These guys have a thankless job sometimes

 

[HoundedHawk]

Did Cory actually kick him? I don't think so.

 

[Azchief32]

Did Cory actually kick him? I don't think so.

Yea...just watched it. Left his feet and then kicked his ankles out. Here is the first part. He did it earlier in the match somewhat and I think the tOSU coaches cued the refs to it.

 

[bphawkeye_Rivals]

Yea...just watched it. Left his feet and then kicked his ankles out. Here is the first part. He did it earlier in the match somewhat and I think the tOSU coaches cued the refs to it.

View embedded media

photo does not show any contact on the back of legs with the feet - seems to be going through the legs and just pulls him back. that is exactly what i saw. So - you think it was a make up call?

watched the video and - saw nothing like kicking ankles. not sure what this was all about?

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

photo does not show any contact on the back of legs with the feet - seems to be going through the legs and just pulls him back. that is exactly what i saw. So - you think it was a make up call?

watched the video and - saw nothing like kicking ankles. not sure what this was all about?

I watched this replay 20 times, and Clark absolutely did not kick the back of Tomasello's knees or legs in any manner. What Clark did was lift both his legs off the mat and pull Tomasello down with his body weight, clasping on with his arms/shoulders. His legs barely make any contact at all with Tomasellos on the initial "kickback".

I think the reason the refs called it, is because some dumbass matside screamed "That's illegal" at the top of their lungs twice.

It was a bullshit call. No one should be defending this call.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...pretations_Clarifications_Master_20170120.pdf

its on page 10 and 11 with pictures

You bolded the wrong part. You need to bold "kicks". Clark absolutely did not kick Tomasello's knees or calfs at all. His feet make slight gentle contact as he uses his body weight to return Tomasello to the mat. Clark DID NOT kick Tomasello's legs in the slightest. There is no way anyone should be defending the call. It was a terrible call.

 

[nearfall2]

Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...pretations_Clarifications_Master_20170120.pdf

its on page 10 and 11 with pictures

Thank you who r u. I have seen the first and second example, but have never seen the third one(looks like Gilman in photo). Is this a newer interpretation (last 10 year or so)?

As I look through the series of pictures Cory is locked on the hip with his knees. He never flares his feet against his shins. The only time he comes in contact with his knee is when NaTom starts to squat down and Clarks butt is 5" to 6" off the ground. I still see it as him using gravity to bring him down not a kick to the knees or legs.

I will have to admit it would be hard to differentiate between what I believe he did and that third picture in the rules interpretation. Especially at full speed.

 

[who r u]

 

[wasdt21]

don't matter cory went to school, he is always better the 2nd time around and that goes for brock too. i hope clark is 4th seed and tomasello will miss the finals 2 years in a row.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Yea...just watched it. Left his feet and then kicked his ankles out. Here is the first part. He did it earlier in the match somewhat and I think the tOSU coaches cued the refs to it.

View embedded media

I just watched it three times in slow motion. There was no kicking.

 

[YoungGun07]

I think it was the right call, but he should have called NaTo on grabbing the headgear. A match that good should have been decided in OT, not on a technical violation.

 

[BigSlick Suited]

Those of you that don't think it was a penalty, let me do it to you and then tell me how you feel. It is a blown ACL waiting to happen. There is a reason it is illegal.

 

[championhawk]

Those of you that don't think it was a penalty, let me do it to you and then tell me how you feel. It is a blown ACL waiting to happen. There is a reason it is illegal.

Only if you put your helmet on and let me crank your neck by pulling on the strap. It's a broken neck waiting to happen.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

Those of you that don't think it was a penalty, let me do it to you and then tell me how you feel. It is a blown ACL waiting to happen. There is a reason it is illegal.

Have you ever wrestled before? That move absolutely is not going to cause a knee injury. He's sucking him back and using body weight to bring him backwards. He's not hyper extending the knee. It's the natural motion of the knee. It is not even illegal. It was mistakenly called in the match. The rule is if you kick the back of the opponents knees or calves which Clark did not do.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

So you think Clark kicked the back of Tomasello's knee/calf? Because, the rule states you can not kick, which Clark did not do.

 

[texas twister]

A kickback is not really a kick. All of you are erroneously thinking it has to be a kick. It doesn't. In fact, there is never a kick involved. The name is a kickback. Kicking it not actually what happens. I am a ref. The call made is correct. Until I saw the shots on this thread, I didn't know as I only watched it live with no replay before. It absolutely is a kickback and is illegal.

 

[BigSlick Suited]

Everyone here thinks the world of Tom and Terry and trusts what they do 100%. When the call was made did Brands argue like crazy because he felt it was wrong? No. He didn't argue one bit. Does that mean anything to anybody?

 

[texas twister]

Here, look at #3.
https://ncaawrestling.arbitersports... holds article January 25 2016 (00000002).pdf

 

[theIowaHawk]

A kickback is not really a kick. All of you are erroneously thinking it has to be a kick. It doesn't. In fact, there is never a kick involved. The name is a kickback. Kicking it not actually what happens. I am a ref. The call made is correct. Until I saw the shots on this thread, I didn't know as I only watched it live with no replay before. It absolutely is a kickback and is illegal.

This is what I thought after reading the previous link and looking at the photos. They could have put that picture of Clark right in the rule book.

What I don't know is whether the height of the move makes a difference, such as Clark being more on the hips area and above the knees when he does it. It seems to me, a novice on the minutiae of wrestling rules, that the purpose is to stop guys from "jumping" or taking their feet of the ground to suck their guys backwards, much like returning guys to the mat, they want them on their feet/knees.

Looks illegal to me - based on the photos in the rule book. Both feet are off the ground and he is attempting to return him backwards. I think the "kick" language is being taken too literally.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Here, look at #3.
https://ncaawrestling.arbitersports.com/Groups/107525/Library/files/Illegal holds article January 25 2016 (00000002).pdf

I respect you are a ref, but I think you have it wrong. Clark didn't do what those pictures show. He merely placed his legs inside and leaned back, basically making NaTo fall back because of weight distribution. He wasn't even tripped. There was zero danger of injury.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I respect you are a ref, but I think you have it wrong. Clark didn't do what those pictures show. He merely placed his legs inside and leaned back, basically making NaTo fall back because of weight distribution. He wasn't even tripped. There was zero danger of injury.

My ignorant review of the rules posted here would show that the "placing his legs inside" and leaving his feet to do so would be the "kickback."

 

[HoundedHawk]

This is what I thought after reading the previous link and looking at the photos. They could have put that picture of Clark right in the rule book.

What I don't know is whether the height of the move makes a difference, such as Clark being more on the hips area and above the knees when he does it. It seems to me, a novice on the minutiae of wrestling rules, that the purpose is to stop guys from "jumping" or taking their feet of the ground to suck their guys backwards, much like returning guys to the mat, they want them on their feet/knees.

Looks illegal to me - based on the photos in the rule book. Both feet are off the ground and he is attempting to return him backwards. I think the "kick" language is being taken too literally.

Doesn't seem to be a metaphor. From an earlier post from the NCAA site.

The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s).​

Either way, Clark wasn't wrong. He didn't even put pressure on the legs. He wasn't even blocking, which is mentioned below.

Here's more from the site.

Updated 10-25-2016 Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below. Illegal double-knee kickback: you may not leave both feet to kick behind the opponents knee with your feet or leg(s). Illegal double-knee kickback: you may not leave both feet to kick behind the opponents knee with your feet or leg(s). This mat return can be executed legally if the offensive wrestler does not leave both feet to block behind the defensive wrestler’s legs.​

 

[theIowaHawk]

Doesn't seem to be a metaphor. From an earlier post from the NCAA site.

The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s).​

Either way, Clark wasn't wrong. He didn't even put pressure on the legs. He wasn't even blocking, which is mentioned below.

Here's more from the site.

Updated 10-25-2016 Rule: 5.8, 5.8.12 and Page 96 Illustration #67 illegal holds Question: Could you clarify how to best identify when a double knee kick-back mat return is executed illegally? Ruling: The double-knee kickback mat return is illegal when the wrestler in the rear standing position leaves both feet and kicks behind the knee or calf area of the defensive wrestler’s legs with any portion of their feet or leg(s). I will provide some examples below. Illegal double-knee kickback: you may not leave both feet to kick behind the opponents knee with your feet or leg(s). Illegal double-knee kickback: you may not leave both feet to kick behind the opponents knee with your feet or leg(s). This mat return can be executed legally if the offensive wrestler does not leave both feet to block behind the defensive wrestler’s legs.​

I don't think it is a metaphor, I think some posters are taking it too literally in that a "kick" being a swinging of a leg outwards to strike someone (like kicking a ball), as opposed to the action - movement of the leg in to the other. For example, a leg sweep would be a kick, even if not commonly thought of as one.

Some things are uncontroverted here, Cory left his feet, while behind, in order to return Tomasello backwards to the mat. That checks each box, leaving one remianing - the "kicks behind the knee or calf area ....with any portion of their feet/legs." Which would seem to include more than Cory's foot and shin, and would include all the way up his thighs.

Yea...just watched it. Left his feet and then kicked his ankles out. Here is the first part. He did it earlier in the match somewhat and I think the tOSU coaches cued the refs to it.

View embedded media

This photo it is hard to tell as a still.

photo does not show any contact on the back of legs with the feet - seems to be going through the legs and just pulls him back.

Responding to a post like this, it doesn't require it be a "kick" with the feet. If Cory uses his upper legs to push forward the knee/lower area it appears it would be illegal.

Again, that picture makes it difficult to tell, as it looks like his left leg is well above the knee, hard to tell where the right is. I dont know if hitting the legs on the way down would count, but the rule sounds as if it would.

As you mention about blocking, it demonstrates the most obvious way for it to be legal: don't leave both feet. I would guess that once he left both feet it was a quick call for the ref.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

A kickback is not really a kick. All of you are erroneously thinking it has to be a kick. It doesn't. In fact, there is never a kick involved. The name is a kickback. Kicking it not actually what happens. I am a ref. The call made is correct. Until I saw the shots on this thread, I didn't know as I only watched it live with no replay before. It absolutely is a kickback and is illegal.

No, per the rules, it's not illegal. The rules explicitly state that the wrestler can not KICK the back of the knees/calves of an opponent. If you're a ref and calling it this way, you're calling it wrong imo. Why would it be illegal? It's not a dangerous move in the slightest and to call that a penalty is terrible for the sport of wrestling.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

I don't think it is a metaphor, I think some posters are taking it too literally in that a "kick" being a swinging of a leg outwards to strike someone (like kicking a ball), as opposed to the action - movement of the leg in to the other. For example, a leg sweep would be a kick, even if not commonly thought of as one.

Some things are uncontroverted here, Cory left his feet, while behind, in order to return Tomasello backwards to the mat. That checks each box, leaving one remianing - the "kicks behind the knee or calf area ....with any portion of their feet/legs." Which would seem to include more than Cory's foot and shin, and would include all the way up his thighs.



This photo it is hard to tell as a still.



Responding to a post like this, it doesn't require it be a "kick" with the feet. If Cory uses his upper legs to push forward the knee/lower area it appears it would be illegal.

Again, that picture makes it difficult to tell, as it looks like his left leg is well above the knee, hard to tell where the right is. I dont know if hitting the legs on the way down would count, but the rule sounds as if it would.

As you mention about blocking, it demonstrates the most obvious way for it to be legal: don't leave both feet. I would guess that once he left both feet it was a quick call for the ref.

Clark doesn't push with his legs at all. His legs make slight, gentle contact with Tomasello's because he's using his body weight and gravity to return Tomasello to the mat. It's insane to me that people are defending this call.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

Everyone here thinks the world of Tom and Terry and trusts what they do 100%. When the call was made did Brands argue like crazy because he felt it was wrong? No. He didn't argue one bit. Does that mean anything to anybody?

How do we know Tom and Terry's opinion on this matter? Did they see the video replay at the time? No they didn't, because coaches don't have access to the replays during the match. Have they commented on the call after the match and after having seen the replay?

They probably assumed at the time, that Clark kicked the back of Tomasello's legs which indeed would be an illegal move.

Why do people keep claiming that Tom defended this refs call? Just because he didn't have a good view real time in a live match, and chose not to argue the call doesn't mean he agrees with the call and would agree upon seeing the replay afterwards.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Clark doesn't push with his legs at all. His legs make slight, gentle contact with Tomasello's because he's using his body weight and gravity to return Tomasello to the mat. It's insane to me that people are defending this call.

Except that a "kick" can be "slight, gentle contact". It would depend (in my reading of the rule and view of photos accompanying it) whether that "slight, gentle contact" happened at or below the knees. From that picture he appears to still be above the knees, at least on the left side.

It doesn't appear to require a roundhouse or windup like kicking a ball. A kick, by definition, is moving the legs forward and making contact.

 

[texas twister]

No, per the rules, it's not illegal. The rules explicitly state that the wrestler can not KICK the back of the knees/calves of an opponent. If you're a ref and calling it this way, you're calling it wrong imo. Why would it be illegal? It's not a dangerous move in the slightest and to call that a penalty is terrible for the sport of wrestling.

OK, have it your way. I gave you expert advice and you disregarded it. Your opinion will not change the way it is called.

 

[LaxHawk174]

Headgear pull no-call and phantom takedown given to Brock. The NCAA refs should just frigg off and stop making Clark lose matches.

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

OK, have it your way. I gave you expert advice and you disregarded it. Your opinion will not change the way it is called.

This is literally the first time myself and probably most people have ever seen this rule called this way. It was called incorrectly. How is your advice expert exactly?

 

[anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb]

Except that a "kick" can be "slight, gentle contact". It would depend (in my reading of the rule and view of photos accompanying it) whether that "slight, gentle contact" happened at or below the knees. From that picture he appears to still be above the knees, at least on the left side.

It doesn't appear to require a roundhouse or windup like kicking a ball. A kick, by definition, is moving the legs forward and making contact.

Now you're altering the definition of a kick. In rulebooks, the use of language is incredibly important as it's what we use to determine if something is legal or illegal. The rulebook explicitly says you can not kick the back of an opponents knee or calf. Clark does not kick.

Definition of 'Kick':

1. strike or propel forcibly with the foot.
2. a blow or forceful thrust with the foot.
3. a sudden forceful jolt.

Slight gentle contact with Clark's foot as he uses his body weight, upper body, and gravity to bring Tomasello to the mat is not a kick.

Again, I do not see how anyone could defend this call. If you're a ref, and would agree with the call that was made in this match, then you should not be reffing, or the rules need to be revised to further clarify.

And even regardless of whether or not the call was correct, the move that occurred in the Clark & Tomasello match SHOULD NOT be illegal (even if we just take it as a given that the call was correctly made). The move that Clark used, is not a dangerous move. He didn't forcibly kick the knee. There is no way that should be an illegal move in the sport of wrestling.

 

[texas twister]

This is literally the first time myself and probably most people have ever seen this rule called this way. It was called incorrectly. How is your advice expert exactly?

As I stated previously, I am a referee. Have been for about 16 years now. We cover this periodically in our chapter meetings. This is not something new. The picture in the rule book says it all. Don't let the part of the name "kick" through you off. An actually kick is not part of a kickback. I suppose it could be; but, is NOT essential.