Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 hours ago, pokemonster said:

What kinda bs reversal is that? Bartlett would've changed his wrestling approach at the end if he didn't think he had criteria. Ridic. 

So what I’ve been wondering is how is it that everyone involved in the match forgot that there was a criteria winning caution JUST THREE SECONDS AGO. The caution was even marked on the board  

Seriously the ref, athletes, coaches all just……forgot. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So what I’ve been wondering is how is it that everyone involved in the match forgot that there was a criteria winning caution JUST THREE SECONDS AGO. The caution was even marked on the board  

Seriously the ref, athletes, coaches all just……forgot. 

I think it was marked incorrectly. I believe the table incorrectly put the caution under Lee causing the advantage underlining to go under Bartlett. Mass confusion ensues.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
22 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I think it was marked incorrectly. I believe the table incorrectly put the caution under Lee causing the advantage underlining to go under Bartlett. Mass confusion ensues.

None the less, did the ref forget who he awarded the caution too. Did the athletes and coaches forget who just back straight out avoiding just three seconds ago. I get was mass confusion I’m just again surprised that EVERYONE  in the match forgot who just got cautioned three seconds ago. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Ummm no.

The scoreboard is wrong and has Bartlett winning.  Get the scoreboard right, you don't have an issue.

Pretty simple.

 18934a81090bc4e7ecbe852f7f660ec8.jpg

Although it appears the graphic might be correct given the notch by Lee's 10.

Posted
9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

None the less, did the ref forget who he awarded the caution too. Did the athletes and coaches forget who just back straight out avoiding just three seconds ago. I get was mass confusion I’m just again surprised that EVERYONE  in the match forgot who just got cautioned three seconds ago. 

I wonder if the fact that it was two NLWC guys that added to the coaches confusion?  

"Yeah! Nick forced him to back out! Go NLWC!!!"

Posted
Just now, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Is that notch for cautions?

That could be. Which makes more sense since the graphic comes from the same network as the scoreboard.

Posted
1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

None the less, did the ref forget who he awarded the caution too. Did the athletes and coaches forget who just back straight out avoiding just three seconds ago. I get was mass confusion I’m just again surprised that EVERYONE  in the match forgot who just got cautioned three seconds ago. 

I get it how it happens. You look at the board, it has Bartlett underlined, you know the rules are confusing and there is software involved that sorts it out quickly and accurately. You don't automatically think that there may have been an input error. But someone somewhere said hold on a second, wasn't it Bartlett who was cautioned and didn't it end 10-10? Doesn't that mean that Lee won? And then discussions were had and the error was fixed. Kinda. Sorta.

It still look inconsistent to me on the score sheet. If you look at the score sheet on page 1 of this thread it says at the top that Lee won by VPO1, which I believe means victory by points (VPO) with the opponent having scored points (1). But if you look at the detail below there is a red 0 in Nick Lee's column. The 0 indicates a caution, but I think they normally put that in the column of the person receiving the caution, not the person who benefits from the caution (presumably that is why it is red?).

The software sees the red 0 and underlines Bartlett's name. Everyone knows the software is programmed correctly so they raise Bartlett's hand. 

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted

Another possibility is that since the software is Flo, the matside scorer may have been more used to Track. In track you click on the guy getting the point, in Flo you click on the guy being penalized- so people sometimes do it backwards when they go back and forth.

  • Fire 4
Posted
8 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Another possibility is that since the software is Flo, the matside scorer may have been more used to Track. In track you click on the guy getting the point, in Flo you click on the guy being penalized- so people sometimes do it backwards when they go back and forth.

I once again publicly offer my professional services, which I have also privately offered, to direct the Flo product operations. Apparently my services leading in the F100 sector isn't good enough though.

  • Fire 1

i am an idiot on the internet

Posted
On 4/28/2023 at 10:39 AM, BAC said:

Not many rule changes I'd make in freestyle, but one I'd definitely make is to add OT.  

If you can have a situation where the people who are closest to the sport -- the scorekeepers, coaches, refs and competitors -- don't know who won a given match, that's a problem with the rules.  

At MINIMUM, if there's no OT, change it to simply "last score wins" in the case of a tie, without all this weighting/ranking BS.

UWW needs to fix this.  We're nearing an Olympic cycle, we've already been dropped once, and the IOC has made it clear that whatchability is a central factor.  If viewers can't tell who is winning or who won, they tune out.

I know it's exciting, but the huge point swings on what seems to be subjective calls always have me confused. I.e. the Zahid / Brooks match, looked like Zahid scored more than 4 on the first exchange and it was just like it never happened. Many examples of exchanges like this that can decide the outcomes of matches throughout the tourney too. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...