Clark's illegal hold
- Thread starter nearfall2
- Start date
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Referee's can be wrong and make mistakes. You're telling me you've covered this exact specific case in your rules meetings (where the wrestler uses his body weight and shoulders to bring the opponent down and leaves both feet to do so sucking him backwards as opposed to kicking the opponents legs to bring him down)? The picture absolutely does not say it all. A picture is one single frame.
How can you say the term kick is not essential? Reread the rule book.
According to the rule book:
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)
Just like with law, the wording is incredibly important in a sports rule book to clarify legality. The rule explicitly states 'kick' numerous times. Again, if you're a ref and you're calling what Clark did a penalty, you're contradicting the rule book. Maybe this is an area where the rule book needs to be updated or further clarification added.
Either way, I'll repeat what I said above:
"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."
.
Well, you're basically saying if you leave both feet and just lean back it is an illegal move. The specific rules in no way says that.
D1 refs can be wrong, and we see it all the time. Therefore, any ref can be wrong.
I'm altering it? I read it in these rule books, they have pictures. If Clark was just a few inches lower he'd be the very example they chose to use a picture of.
Two of your chosen definitions, which have little applicability to a defined rulebook, include the word foot - which the decision of the rule specifically says doesn't need to be - it can be any part of the leg.
You can't see how anyone would defend it because you keep demanding it be the foot - to the contrary of the rulebook.
I think the rule is fairly plain - saying that if you leave both feet, lean back AND have your legs (any part) contact the knee or lower - it is a "kickback."
Two things incontrovertibly took place - left his feet and pulled him back. There really is only one question - did any part of his legs make contact with the knee/lower of Tomasello. Hard to tell from that photo, because he appears to be above the knees at the time.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I'm not demanding it be the foot. I'm emphasizing that the rulebook states you can not kick, which Clark did not do with any part of his leg. Would you say that Clark kicked the back of Tomasello's legs? I see it as his legs slightly brushing Tomasello's as they swing under him from gravity. He is not exerting any force at all on Tomasello's legs. A kick requires force regardless of which definition you want to use.
Also, the use of pictures is very limited. I've seen other wrestling rule books and rules discussions where they include video which is a much better method of displaying the move in action. A picture is literally one frame of the action.
It's weird at this point that people are so insistent on defending this call. It was a bad call. The rule is being misinterpreted (some people are glossing over the word "kick" which is used three times in the rule book.
Most likely in real time with only one opportunity to watch the move play out, the referee thought he saw a kick (which he actually hesitated to call, and only called it after a coach?/fan? screamed at the top of their lungs "that's illegal multiple times"). I can forgive a ref making a bad call because he missed it during the action of a live match.
I'm just pointing out that per the rules, what Clark did is not illegal, and was mistakenly called. And as I've said several times now:
"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."
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
lol cmon man. Now you're just being incredibly disingenuous. The rule book doesn't state "and have your legs contact the knee or lower" as you claim. It EXPLICITLY states "kick" three separate times.
Now I'm confused. You just said definitions mattered, like in the law, and your definitions had the foot - but now it isn't just the foot. Egad boy!
The rule-makers chose the picture to use to demonstrate it, and Clark's looks identical - except he is higher than the knees. I'm comfortable saying that he may not have touched the knees/lower and that it may have been a bad call. You are the opposite, believing that it is indefensible - you've said so in every one of your posts.
Yes, and then it describes what that means, shows a picture - and you have a poster who goes to those meetings tell you.
This is my last post on it - you don't care, you've decided, so why is it so important for everyone else to agree with you?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Definitions do matter and words do matter. I'm not focusing on the foot. I never said that it had to be the foot and not another part of the leg. The rules state you can not kick. A kick requires force. The rules also (as you point out) state that you can't kick with any part of the foot or leg. I'm saying that regardless of whether he contacted with his foot or lower leg, he did not KICK. Which is what the rules say is illegal. And yes, I continue to stand by the opinion that the call that was made is indefensible. I already stated I can forgive the ref for getting it wrong in real time, but per the rules, what Clark did is not illegal.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Every match is different. A one frame image can not be used to apply to all circumstances. None of those images are replicas of what Clark did in the match. And I asked the poster above if in those meetings the head officials or rules committee have specified and clarified exactly what qualifies as a kick. He hasn't responded.
If only someone would have brought that point up before...
Headgear pull no-call and phantom takedown given to Brock. The NCAA refs should just frigg off and stop making Clark lose matches.
Don't forget the countless potentially dangerous calls he's had called against him.
As someone else pointed out, Nolf did exactly the same thing against Kemerer -- no call.
I missed that...more fuel to the conspiracy fire!
We understand your a ref, but refs are human and make mistakes.....just sayin
Ok, you are an official, got it. I have been watching wrestling for over 40 years and have never seen it called. If it is to be determied as you have described I HAVE seen it done over and over, however, but again with NEVER having seen it called. Just seems to be a strange time to have it called when I think everyone would agree it was at least somewhat questionable. Then the official didn't do himself any favors when he stopped the match after seeing clark's headgear grabbed and then just let it go. If it's leaving your feet and kicking someone's legs out, obviously easier to spot and call and most likely why its not seen often or at all. However, pulling your opponent down with you legs touching his is seen a lot more often.....but never called.
Here is the problem with the call in that situation and what is "incontrovertible". A wrestler with using his legs, any part of his legs, to bring his opponnent back to the mat, from behind is never called for an illegal hold. How many times have you seen it done...assuming you have watched many matches over the years. If the interpretation is to exclude the word, kicking, why isn't it called at least once in a while, as opposed to, until now, never.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
What level are you reffing? I really hope it's not at the high school or college level.
It sounds like there may be a new emphasis on this call this year, which could explain it in part. However, I agree -- I've also been watching wrestling closely for more than 40 years, and this was the first time I've ever seen it called, too. Haven't seen it called once this season, either.
I'm sure the ref was doing his best, but that questionable call and the non-headgear call cost Cory the match. Sure, sure, sure -- never leave it in the ref's hands, blah, blah, blah. But when you're taking on a former national champ and now 3x Big Ten champ, odds are good that it's going to be a close match no matter what you do. Just unfortunate that the outcome was determined by a dubious call and a missed call. Everyone -- tOSU fans included, I'm sure -- wanted to see that match decided by Cory and Tomasello rather than the ref.
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second. The match was stopped at the headgear part, and I thought that was appropriate - and I believe would be seen as appropriate by most had the kickback not been called. Cory could have won that match, the ref didn't take it from him at the end.
Which has nothing to do with what Clark did.
It is a high risk move in terms of injury. Forcing that knee to flex with something behind it that causes the joint to separate (top of tibia away from bottom of femur) is a recipe for a blown ACL. Throw in some twisting of the knee in addition to those other forces and more ligaments/parts will get gnarled up also.
With the benefit of other perspectives, still photos, etc. I don't think Clark put those types of forces on NaTo's knees (not to mention NaTo wasn't injured). From an officiating perspective (full speed, during a match, and aware of the move from earlier in the match) it was a fair call.
The real irony here, IMO, is that refs supposedly want to keep from deciding outcomes at tournament time, so they swallow their whistles and refuse to make the proper stalling calls. We saw quite a bit of that at Big Tens. Then, you have a ref insert himself directly into the outcome of this match with this obscure illegal hold call. And to compound the problem, making a non-call on a pulled headgear.
I already got two workouts in today and was 3 pounds under. I have time to worry about bad calls for a few more days.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I've already said I can forgive the ref for missing this call in the live action and real time speed of a match. What I can't forgive, is people insistent on defending this call even after having the opportunity to watch the replay. An alleged ref continues to defend this call.
A kickback where the wrestler actuals kicks out the knees/legs could indeed be risky, but the move that Clark performed was not an injury hazard at all beyond what any other normal wrestling move would be.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
We're not the athletes though. This is a discussion forum for fans. There still seems to be disagreement over whether the call was wrong or right. It's not a judgement call like stalling. The call is either correct or incorrect. If there is still dispute, then the rule book needs to be further clarified one way or the other.
Serious question, how is what Clark did any more dangerous than what Gwiazdowski did to Stoll and countless others do to try and take a guy back to the mat?
Sorry if this was already discussed on a different thread and I missed it. I was watching a replay of Cory's win again and noticed at the start of 3rd period he did a similar move as he did against Nato in Big Ten finals. I didn't agree with the call at Big Ten, but was wondering (1) was there a significant difference in the moves and (2) was anyone else surprised he would take a chance on being called again?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I noticed it as well. The difference was in the finals vs Gross, he left one of his legs planted on the mat the entire time. (In the previous match with Tomasello, both of Clarks' feet left the mat.) Definitely in the finals match, he applied force behind Gross's leg with his other foot when bringing him to the mat though. The finals match one was more "dangerous", but completely legal. Neither move he performed is illegal or should be illegal. Those are not dangerous moves.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
The move would be effective to return him to the mat and prevent an escape, but wouldn't cause him any injury, if that is your intent.
Interesting to see you come out and change your rhetoric on this all on your own. Good for you.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm, or you misread my post.
I never changed my rhetoric. Neither of the times Clark performed this move were illegal. I was explaining the difference between the move that he performed in Big Tens vs NCAAs. The one at Big Tens vs Tomasello, Clark left both feet and used his full body weight and shoulders to return Tomasello to the mat. It was an legal move that was incorrectly called illegal by the ref. In the NCAA finals, Clark left one foot on the mat. It was also a legal move, and was correctly, not called a penalty.
I was just explaining that the difference between the two moves, was that at NCAA finals, Clark left one foot on the mat.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I would love to hear Brands' opinion on the illegal call in the Big Ten tournament vs Tomasello, after he had a chance to rewatch the match. Either way, even though it shouldn't have been called illegal, I would imagine, Brands and Clark were cognizant of the risk and avoided that same situation. If Refs are going to incorrectly call it an illegal hold, then you have to be careful.
Hopefully this gets cleaned up in the off season rules changes/discussions though. The refs need to make sure they're familiar with this move and calling it correctly (and not influenced by some asshat screaming that's illegal at the top of his lungs).
FWIW - Clark has been tagged by the Refs as the PD guy for 5 years. Watch any of his matches when he's arm barring a guy over - immediately stopped - and the ref has his face in the action with exuberance waiting to call the PD. Then watch PSU Zain in the same situation and = ref dong nothing (same situation)
NATO to 125 next year? He is coming down to 125 for Freestyle and then is going to stay there for next year according to various tOSU posters. Makes me wonder if he went up to 133 to avoid Gilman. He has a notoriously difficult history dating back to High School with Gilman. Obviously, it did not work as he has failed to win a title and Clark did. However, he obviously believes he can make 125, which means he could have make 125 this year if he really wanted to, but for some reason he did not want to. Interesting.
Big time help for tOSU's lineup next year, still way behind the cats, but Nato-125, Pletcher- 133, Hayes- 141, Micah- 149... Solid.
Big time help for tOSU's lineup next year, still way behind the cats, but Nato-125, Pletcher- 133, Hayes- 141, Micah- 149... Solid.
Last edited:
Similar threads
