ADVERTISEMENT

Officiating in Crisis

He makes a swipe for NF @ 1:31 which was 2 seconds of reaction time, the TD should have been awarded at 1:33 or 1:32 making the NF count valid at 1:31. The ref actually gives the TD at 1:29 4 seconds of reaction time.
He indicates control by Penn at 1:28 and doesn’t give an escape until 1:15. He forgot to give the TD and decides to negate the whole thing because he screwed up? SMH.
 
LOL, I would've waived that off too. Reaction time. I'm glad I'm not a ref.

Somebody get Yagla on the horn. What does he say?
 
Reaction time is waaay off right now.
Pyles had a good comment about this in his review of the PSU/OSU dual. He stated what you’re saying, adding there hasn’t been any changes to the rules concerning reaction time, yet we are seeing changes to reaction time. The trend seems to be officials adding prolonged reaction time before awarding TD’s. If wrestlers are going to their back it shouldn’t reset reaction time. Officials need to define reaction time as written and stick to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sdvike
I went back to the Hall (speaking of) v Kemerer match because that was also no TD but the main difference is Kemerer's hips were down and he was rolling through. On Friday night and this one, these guys are fighting off of their back. I think Friday's should have been 3 and this one is 3 and 2.

In freestyle, that's 4 no ifs ands or buts. Just saying.
 
Pyles had a good comment about this in his review of the PSU/OSU dual. He stated what you’re saying, adding there hasn’t been any changes to the rules concerning reaction time, yet we are seeing changes to reaction time. The trend seems to be officials adding prolonged reaction time before awarding TD’s. If wrestlers are going to their back it shouldn’t reset reaction time. Officials need to define reaction time as written and stick to it.
Upon further review of my original post:

Edit: Pyles needs to read the rules.

NCAA Wrestling Rulebook 2023-24 & 2024-25 Rulebook
Rules are changed every 2 years.

Rule 2 Definitions Section 2
Art. 12. 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 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.

Another words EACH referee has carte blanche to determine their individual interpretation of reaction time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gusaford
Head of NCAA officiating has explained or advised that you essentially say to yourself "reaction time" followed by signaling a TD or counting swipes. So, if you have time to say that, then you are beyond reaction time and you should award points or start counting nf.
 
I think it's playing out similar to what CP is saying, at least to my untrained eye. When the defending wrestler changes defensive position (like diving to their back), they're restarting reaction time in their heads. It's insane.
 
plus any time a guy goes from feet to back by any move initiated by the offensive wrestler, it should be a takedown. That is how you help create action. You reward the guy taking the risk. What incentive is there to try a throw, if you need to hold the guy there for 5 seconds until the ref awards the takedown and then start counting.
Any time a guy has to fight off his back, it should be a takedown. Now if he dives to his own back from a neutral and non threatening position, that is different. However, if I initiate the position, then it should be points for me.
 
Reaction time is provided in all situations except 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.
What a poorly written rule! It defines what reaction time isn't and then says each individual referee can determine what it in fact is. It's as though the people who wrote the rule couldn't agree on how to define reaction time so they just punted.
 
What a poorly written rule! It defines what reaction time isn't and then says each individual referee can determine what it in fact is. It's as though the people who wrote the rule couldn't agree on how to define reaction time so they just punted.
I generally agree, but can also see that no matter how you try and write it, there are just so many unique situations on the mat that it's impossible to write a sentence or 2 that objectively covers it all. Some subjectivity is a reality. But I also agree the refs can do a much better job than they are now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bones Malone
Upon further review of my original post:

Edit: Pyles needs to read the rules.

NCAA Wrestling Rulebook 2023-24 & 2024-25 Rulebook
Rules are changed every 2 years.

Rule 2 Definitions Section 2
Art. 12. 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 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.

Another words EACH referee has carte blanche to determine their individual interpretation of reaction time.

Am I the only one who thinks it's insane to have a rule written as "X rule is determined by each individual referee"?
 
Head of NCAA officiating has explained or advised that you essentially say to yourself "reaction time" followed by signaling a TD or counting swipes. So, if you have time to say that, then you are beyond reaction time and you should award points or start counting nf.
Under that guidance, both the PSU OSU Dual and the video posted by OP should've been a takedown (and arguably nearfall points).
 
LOL, I would've waived that off too. Reaction time. I'm glad I'm not a ref.

Somebody get Yagla on the horn. What does he say?

Wait you serious? That's wild to me. Reaction time shouldn't equal bridging off your back for that long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
What a poorly written rule! It defines what reaction time isn't and then says each individual referee can determine what it in fact is. It's as though the people who wrote the rule couldn't agree on how to define reaction time so they just punted.
You beat me to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gusaford
I went back to the Hall (speaking of) v Kemerer match because that was also no TD but the main difference is Kemerer's hips were down and he was rolling through. On Friday night and this one, these guys are fighting off of their back. I think Friday's should have been 3 and this one is 3 and 2.

In freestyle, that's 4 no ifs ands or buts. Just saying.
Exactly. Kem-Hall was continuous motion without Hall having secured control over Kem’s hips or weight on the mat (because Kem was instantaneously rolling through). We intellects call this a “scramble”. 😉

In a feet-to-back scenario, or even a routine scramble, you get only one shot to roll off your back in a fashion that extends continuous motion. If you pause, or worse yet, cease that motion, plant your feet, and then pivot to try to bridge or roll back in the opposite direction, you are then engaged in what we intellects call “fighting off your back”.

If you are fighting off your back, it means your opponent has established control over you. We intellects call that a “takedown”.

Next week’s lesson:
Rocket surgery
 
Exactly. Kem-Hall was continuous motion without Hall having secured control over Kem’s hips or weight on the mat (because Kem was instantaneously rolling through). We intellects call this a “scramble”. 😉

In a feet-to-back scenario, or even a routine scramble, you get only one shot to roll off your back in a fashion that extends continuous motion. If you pause, or worse yet, cease that motion, plant your feet, and then pivot to try to bridge or roll back in the opposite direction, you are then engaged in what we intellects call “fighting off your back”.

If you are fighting off your back, it means your opponent has established control over you. We intellects call that a “takedown”.

Next week’s lesson:
Rocket surgery

Well said. These refs need to read this. It's insane that they're getting this wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inthecircle
I’m actually for more subjectivity given to the officials with these calls. The more there is a set criteria for something like stalling they seem to swallow their whistle. Hate the 5 count on the ankle hold but no count on an ankle hook. Both are stalling. I’d be in favor of freestyle like passivity and shot clock. Definitely creates action.
 
I’m actually for more subjectivity given to the officials with these calls. The more there is a set criteria for something like stalling they seem to swallow their whistle. Hate the 5 count on the ankle hold but no count on an ankle hook. Both are stalling. I’d be in favor of freestyle like passivity and shot clock. Definitely creates action.

This makes zero sense.
 
I’m actually for more subjectivity given to the officials with these calls. The more there is a set criteria for something like stalling they seem to swallow their whistle. Hate the 5 count on the ankle hold but no count on an ankle hook. Both are stalling. I’d be in favor of freestyle like passivity and shot clock. Definitely creates action.

Totally agree on the ankle hook. You're not working on a fall and you're not trying to break your man down. You're just sitting on an ankle running the clock down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
It’s Monday and I’ve only had 1 cup of coffee so not sure if this is sarcasm. If not let’s hear it

You don't enforce rules more consistently through subjectivity. For example, the backing out of bounds rule was subjective for years and rarely called stalling. It was written into the rulebook objectively about 7 years ago and is now called much more consistently (though still not perfect).

Also the passivity rule in freestyle objectively has to be called if there hasn't been any scoring. The subjective part is the ref choosing who to call passive, but objectively the ref has no choice but to call someone for passivity.
 
You don't enforce rules more consistently through subjectivity. For example, the backing out of bounds rule was subjective for years and rarely called stalling. It was written into the rulebook objectively about 7 years ago and is now called much more consistently (though still not perfect).

Also the passivity rule in freestyle objectively has to be called if there hasn't been any scoring. The subjective part is the ref choosing who to call passive, but objectively the ref has no choice but to call someone for passivity.
We’re gonna have to disagree if you think backing out is called consistently it’s still complete garbage. Personally I think it should just go to a push out it’s all edge stalling.

I never said get rid of objectivity im saying the passivity rule set from neutral in my opinion is superior. If nobody is scoring from neutral I’d prefer the referee having the discretion and somebody is forced to score. I’m not a a scrap folkstyle person. After watching it since Covid I just think it works better. After 20 plus years of complaints for refs to “just call stalling” it’s apparent that it’s not going to change. Just my opinion
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
I never said get rid of objectivity im saying the passivity rule set from neutral in my opinion is superior. If nobody is scoring from neutral I’d prefer the referee having the discretion and somebody is forced to score. I’m not a a scrap folkstyle person. After watching it since Covid I just think it works better. After 20 plus years of complaints for refs to “just call stalling” it’s apparent that it’s not going to change. Just my opinion

That's the thing though, the passivity rule is objectively required to be called in a no score match. The only discretion the ref has is on who to call passive. They have no discretion on whether to call passivity or not. The reason action is enforced in freestyle is primarily due to there being more objectivity than subjectivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
Exactly. Kem-Hall was continuous motion without Hall having secured control over Kem’s hips or weight on the mat (because Kem was instantaneously rolling through). We intellects call this a “scramble”. 😉

In a feet-to-back scenario, or even a routine scramble, you get only one shot to roll off your back in a fashion that extends continuous motion. If you pause, or worse yet, cease that motion, plant your feet, and then pivot to try to bridge or roll back in the opposite direction, you are then engaged in what we intellects call “fighting off your back”.

If you are fighting off your back, it means your opponent has established control over you. We intellects call that a “takedown”.

Next week’s lesson:
Rocket surgery
This! Continuous movement in one direction.
 
We’re gonna have to disagree if you think backing out is called consistently it’s still complete garbage. Personally I think it should just go to a push out it’s all edge stalling.

I never said get rid of objectivity im saying the passivity rule set from neutral in my opinion is superior. If nobody is scoring from neutral I’d prefer the referee having the discretion and somebody is forced to score. I’m not a a scrap folkstyle person. After watching it since Covid I just think it works better. After 20 plus years of complaints for refs to “just call stalling” it’s apparent that it’s not going to change. Just my opinion
Agree on the pushout, not sure why some would be against it. Solves the whole edge wrestling problem, the backing out stalling subjectivity too.
 
Mike McCormick, the National Coordinator of Wrestling Officials, sent out the following announcement following this weekend's NCAA wrestling action.
Officials and Coaches:

"As a reminder, the only rule change this season regarding reaction time in takedown situations applies to the rear standing position / hand touch takedown, which has been eliminated. In all other takedown situations, reaction time still exists.

"During the last two weeks of wrestling competition, there were several scramble situations from the neutral position where takedowns were or were not awarded. In one of these situations, a takedown should have been awarded as control was established beyond reaction time. In another situation, a takedown was awarded and then withdrawn after video review and conference with the assistant official. To be clear, reaction time should not have been the determining factor in the awarding of a takedown in either situation.

All officials strive to apply the wrestling rules fairly and consistently. Week after week, hundreds of excellent calls are made. Unfortunately, officials are not infallible and on occasion, erroneous calls may occur. This presents an opportunity for all officials to learn and work to improve and collectively, we remain committed to excellence in officiating."
 
Mike McCormick, the National Coordinator of Wrestling Officials, sent out the following announcement following this weekend's NCAA wrestling action.
Officials and Coaches:

"As a reminder, the only rule change this season regarding reaction time in takedown situations applies to the rear standing position / hand touch takedown, which has been eliminated. In all other takedown situations, reaction time still exists.

"During the last two weeks of wrestling competition, there were several scramble situations from the neutral position where takedowns were or were not awarded. In one of these situations, a takedown should have been awarded as control was established beyond reaction time. In another situation, a takedown was awarded and then withdrawn after video review and conference with the assistant official. To be clear, reaction time should not have been the determining factor in the awarding of a takedown in either situation.

All officials strive to apply the wrestling rules fairly and consistently. Week after week, hundreds of excellent calls are made. Unfortunately, officials are not infallible and on occasion, erroneous calls may occur. This presents an opportunity for all officials to learn and work to improve and collectively, we remain committed to excellence in officiating."
So how should this interpreted? Reaction was over, move on to control?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT