Can Levi Haines realistically win NCAAs this year?

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, gimpeltf said:

You definitely live up to your reputation here. Never said anything remotely resembling that. All I said was he needs time to react. I didn't say how long that is. That's up to the official and the situation.

I didn't say you said that.  I am offering another example to show how absurd the result can be if you always require reaction time.

In my hypo, according to you, you would say no TD because he didn't get time to react?

[gimpeltf]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

I didn't say you said that.  I am offering another example to show how absurd the result can be if you always require reaction time.

In my hypo, according to you, you would say no TD because he didn't get time to react?

Wow, you always require reaction time because the rules say so other than hand touch.

Nothing elkse to add.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, gimpeltf said:

Wow, you always require reaction time because the rules say so other than hand touch.

Nothing elkse to add.

Just answer the question directly please.  It sounds like you are saying you would call no take down in this hypo where Robb has both ankles and Haines falls directly on his butt with 0:01 on the clock.

[Mr. PeanutButter]

I've been holding out but I think it's officially time to hop on the bandwagon. 

Yes, he has a realistic chance of winning it all. I would still favor O'Conner at this point though. 

I'm deeply intrigued by a Haines-Andonian match-up.

[1032004]

53 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Ok, so let's say with 3 seconds left Robb shoots and has both of Haines' knees or ankles.  Haines fall backward and at 0:01 left his butt hits the mat.  Robb is hugging both legs and Haines is sitting up.  Are you claiming this is no TD because you have to give Haines time to react?

I think almost this exact situation happened this year and was called no TD, but can’t remember the match.  I believe it was Angel Rivera, maybe Iowa

[LIV4GOD]

1 hour ago, gimpeltf said:

And your entire argument here is irrelevant. IT ISN'T A HAND TOUCH SITUATION! You need reaction time. So the argument revolves around when to call control. You can't do that from standing. And then you have to factor in Haines reacting away. If he had hip heisted out, it wouldn't have been a td. The fact that he didn't is irrelevant to when you would wait to determine that he didn't. And with the ref's leg in the way we can't really see when Robb's feet left the cylinder.

I know it's not a hand touch situation. 

Haines did have reaction time, and that reaction yielded zero loss of control by Robb.  He had him dead to rights.  And you need to look at more video, because other angles show exactly what is going on as his feet left the cylinder. 

Good grief, he picks his guy up, not at the legs but all the way up on his mid body, puts him flat to hit butt and back, doesn't lose any control as times runs out, and the guy gets zero points for it.  He had control of him like a rag doll.  It's wrong.  

Edited March 6, 2023 by LIV4GOD

[gimpeltf]

51 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Just answer the question directly please.  It sounds like you are saying you would call no take down in this hypo where Robb has both ankles and Haines falls directly on his butt with 0:01 on the clock.

One situation has nothing to do with the other.

[VakAttack]

This rule is, by definition, amorphous and up to interpretation.  Unless you have a vested interest in the party getting taken down, we should all want that Robb-Haines situation to be called a TD.  I hate to side with the pastry, but his example is a solid one: if Robb grabs both ankles and Haines falls on his butt and they slide out of bounds, that would be called a TD.  This is even more clear control than that.  I clearly have no vested interest, I have no love for Penn State and half of my posts now are in response to some goof telling me I'm a dumb shit for saying Iowa is better than Nebraska as they have no beaten them by 28 in their head to head dual and 30 in this tournament.  This is not a "bad rule, correct call" situation since the rule is, inherently, not bright line; it's subjective.

[gimpeltf]

He doesn't have reaction time because it takes ten seconds to go through it frame by frame. The clock showed two seconds through it all. Why I say these other scenarios are irrelevant to this is because I see something in Haines reaction. Landing on your butt from a double doesn't allow for much else to happen. Again people look at the video, it doesn't look to me like his butt is down on the mat- at least not firmly. He's pushing up with hands and feet to fight out of the hold. He's turning towards Robb. He's trying to hip heist. The fact that he wasn't successful in the end and this would likely have been 2 in the center with the same amount of time left doesn't mean 2 should be given here. When Haines landed back down he twisted away pulling Robb off with the whizzer. (I saw another angle from above)

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

He doesn't have reaction time because it takes ten seconds to go through it frame by frame. The clock showed two seconds through it all. Why I say these other scenarios are irrelevant to this is because I see something in Haines reaction. Landing on your butt from a double doesn't allow for much else to happen. Again people look at the video, it doesn't look to me like his butt is down on the mat- at least not firmly. He's pushing up with hands and feet to fight out of the hold. He's turning towards Robb. He's trying to hip heist. The fact that he wasn't successful in the end and this would likely have been 2 in the center with the same amount of time left doesn't mean 2 should be given here. When Haines landed back down he twisted away pulling Robb off with the whizzer. (I saw another angle from above)

Again, this is subjective, though.  Haines got planted by a guy with a body lock.  Do you think that's truly more control than a guy who has two ankles and the rest of your body is untouched?  I don't.

[gimpeltf]

Just now, VakAttack said:

Again, this is subjective, though.  Haines got planted by a guy with a body lock.  Do you think that's truly more control than a guy who has two ankles and the rest of your body is untouched?  I don't.

Definitely subjective. It's not about who has more control, it's about who has more of an option to react.  Haines was reacting. Generally a guy that was brought down by a double to his butt isn't as likely to try anything.

[VakAttack]

Just now, gimpeltf said:

Definitely subjective. It's not about who has more control, it's about who has more of an option to react.  Haines was reacting. Generally a guy that was brought down by a double to his butt isn't as likely to try anything.

I guess we're just on different sides of this debate.  That's fine.  Maybe college wrestling needs some form of continuation to make it more clear.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

2 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Definitely subjective. It's not about who has more control, it's about who has more of an option to react.  Haines was reacting. Generally a guy that was brought down by a double to his butt isn't as likely to try anything.

That's the thing though.  Given Haines' position and Robb's control of him,  giving him 2-3 seconds to "react" wouldn't have changed anything.  There was nothing Haines could have done from that position to avoid the TD.  Imagine if the same sequence happens but they land in the middle of the mat instead.  Can you imagine that situation not ending in a TD for Robb?

If your answer is "well, but his feet would be in bounds in the center" that's irrelevant as Robb's feet stayed in bounds during the actual sequence too.

[Dogbone]

2 hours ago, 82bordeaux said:

So you are saying a good referee would ignore the clear written rule on the definition of control, and use his "common sense" instead?

I don't see any downside here at all.

Please point me to this "clear written rule of definition of control" that you speak of.... 

This what referees do, apply the rules that don't cover every exact situation (the rule book would be 1000s of pages long) and apply them to the action they see.  All I am arguing is that they should use common sense when APPLYING the rules.  No one has stated they should ignore anything. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dogbone]

Here is the definition of reaction time:

Reaction time is determined by each individual referee
and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous�

Robb certainly had control inbounds for a period of time that is not instantaneous.   The only subjective part (again, this is all subjective and not some made up "clear definition of control") is what is enough "reaction" time? 

There isn't a "reaction" from Levi that will prevent the TD (on his butt with Robb's arms locked around him), only the out of bounds will save him.

I'm arguing that if there is a clear TD inbound and nothing can prevent the TD from occurring, it should be a takedown. 

If you believe Levi should be given some courtesy undefined amount of time to avoid the TD, regardless of how impossible it would be to achieve, and they went out of bounds before Levi could get said time then we will just have to agree to disagree. 

[82bordeaux]

15 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Here is the definition of reaction time:

Reaction time is determined by each individual referee
and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous�

Robb certainly had control inbounds for a period of time that is not instantaneous.   The only subjective part (again, this is all subjective and not some made up "clear definition of control") is what is enough "reaction" time? 

There isn't a "reaction" from Levi that will prevent the TD (on his butt with Robb's arms locked around him), only the out of bounds will save him.

I'm arguing that if there is a clear TD inbound and nothing can prevent the TD from occurring, it should be a takedown. 

If you believe Levi should be given some courtesy undefined amount of time to avoid the TD, regardless of how impossible it would be to achieve, and they went out of bounds before Levi could get said time then we will just have to agree to disagree. 

The problem is, when you go to review the sequence there is 2 seconds left on the clock when Haines' butt hits the mat. When the sequence continues to where Robb's toes are out of bounds, there is still 2 seconds showing on the clock. So you're asking a ref to determine what is or is not defensible in tenths of a second.

If he had that much control, hold him there for a second. One second. But he didn't. The action took them out of bounds in less than that amount of time. There were 2 officials there that were in agreement from the beginning and after the review.

I'm not arguing if it is a good rule. Just that is the rule as written and explained.

 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Another way to look at it: the takedown that Haines had to win the bout in OT.  Imagine that happens but at the edge of the mat.  Robb hits the mat with 0:01 left in SV.  According to the logic presented by some in this thread it should be not be a takedown because Robb needs to be afforded reaction time to defend.  Therefore, no TD and on we go.

Does that sound like the right result?

[Dogbone]

13 minutes ago, 82bordeaux said:

The problem is, when you go to review the sequence there is 2 seconds left on the clock when Haines' butt hits the mat. When the sequence continues to where Robb's toes are out of bounds, there is still 2 seconds showing on the clock. So you're asking a ref to determine what is or is not defensible in tenths of a second.

If he had that much control, hold him there for a second. One second. But he didn't. The action took them out of bounds in less than that amount of time. There were 2 officials there that were in agreement from the beginning and after the review.

I'm not arguing if it is a good rule. Just that is the rule as written and explained.

 

Please show me the rule that is written that he has to hold him there for a full second?? By that definition you will never have TD with :01 left of clock unless it is secured with :02 left on the clock.  

And if you believe that just because 2 officials don't overturn their own call means they applied the rule correctly, then you must believe there has never been a bad call ever.  

[1032004]

27 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Another way to look at it: the takedown that Haines had to win the bout in OT.  Imagine that happens but at the edge of the mat.  Robb hits the mat with 0:01 left in SV.  According to the logic presented by some in this thread it should be not be a takedown because Robb needs to be afforded reaction time to defend.  Therefore, no TD and on we go.

Does that sound like the right result?

Yes like I said I’m fairly certain this exact situation happened this year 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

That's the thing though.  Given Haines' position and Robb's control of him,  giving him 2-3 seconds to "react" wouldn't have changed anything.  There was nothing Haines could have done from that position to avoid the TD.  Imagine if the same sequence happens but they land in the middle of the mat instead.  Can you imagine that situation not ending in a TD for Robb?

No, but unfortunately we weren’t able to find out since he went out of bounds

[Not134]

I thought it was 2, but no one called for my opinion.  Regardless Robb had time to get another takedown that was less ambiguous, and he did not.  It was a good match and I think that in addition to 157 being uncharacteristically weak this year, Haines has an opportunity to win it all - the kid is good.  Last thing - for those predicting O'Connor, he and Robb wrestled at the start of the 2021-22 season in Lincoln and Robb was victorious.  This was after O'Connor's National Title at 149 so the move up to 157, in addition to early season, could have affected the outcome.  Even so, Robb has beaten O'Connor.

[82bordeaux]

6 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Please show me the rule that is written that he has to hold him there for a full second??

You are the one saying he had unequivocal instantaneous control. I was only trying to put a context to it. The one second was the minimum video proof that there was reaction time. If the clock had tenths, then we could argue over tenths. But if he had that much control that a rule should be ignored, hold yourself in bounds for one tick of the clock. The fact is, there wasn't that level of control. people are going bat shit because everyone that has ever watched a wrestling match knows that had that happened in the center of the mat, there is no way it doesn't end up 2. But it was on the edge, and they went out of bounds instantaneously.

We both agree it is not a great rule. You feel a good official ignores the rule as written, where I say a good official follows the rule as written until it is changed.

[scourge165]

6 hours ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Did you watch the match again including the 2 slow motion replays at different angles?  I am a Penn State fan but even I can admit that was a clear 2 for Robb.

Yeah...which is what makes your little...game so weird and annoying. 

 

'Can the Freshmen who just won the B1Gs win the NCs...and lets start that talk off by a TD that Robb COULD have gotten but didn't because of this thing called reaction time in our sport!'

 

How many threads will you start about how PSU probably can't win the team title this week? I'm guessing one thread per returning champ and their losses. One about how Kerk has no chance to win it. One about how Bartlett's ceiling is Rd of 12.

There's Ride or Die...and there's Jimmy.

 

[scourge165]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

No, but unfortunately we weren’t able to find out since he went out of bounds

I don't understand "what if this was in the middle," argument. It wasn't. It was on the edge. And yeah, I think he might scramble out of it in the Middle...it also just...doesn't matter because...he WASN'T IN THE MIDDLE!

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I don't understand "what if this was in the middle," argument. It wasn't. It was on the edge. And yeah, I think he might scramble out of it in the Middle...it also just...doesn't matter because...he WASN'T IN THE MIDDLE!

My point is arguing that there should be different rules for the edge of the mat and the rest of the mat is silly and stupid, when Robb clearly had one or two feet in bounds the entire time.