![]() |
![]() |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Excuse but if I am here and you are here, doesnt it make it our time Mr Hand ? Jeff Spicoli And I have a rule book, I Just stated that it was different to see guys laying sideways over 90 and NOT getting back points. In ILL we would have gotten the back points. Just something I think needs to be discussed more. A lot of people have it wrong. And all I want it clearness on the rule with all officials. I know a wrestler who did a switch a few years ago in the semi finals at folkstyle nationals and was called for back exposure. Which led him to lose the semi final match. My point being I do not think all the refs, in all the states etc. Do NOT call this rule the same way. And it should be our point of emphasis next year. in officiating. And enforcing the rule. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is our time. Yours, mine and everyone else's in this room. But it is my class. - Mr. Hand. Not if I was the one officiating - unless they met near-fall criteria as defined in the rule book. Quote:
Rule 5-11, article 2, e. states: When the defensive wrestler places himself in a precarious position during an attempted escape or reversal, a near fall shall not be scored, unless the offensive wrestler has control and restrains the opponent in a pinning situ- ation for two seconds; How long did the top guy hold the "switcher" in near fall criteria? Less than 2 seconds? - Bad call. 2 seconds or more? - Correct call. Now, here you find what some might call an error in the rule book, becase it uses the term "pinning situation" - which is not defined in the definitions rule (rule 5). I would prefer it use the term "near fall criteria", but there are several places in the rule book where it loosely uses these terms semi-interchangeably. Last edited by petersenkid2; 04-17-2012 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Added one detail. |
| Sponsored Links |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|