You make the call...

Should there have been two back points awarded?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyFMDSKm9E

In case you were wondering there were none awarded as the official told Coach Carroll "It wasn't even close!"

Guilty!!

Kevin Seybold

I viewed this four times on my phone and then three times on the computer before I came up with a call. Unfortunately the official has to make the call upon seeing the situation one time. During that one time he has to decide when control has been gained and when to start counting. The official did several things right. He immediately went into his count instead of awarding the takedown first. I have seen this happen. He counted while standing instead of getting down on the mat first. I have seen this happen. I also know that he confirmed with the second official, which was making his own count in his head. I think this official gave a fast two count, confirmed with the second official and made the right call. He waited for control and made a fast two count. Put me down for takedown 2 and no back points. Although I think it may have been close, the right call was made without reviewing it seven or eight times.

When the wrestler kicked in his left leg the back point count should have started, the reversal, control and beginning of back point count happen simultaneously - it was close. It is no different than a feet to back takedown. The only question would be the timing of when the bottom wrestler broke back off of 45 degrees/exposure or criteria. The hand signals by the ref indicated a 2 count. I have always said leave no doubt in the officials eyes - another 1 second hold in that position would have left no doubt - tough call.
I did have the benefit of multiple reviews with no heat during a battle.

2+2

I would say 2 + 2

2+2

2 + 2.

As a fan of the high-flyer, Id say 2-2. I saw that one live sucks that he didn't get a state title because of that..

Looks like 2 back points to me

2 + 2

The kid lands in a bridge. That is saying "Crap, I'm in trouble" and that's when the count should start, just like on a peterson. If the count starts when the bridge starts it's a 4 count. We need an evaluation and mentoring system in place. How about hiring a lead evaluator like the NCAA does to go around the state and grade the officials. The match right before this one had an official that was threatening to call a kid for stalling for being on a knee. He did it from the opening whistle. It's getting idiotic at times. Hopefully KSHSAA will view these videos and use it as a chance to improve the sport for all the kids that work so hard. If not then what good are they?

It is easy to say 2+2 after watching the video... It is also easy to say that it cost a kid a State Championship. Truth is it could go either way and that 1/2 second is not the problem. There was an additional 5 minutes and 59 seconds that helped decide that match. The problem I saw all weekend had nothing to do with 1/2 second judgment calls. It was the 30 to 45 seconds that would go by with one wrestler having to chase the other to try for takedowns to get a win. Stalling is a must, especially in these close matches we get at state. Kids can not be allowed to get up by 2 or 3 with 45 seconds left and run the rest of the match, knowing that they will only get a stall warning, or maybe give up 1 point. I believe if a kid is running for 45 seconds he should get hit for 4 or 5 Stallings. That will help our beloved sport, make kids wrestle, not let them run to protect a lead. So in closing, yes it was a close call in that 1/2 second.... but lets worry more about the obvious 30 to 45 seconds we saw in a lot of matches.

I would say you need a better video to make the call. Yes his hand swings twice but, but almost simultaneously you get a clear view of the bottom wrestler and he is rolling over already towards his front. The book says 4 inches or 45 degrees. It's a judgement call. when does he have control, when does the kid come out of the 45 degree zone. based on the video (there has to be a better one out there), I would have to agree with the ref. Which. leads to my next question where is the rest of the video, why did it stop where it did. For anyone to make a concise review of the call you would need a better angle.

I have to agree here. If a wrestler backs out and circles for 15-20 seconds there should at least be three stall calls. Avoiding action completely is inexcuseable. Take a shot and hang on to a leg, but to dance around the other wrestler making him chase you is ridiculous. Yes, this did happen several times at the tournament and sometimes for 30-45 seconds. I have to agree this is a bigger problem than a 1/2 second slow or fast count.

Gosh Darnit!!!! This imo is the MOST FRUSTRATING thing that officials do! In this case lost Nick Haug the match! The kid was not flailing on his back, all over the place, he was steady on his back. With that being said, as an official if you swipe twice, one plus one is two!!!!! MEANING TWO SECONDS FOR TWO BACK POINTS!!! Some may argue it was a fast count or quick swipes, but specifically speaking in this match the kid was on his back for a good moment before the referee even had begun counting backs, I think this is an outrage and unfair to Nick Haug as he took the risk in this move to go towards his back and catch the kid. There must be something set in place so officials cannot yank kids purposely/accidently of a state championship. I could understand if it was less important of a match and some rudypoo tournament but, at our state championships. Lets get real, or at least get some technology in there. It is 2014.... come on now

2 + 2

He didn't cost Nick anything. He didn't take a risky move, if I understand correctly, he was behind by 3 with seconds left. This was pure desperation. Wrestlers should wrestle as hard in the first 5:50 of the match as they do in the last 10 seconds. Nobody got cheated. The official made a quick call and fixed it, in my opinion the right thing to do. This is a world of Blame, let the kid take responsibility, learn from the loss, and get better.

I've never posted on here but read things occasionally and decided to drop my 2 cents in. I have been officiating for about 12 years now and I have no problem with the call that was made. After watching the video several times I got 2 reversal and only full back count. The other back count was CLOSE!!, but he bridges/moves out of criteria before second count could be fully made. Again its up to official to determine when points should be awarded after the takedown/reversal and their has to be a point of control before you can start counting. Again this official does an excellent job, and I agree with Beeson. Put me down for 2 reversals + 0 back.

Officiate the match yourself. Don't watch the official, this is titled you make the call. Watch the wrestlers and give the points decided on how you would call it, not how the official called it. Too many of you are arguing that his arm moved twice, that shouldn't matter, what count do you give and when do you give it?

On the video from the time the left leg goes in - back point criteria has been met and control established - count to yourself "one thousand one, one thousand two" darn close - do not watch the officials arm it is late in the count. It depends on how fast you talk in your count.

I agree with Beeson. Reversal 2, no NF. It matters when the referee considers the wrestler to have established control, this is a judgment call on when he feels that control has been gained.

If you use the timer on the youtube video I think control could have been established sometime during the second between 0:07 and 0:08 when the left leg goes in and the bottom wrestlers hips begin to drop. The referee signals the reversal almost right at 0:08. This is natural because he needs to make sure the kid has control first before awarding the point. Everyone has seen a referee award reversals or takedowns too quickly only to have the other kid scramble out of it.

Let the video go forward to 0:09 second and pause it. The kid is CLEARLY out of nearfall criteria. He's at 90 degrees already by the time the referee moves so we can see it. Therefore he had to have been out of NF criteria at least an instant before the referee moves so we can see it.

Adding this time together I think it was about 1.5 sec that the kid was in NF. Therefore no NF points should be awarded. The referee appears to have a full two count but it is almost impossible for a referee to stop his arm motion at exactly the instant a kid comes out of NF criteria so his arm appears to give a full two count even though the kid came out of NF criteria. And you can see that at the 0:09 mark, the kid is out of NF criteria and the referees arm is not quite all the way extended for the full count. Even if his arm gets fully extended he has to make the decision in his mind, "did the kid come out of NF criteria before my arm was fully extended?" I think the answer is yes he did.

That analysis took about 2 minutes to do by video. The official had ONLY the moment that the move was taking place to make the call. Not to mention he had the BEST view possible of when the kid came out of NF criteria and was not obstructed. And he made the correct call in my opinion.

I don't think it is as obvious a 2 NF as the poster would have you believe. It's easy for armchair officials to not agree with a call and post it on-line and complain a wrong call was made, but in the instant the action is taking place would they be able to make the same call??? We'll never know.

Quick question. What is the difference between dancing around and backing out to shooting in and holding onto a leg? Both are stalling as I believe it says something about working to improve position doesn't it?

Shooting in and grabbing a leg is a huge position improvement over backing out and dancing around. It also gives you the opportunity to score a takedown if you want. Shooting in and grabbing a leg is stalemate the first time, stalling the second, and a point the third time. Personally, if I'm shooting three times and getting to a leg, I'm going to score at least one of those times.

Video....yes.

I'm glad it wasn't me...the official greatly complicated the situation by swinging his arm, but as others have pointed out, that's not the question. The question is were the points earned? But swinging that arm and not awarding points is never going to make you popular. And if the statement was "it wasn't close" I think it should have been "it was close."

Based on what I can see, in hindsight, being able to rewind it and look for both control and criteria (you need both), I would not give any NF points. However, if I had actually been on the mat, I could easily have been sucked into the emotion of the moment and subconsciously rewarded the kid for his last-ditch, tremendous effort and awarded the points.

I could live with myself making either call--we are talking literally about one second or less, control, and criteria. If the call had gone the other way we'd be arguing whether it was really a near-fall situation.

In these type of situations, I err on the side of making certain that the offensive wrestler actually has restraining power over the defensive wrestler and the scramble has played itself before awarding points.

Thanks for the video.

Very good analysis and explanation.

But that's not how you explained it. Didn't you say shoot in grab a leg and hold on?

I definitely seen a one count then official is in the view of the shoulders for the second count so I can't tell whether his shoulder are still meeting near fall criteria, then when the official moves again to his knee the shoulders were definitely not in near fall criteria position .. so who knows

I think first you have to give the hold a second or two to make sure control is established beyond reaction time. Then start a one count (signal the reversal later, there's time to get to that). I have a one count, then the ref is in the way of seeing exactly when the bottom wrestler comes out of the 45degrees.

Plus, we have the benefit of video replay, in real time it's WAY different scenario.

Try officiating everybody, it is not an easy job! Some of the smartest wrestling minds I know ref, and make "questionable" calls all the time. It's the nature of sports.

Ok Jerry, lets put it this way. You should not stall. You should initiate contact. I should have said "shoot and wrestle" don't dance around like a boxer or a ballerina.

I would rather see a kid lose a match hitting a move than win one by stalling.

I agree.

Find one high school coach in this state who would encourage their kids to put themselves into a potential match losing situation when up a number of points in a state tournament match.

If you do ... I might have a bridge to sell you.

So, you are a fan of stalling?

(Long post)

No not at all. Then again in a high school match there is 6 minutes in regulation, and most don't really even care about stalling if their wrestler is the offending party. There are a few coaches around the state, and I hate to drop names but I think it illustrates my point, like Jason Brown of Anderson County who actually recognizes when his own wrestlers are stalling and actually asks the referee to call his wrestler for stalling. This is in stark contrast to many others whose words to the referee is to insist they call the other guy.

Finally to my point, if a wrestler didn't do enough in the first 5:15 to 5:30 of the match to find him/herself trailing in points, you can't possibly expect the referee to throw out 2 1/2 periods worth of work by the other guy just so the other guy can have a chance.

It's sort of like the Victory formation in football. Granted there is no rule against kneeling on the ball in football, but the idea is the same. It's interesting how the ebb and flow of opinions on stalling in high school wrestling change. Lots of people clamor for stalling to be called more, and yet when it is, inevitably yet another countless post on the topic ends up on this forum when some hot shot referee "decided" the match unfairly by calling a wrestler for stalling near the end of the match.

Several years ago Missouri tried a bold experiment within its borders which essentially amounted to referees being instructed to call wrestlers for stalling in neutral for backing out of the 10 ft circle without an ensuing takedown shot attempt. The number of stall calls shot up exponentially. Within just a couple of years of that experiment they decided that was too extreme.

Bottom line is one group of people want stalling called one way, the other group wants it called the other, and ultimately both groups really only want stalling called when it benefits them or the system they teach. Much the same way that one group wants officials to "stay out of the match" and the other wants them controlling the flow of the match. If the NFHS put out a survey today asking my opinion of whether stalling was an issue in our area I would answer ... no not really.

I have ask refs in the past that have said to my wrestlers "action" or "don't back out" to quit talking to my wrestler and bang him. I would rather him learn in December or January than I would at State. It seems that alot of the times the officials won't call stalling until it gets to regionals or state and then alot of the times they wait and give the pitty warning at the end of the match. When I say I would rather see a kid lose a match hitting a move than I would see him win one by stalling maybe I should have typed slower so others could keep up. I would rather see him lose staying active and aggressive and hitting high percetage moves that stall. Better?

Very admirable,

but honestly you are in the SMALL minority of coaches who actually do that. So perhaps your attention is focused on the wrong group of individuals (the officials), when you should be focused on your counterparts in the coaching ranks.

Just think of all the times you have heard coaches at all levels across the state say things to their wrestlers like "Look where you are" , "Wrestle smart" , "Spiral RIDE", "Circle" , etc etc. These are all buzz words that coaches use to tell their wrestler to either stall or flee the mat without thinking it might be obvious to everyone else around them. Stalling is darn near encouraged universally here, and oh lord you can't imagine the conversations that happen at the table when things like fleeing the mat are called.

Just a thought.

Are you serious? Just because some coaches may encourage stalling does not make it right.The worst argument you can make is that the ref cost a kid a match by calling stalling....the kid would cost himself the match by not taking the stall warning serious and fixing the rule violation he is engaged in. It is nothing like taking a knee in football one is within the rules of the sport while the other is a clear violation. Good consistent stalling calls are not just good for the sport they are essential.

I don't know what world it is that thinks that stalling is universally encouraged but wow. Point of this whole thread was what most people on here think was a bad call and now this. How about we get crayons out just for you and start a thread called "Universal Stalling"

I will say have seen this missed call with this same move alot. Imo most refs are unsure of what just happened and are a little delayed in reaction and count. But love to see someone besides my kid use it! By the way stills works in college but the other wrestler gets real PO compared to HS when they get pinned with it!! I say 2+2.

2+2 is what I say. I saw no stalling in the clip provided. That's what this thread is about. Right?

Most people on here that have commented on this topic ... aren't high school referees, much less ones working high school state tournaments. Quite a bit different when you are the one out on the mat making the call without the benefit of replay.

Just for the record though. My opinion ... the benefit of replay is there was a takedown and no near fall, of course that depends entirely on when your judgement of when the takedown should have been awarded.

Sorry, my bad. I forgot that if you're not a ref your opinion doesn't matter. That's what alot of the problem is huh.

I would say it is divided pretty evenly on if the call is right or wrong. The only difference is, the ones who think the call was right are backing it up with why. Those who think it is a bad call are just writing 2+2, with no criteria. To me the ones with criteria for the call have a more valid point.

Not what I said at all. The point of the comment was that unless you are or have been a referee in this situation at this level with this kind of competition, it's pretty easy to claim something was a bad call.

On the flip side of that if you are or have been an official you gain a pretty healthy understanding of why the call or no call in this case was made and you transition over from labeling things good and bad to more along the lines of "well I can see where he is coming from"

2 for reversing position and 2 for back exposure. Still missed the stalling. Must have not been part of the clip. Or does someone have the criteria for that? It sure is getting a lot of play on this thread.

So again not reading my original post. I explained how on the high flyer to my understanding should have been called as if a peterson were hit. s h ou l d I t y p e sl ow er

You type plenty slow enough. You were one of the few against the call that gave a reason. Although I disagree with you on when the high flyer should be considered control and counting should start. At least you gave a reason.

I agree, Reversal +2.

The official gave a decisive, two count without hesitation or waiving it off…the official gave no rolling hand signal indicating the wrestlers rolled thru which left everyone observing to expect 2 NF points which didn’t come.

If the official truly thought it “wasn’t even close”, then, he would not have consulted his twin for his opinion (how often do we see this and have a call reversed?). Instead, he would of told the coach without consulting.

Control was established as soon as the leg was in and the count should of started at that time.

Smack. And the Waterboy knows all. hahahaha

That is your reasoning? Because his arm waved twice, he should get the two back points? Try watching it without watching the official. I'm not sure you will be able to, but try. Clearly no back points were awarded, if so the other kid would have won.

Ok, just watched the tape again and I changed my mind...it should be reversal + 3, good catch.

That is your reasoning? Because his arm waved twice, he should get the two back points?


Chad that's what that usually means. Wait did they change something? Somebody help me here. Go to your room and think about that comment young man. lol

Ok, I have a question for you that agree with the call. How many of you would have thought it was a travesty if the points would have been awarded?

I have to assume the official is making the correct call after all, he was the closest person to the action and he was obstructing my view...yes, he gave a two count and I accept that.

I can't hold it in anymore. Watch the video and try to ignore the official.... How would you score that? With the call that was made I think even the official would agree that was the wrong mechanics to use, but in my opinion I think the correct call was made. And 2 heads were used to make that decision. At the end of season I have officiated at ALL levels and all you can really say this is a CLOSE judgment call of when control was established and all...You cannot label this call as a "Bad Call", I have seen this official many times and he is one of the better ones you are going to get so trust the judgment call....And its really cliché to say but "DO NOT LEAVE IT UP TO JUDGEMENT CALLS", and there was a ton of other wrestling done in that match. The official did not blow this call...

If you question the points in your head you NEVER award them...just my opinion

There would be no travesty either way....it was a close call. One second either way. End of the match, quick action, either way it ends up being a heart-breaker for one or the other. I think in 100 matches this goes 50-50 and in most cases its not a state tournament match.

We'll never know if the official actually made a two count...for those who aren't officials, it boils down to this...the swing of the arm is not what decides points, that's just a signal for the crowd....I've seem points awarded with no swing, and I've seen guys swing the arm 10 times for a three point NF.

To go all goofy over this call is expecting a level of perfection that you aren't going to find in mere mortals.

I'm reminded of a baseball officiating story in the big leagues. At a close play, the umpire calls "safe" while giving the "out" signal. The runner looks up and says "which is it" and the umpire says "10,000 fans just saw that signal, just you and I hear it the other way, you're out."

Both wrestlers had a great tournament. I have nothing but respect for Nick Haug and the Olathe North program. This situation comes down to a judgement call. I can think of numerous calls this weekend that I wished went Wichita Northwest way, Two takedowns on the edge of the 132 finals that didn't happen and a few stalling calls. In my honest opinion the call at 145 could of went either way. I'm just glad it went Wichita's Northwest way. The ref explain that he didn't get a full 2 count. I will close by saying something I learn in kids wrestling never ever leave it in the hands of the referee. Coach Prichard Wichita Northwest

Are you the short Ashpole or the tall Ashpole? Check your PM's

This topic has started to reek of zebra supremacy. Too funny. Sure glad I can't lose a team point, get a warning or God forbid get ejected from the forum for giving my opinion. And Rford, not looking for perfection from mere mortals, that's why there are 2 officials! And I'll bet a coke you can count on one hand the number of calls that were overturned at all 3 state tournaments! There I feel much better. Sorry to get off topic.

I saw ZERO overturned at Hartman.

I saw numerous times in Salina when the two refs quickly discussed a situation & came to a good decision on a call. Happened a lot. It was great officiating, overall.

I know there are exceptions on how some feel about this, and I respect & understand that. I just feel that overall, it was well officiated and great use of both ref's judgement & discussion.

Sometimes the refs were asked by coaches to confer, other times they did it on their own.

I can think of at least one that was overturned. This one!

Why is it that High School Coaches and Officials can see that this was a close call and could have went either way, but Joe Fan is just positive someone got screwed? I have two theories: 1)Joe Fan saw a fast two count and can not get that out of his head. "If he threw his arm twice it must be two." or 2)Joe Fan like to complain about officiating, no matter how good it is. Unfortunately, a lot of fans think they know the rules, but have no idea. I don't know how many times in the last 10 years I have sat mat side and have heard a coach say, "is that really in the rules?" and yes it was. Too many fans know the basics but are ignorant in the finer points of the sport. This call is not a call that their is a right or wrong answer for. It was a close call, those are going to be made in close matches. I would have accepted either call the official made. His only fault was making a fast arm count. Which is what Joe Fan can not understand enough to get past.

I love how on other threads on this forum there is talk about the importance of bringing up and nurturing referees and how important it is to have "good" referees in our sport, and then when there is a questionable call made, the video is posted to this forum and the referee is crucified for making what he thought was the right call in a split second decision. Can you say hypocrites!?!?!?!?!?

Ummm..... but Chad, don't you fall under the Joe fan category? Awkward.

Educated Fan and Coach

I'll take that as a yes Beeson . bbd, the referee is coddled by kshsaa. They are the highest paid person involved in the match, if they can't take Joe fan running his mouth on a frickin talk forum. Well then I don't know what yo tell ya. Toughin up I guess. Have a productive day everyone. Especially you Joe fan. We're counting on you to keep this sport and talk forum going!

Coach?

I saw 1 asst. official correct a locked hands call and was told he reversed a call as the lead official. This would be the only time I saw or heard of this working. But most refs aren't like Keith Ashpole or Bob Warkentine or Mark Richards. Most have huge overinflated egos and like to try to intimidate coaches instead of doing what's best for the sport and listening to both sides. It's like hearing an official say "bottom man you gotta open up" when you question them about it you're told it's a judgement call. Well no it's not it's coaching. Not arguing that it's judgement just arguing the use of the judgement. Chad you sure you're not a ref? I'll bet you run around the house in a little refs outfit don't you? Blowing your whistle and calling Jake for stalling.

The bigest problem is that the ref gave the two count with his hand.The Official should learn from this video. To all the fans he gave two.So in turn he gave the two,than took two away.I think this is the problem.
To me if it is a very close call the wrestler attacking would get the two.In most cases the wrestler that is ahead is just trying to run out the time.So I would award the attacking wrestler the points. It comes down to,do you want the kids to attack,or just set back and win.

Charles Bradford

Most have huge overinflated egos and like to try to intimidate coaches instead of doing what's best for the sport and listening to both sides. It's like hearing an official say "bottom man you gotta open up" when you question them about it you're told it's a judgement call. Well no it's not it's coaching. Not arguing that it's judgement just arguing the use of the judgement.

I've been officiating for 20 years. I know a lot of officials. They come from all walks of life, have different backgrounds, different skill sets. Some, true, are egomaniacs. But not very many that I've run into. My experience is they are just trying to officiate the match fairly. I have never heard of the "listening to both sides" requirement for officials, and I would not suggest it to anyone getting into the sport.

Your example about "open up bottom man" is coaching and is not good mechanics. We are taught to use generic terms not directed at either wrestler--"action, center, improve." Once a penalty has been assessed, there is nothing wrong with explaining why--"you are backing up" and that's preventative officating and only fair. I used to tell the wrestlers "stay in bounds" when on their feet and thought that was OK, but its not, its really coaching them so I stopped. They are free to go out of bounds, just so long as they get warned for stalling or pointed for fleeing if that's what it is.

I will say that inexperienced, not young always, officials can tend to be or get defensive. Particularly if they do have a bad match and the coach is all over them. It tends to snowball and the best coaches know that getting an official rattled is not going to make the day go better. Inexperienced coaches and inexperienced officials can end up being a real circus.

I can speak from experience that there are coaches who when they take you to the table you know you've misapplied the rule. And there are others that you just know are nuts.

But telling a kid 4 times to quit backing out with no warning is what is happening more and more with the " preventative officiating" cop out. I have actually seen an official throw another official out of a tournament. Circus? Egomaniac? Or both.

So i to assume that you believe more officials are egomaniacs than are not?

I agree. Stalling is a perennial problem. When we have a coach come to our officials' meetings, that is always a topic. There is little consistency. I think a lot of officials make the easy stalling calls when it doesn't matter and try to avoid them in a close match because of the fall-out from the "judgment" call.

The call that always bugs me is where the kids come to their feet in the rear-standing position. After a few seconds you'll hear someone shout "he has to return him!" (which is not the rule) and then the official calls stalling on the offensive wrestler. That is incorrect. The rule says you must make an effort to return, not that you must return him. So if the kid is working to get back to the mat that's not stalling, even if it goes on for a while. There used to be a five second rule...many years ago...and that seems to be what some still use. If the two kids where really working hard you could have the entire period play out in that position without a legitimate stall call...but you'll rarely see an official let that go for more than about 10 seconds, and even if the defensive kid is the just bracing and preventing the return, the offensive wrestler gets dinged because of the misperception that there is an obligation to return him rather than simply to make an honest effort. It's not a big deal, but its one of those situations that repeatedly comes up (like "free move!" on locked hands) that has not supported by the rule but gets called.

There is no authority for one official to remove another official. The host administration can always pull the plug on you, I suppose. There's also no "head official" in the rule book.

I said nothing about about KSHSAA or the officials pay, I am talking about the hypocrisy of "certain" individuals on this forum.