Someone explain to me

[tony0051]

The definition of control. Watched some of the tourney and I saw two calls that confused me. I am not a wrestler so not being argumentative.

First, guy is on bottom trying for escape. He turns into his guy and stands up. Top guy literally has one hand around the waist while standing face to face. Top guy puts second hand around him and they go out of bounds. Didn't award point for escape cause top guy is deemed to have control?

Second, Brooks at Okie St gets grabbed on a go around with 2 seconds to go in match and dude looked like he had total control of Brooks but because Brooks had his hand on an ankle they didn't give other guy the takedown.

One guy has no control and they don't give escape. Other guy has clear control and they don't give takedown. I have never wrestled and don't know rules but I can watch and determine myself if a guy is "controlling" another guy.

 

[nearfall2]

The definition of control. Watched some of the tourney and I saw two calls that confused me. I am not a wrestler so not being argumentative.

First, guy is on bottom trying for escape. He turns into his guy and stands up. Top guy literally has one hand around the waist while standing face to face. Top guy puts second hand around him and they go out of bounds. Didn't award point for escape cause top guy is deemed to have control?

Second, Brooks at Okie St gets grabbed on a go around with 2 seconds to go in match and dude looked like he had total control of Brooks but because Brooks had his hand on an ankle they didn't give other guy the takedown.

One guy has no control and they don't give escape. Other guy has clear control and they don't give takedown. I have never wrestled and don't know rules but I can watch and determine myself if a guy is "controlling" another guy.

Alright tony, I thought this was a troll job when I read your post, but it seems by your other posts that you are a basketball guy.

I did not see the Brooks deal so I can't tell you what that deal was. A lot of times a wrestler can't finish when the other wrestler has a foot because they are in a position where the almost bottom guy can still come out if the almost top guy takes any pressure off. Thus he is not in control just in a place where to the common observer he looks like he is on top.

On your other question. If I have your hip under control still then I still have control. I can still hip in and toss you back to the mat. If I start to lose my grip in that position I can step in and lock my hands. Now I am in a body lock position and still in control.

Glad you're watching. The more you understand the sport the more enjoyable it is to watch.

 

[goiahawkeyes]

It's like porn. It can be hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

 

[OILCHECKER]

One additional point, there is a difference between control and loss of control. In your first scenario, the top wrestler started in control and never technically lost control. Having one arm clearly around the waist in that situation is generally considered to still be control for the top wrestler. A lot of times, if the top wrestlers arm is still completely around his opponents waist (like grabbing his hip or love handle), a ref still considers that control. If the to wrestlers arm only comes to say the middle of the guys waist/back, then a ref will often consider that a loss of control. There's also the reaction time that is often considered as well as to whether someone has control or loss of control. Also, imagine a situation where the top wrestler started in control and is down on the mat and has a single leg or foot while the bottom wrestler is turned away and trying to mule kick out. That is still control for the wrestler that started in top. However, if both wrestlers had started in the neutral position and were now in this position, it would not be considered control (not a takedown). They are essentially in the same position in both scenario's yet one is considered control and one is not.

Yes, a lot of the rules for wrestling can be confusing for the casual or newbie wrestling fan.

 

[Birky]

To put it simply:

To gain control that was not previously there, you must(nearly) have complete control.

To lose control that is already established, you must completely lose control.

 

[Neo_Hawk]

I think there are a few ref's that might want to be asking this question today. Saw some really bad take down calls yesterday. Actually saw two back to back, same situation, similar to the Oliver-Streetbler non-take down. Guy 1 sitting on the mat with a body lock on the Guy 2 who has control of both of Guy 1's legs but has his head buried in the mat.

One was a take down almost instantly, one sat like that for 20 seconds with no call until the period ended. Tack that on to the fleeing the mat not being called and guys holding on to legs with the ref forgetting to count for the stall....pretty pathetic officiating in both the Big10s and thus far at Nattys.

 

[Grip220]

Also typically when a man in the top position has control and the bottom man turns and faces the top man instead of being hip to hip is when the loss of the control occurs. An example of this is with the whizzer if the top Man loses partial control bottom man is able to put in the Whizzer the top man still has control until he faces when in neutral typically you do not get your two points take down until the Whizzer is lost. If that makes any sence