Princeton " Headgear toss"...Tough way to Lose Dual

[feet2back]

The 

[feet2back]

Princeton would have Won the Dual on Criteria without the deducted team point...Princeton and Rider are 8 miles apart and a big dual in NJ

[CHROMEBIRD]

That's wild, but OTOH the team point deduction didn't happen on the last match and Princeton FFT 133. Not sure why.

[BigRedFan]

5 minutes ago, Coastal said:

Wasn't what constitutes a headgear toss a new rule this season?

"Clarification" of an existing rule.

Art. 1. Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking ear protection or any other piece of equipment (regardless of anger, excitement or ebullience), failure to stop on the whistle, indicating excessive displeasure with a call, excessive celebration involving a vulgar act, failing to comply with postmatch procedures, spitting or blowing of nose (into other than designated receptacles and repositories), having competition uniform straps down while still inside the competition circle or other acts generally considered by the referee to be distasteful to spectators, coaches and fellow competitors.

[alex1fly]

Wow that's barely a toss and got them a deducted team point? Lame

[bracketbuster]

As much as people don't like the rule, there are coaches on the rules committee that put this into place. I think you can even see one of the Princeton coaches scramble to grab the headgear and hand it back before the ref saw because they were aware of the rule.

Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking ear protection or any other piece of equipment (regardless of anger, excitement or ebullience), failure to stop on the whistle, indicating excessive displeasure with a call, excessive celebration involving a vulgar act, failing to comply with postmatch procedures, spitting or blowing of nose (into other than designated receptacles and repositories), having competition uniform straps down while still inside the competition circle or other acts generally considered by the referee to be distasteful to spectators, coaches and fellow competitors.

Rationale: To clarify that all equipment is to remain in the possession of the wrestlers until they leave the mat. The current rule only addresses “aggressively throwing ear protection” which is ambiguous and left to each individual official’s interpretation that has consequently resulted in inconsistent enforcement of the rule.

[SocraTease]

What a BS rule and even worse instance of enforcement. The wrestler was basically off the mat and tossed the headgear down.  He didn't throw it at anyone.  He didn't belittle anyone.  He didn't taunt anyone.  The ref could have just ignored it or moved on to the next match instead of actively inserting himself into what was a deciding event in the outcome of a good dual.

And please don't give me that "a rule is a rule" nonsense because rules are always subject to interpretation and/or enforcement.  That is the same blind "reasoning" folks use to defend a "a law is a law" when the "law" is unjust, immoral, or counter to community well-being.  

Would you, for example, like cameras at every intersection so that you receive a fine in the mail if you jaywalk at midnight when no cars are coming?  Well ... you did break a law, right?  

There is a difference, too, between the "letter" of the rule (law) and the "spirit" of the rule (law).  Literalists (with respect to laws, rules, texts, the Constitution, the Bible, and actions, etc.) almost always reveal that they have no moral imagination and no sense of ambiguity, nuance, or subtlety.  It is a sign of adolescent and black & white thinking.   In a word, ethical immaturity melded with authoritarianism.

Edited January 26 by SocraTease

[CHROMEBIRD]

16 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking ear protection or any other piece of equipment (regardless of anger, excitement or ebullience), failure to stop on the whistle, indicating excessive displeasure with a call, excessive celebration involving a vulgar act, failing to comply with postmatch procedures, spitting or blowing of nose (into other than designated receptacles and repositories), having competition uniform straps down while still inside the competition circle or other acts generally considered by the referee to be distasteful to spectators, coaches and fellow competitors.

Fortunately, wrestlers are allowed to spike themselves after a big match

[2001Hokie]

He actually looks like he DROPPED the headgear, and that was once he got out of the circle.  That's not even letter of the law...it's incorrect based on it having to be tossed, slide, thrown, etc.  It doesn't say anywhere in there about dropping it.  

[2001Hokie]

1 minute ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

Fortunately, wrestlers are allowed to spike themselves after a big match

True...but only if the headgear doesn't come off!

[Antitroll2828]

If they didn’t take a point for Vince Robinson taunting the nc bench and crowd I don’t think the Princeton wrestler deserved it but that being said I’ll take it go Rider 8-4 on the year with 5 straight wins. 

[MidwestMan]

9 minutes ago, SocraTease said:

What a BS rule and even worse instance of enforcement. The wrestler was basically off the mat and tossed the headgear down.  He didn't throw it at anyone.  He didn't belittle anyone.  He didn't taunt anyone.  The ref could have just ignored it or moved on to the next match instead of actively inserting himself into what was a deciding event in the outcome of a good dual.

And please don't give me that "a rule is a rule" nonsense because rules are always subject to interpretation and/or enforcement.  That is the same blind "reasoning" folks use to defend a "a law is a law" when the "law" is unjust, immoral, or counter to community well-being.  

Would you, for example, like cameras at every intersection so that you receive a fine in the mail if you jaywalk at midnight when no cars are coming?  Well ... you did break a law, right?  

There is a difference, too, between the "letter" of the rule (law) and the "spirit" of the rule (law).  Literalists (with respect to laws, rules, texts, the Constitution, the Bible, and actions, etc.) almost always reveal that they have no moral imagination and no sense of ambiguity, nuance, or subtlety.  It is a sign of adolescent and black & white thinking.   In a word, ethical immaturity

Damn, I'm clapping.  But I expected this from a philosopher.  Oh, and I agree.  Stomping in the middle of the mat and slinging a headgear is one thing.  Tossing to the ground while exiting the mat another.  How about wrestlers dropping their straps with a foot out of bounds?

Your description was right on the money.  Mizzou lost a dual to Minnesota on a headgear issue at the Natty duals.  Also cost them some placement cash.  

[ionel]

20 minutes ago, MidwestMan said:

Stomping in the middle of the mat and slinging a headgear is one thing.  Tossing to the ground while exiting the mat another.  How about wrestlers dropping their straps with a foot out of bounds?

What about doing the splits mid mat or flexing at the coaches in the corner while still on the mat?  

[feet2back]

1 hour ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

That's wild, but OTOH the team point deduction didn't happen on the last match and Princeton FFT 133. Not sure why.

Princeton HC said starter was not ready to go Saturday morning after Columbia match on Friday and the back up weighed in already at the Bloomsburg Open

 

[jdalu75]

1 hour ago, 2001Hokie said:

He actually looks like he DROPPED the headgear, and that was once he got out of the circle.  That's not even letter of the law...it's incorrect based on it having to be tossed, slide, thrown, etc.  It doesn't say anywhere in there about dropping it.  

I think it was borderline, pretty cheesy of the ref to call it there.  The wrestler was obviously pumped up about winning, his hand was down and he sort of half-tossed, half-dropped it on the way off the mat.

Of course, I would penalize every wrestler who dragged his hand across his throat after pinning an opponent, but that never happens.  If we eliminate the sportsmanship requirement from wrestling, it's just a brawl.

Lehigh had a case about a dozen years ago where one of our wrestlers lost a close semi-finals bout at EIWAs, was injured in the process, was frustrated by what he considering to be poor officiating (something that ran through that whole tournament), and then blew off steam under the stands .... and was penalized by a ref who had followed him off the mat, evidently waiting for an opportunity.  I didn't agree with that call either.

 

Edited January 26 by jdalu75
addition

[feet2back]

Controversial thrown headgear call costs Princeton wrestling as Rider rallies for win - nj.com

[BAC]

2 hours ago, bracketbuster said:

As much as people don't like the rule, there are coaches on the rules committee that put this into place. I think you can even see one of the Princeton coaches scramble to grab the headgear and hand it back before the ref saw because they were aware of the rule.

Description. Unsportsmanlike conduct can occur before, during or after a match. It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking ear protection or any other piece of equipment (regardless of anger, excitement or ebullience), failure to stop on the whistle, indicating excessive displeasure with a call, excessive celebration involving a vulgar act, failing to comply with postmatch procedures, spitting or blowing of nose (into other than designated receptacles and repositories), having competition uniform straps down while still inside the competition circle or other acts generally considered by the referee to be distasteful to spectators, coaches and fellow competitors.

Rationale: To clarify that all equipment is to remain in the possession of the wrestlers until they leave the mat. The current rule only addresses “aggressively throwing ear protection” which is ambiguous and left to each individual official’s interpretation that has consequently resulted in inconsistent enforcement of the rule.

Just wanted to echo this solid post.

Who are the genius D1 coaches who decided that “aggressively throwing ear protection” was SO under-inclusive, that they needed to broaden it to include ALL loss of possession of equipment until they fully leave the mat?

Apparently the majority of them, as the rules committee put it in place, apparently concerned we needed to do something about those non-aggressive wrestlers who carefully place their headgear on the corner of the mat as they depart.  Those scofflaws got away with this for far too long!

It's obviously BS, but unless Dubuque protested the rules committee's rule change at the time it happened, I really don't want to hear about it.  The refs' job is to implement the rules as written, no matter how idiotic they may be.

[Hammerlock3]

The only explanation for most new rules is one of the subhumans at the table desperately wanted to crowbar in a rule they could say was theirs....

[BAC]

It's one of the most colossally stupid rule changes I've ever seen, and this from the sport that's given us such wonders as the "ball grab" and the "clinch."

They literally changed the rule to REMOVE the ref's discretion, making it mandatory.  Well coaches, you wanted it, you got it. 

Although it also bears mention that whoever wrote the rule did a terrible job:

--The "Description" is in tension with the "Rationale." The "Rationale" makes clear that any sort of separation of wrestler from equipment is an infraction, regardless of intent.  But the "Description" uses only the words "throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking," suggesting if it isn't one of those four words -- say, if it's "placing" or "dropping" or "kicking" -- then it's outside the scope of the rule.  If their concern was inconsistent enforcement, you'd think they'd have made the Description's prohibition match the rationale.

--If strictly interpreted along the lines of the "Rationale" to include any incident of separation of wrestler from equipment, regardless of intent, that would mean that Jason Nolf acted unsportsmanlike each time he gently placed his ankle bands at the center line after a match.  It'd also be an unsportsmanlike penalty each time a wrestler loses a contact, mouthpiece or shoe falls off mid-match, etc.  

Regardless, I give the ref a pass.  The mess is not of their making.

[ionel]

What did Princeton lose? 

[alex1fly]

2 hours ago, 2001Hokie said:

He actually looks like he DROPPED the headgear, and that was once he got out of the circle.  That's not even letter of the law...it's incorrect based on it having to be tossed, slide, thrown, etc.  It doesn't say anywhere in there about dropping it.  

Dropped it to high five his coach

[gimpeltf]

Ranks up there with the rule change around mid-80s making it a penalty to shake hands with the opposing coach. Came because of a couple situations where the opposing coach refused to shake hands at NCAAs. (Nate Carr and Ricky Dellagatta). I called it Unnecessary Sportsmanship! I remember at the Penn State Open I was in Darryl Burley's corner as he wrestled Sean Finkbeiner (who I also knew quite well). He came over to shake hands (probably forgetting the rule), I reminded him of the rule and gave him a hug instead!

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Ranks up there with the rule change around mid-80s making it a penalty to shake hands with the opposing coach. Came because of a couple situations where the opposing coach refused to shake hands at NCAAs. (Nate Carr and Ricky Dellagatta). I called it Unnecessary Sportsmanship! I remember at the Penn State Open I was in Darryl Burley's corner as he wrestled Sean Finkbeiner (who I also knew quite well). He came over to shake hands (probably forgetting the rule), I reminded him of the rule and gave him a hug instead!

well played well played  

[MidwestMan]

2 hours ago, ionel said:

What about doing the splits mid mat or flexing at the coaches in the corner while still on the mat?  

Totally classless.  Narcissism with a capital N.

[gimpeltf]

5 hours ago, bracketbuster said:

It may include, but is not limited to, such acts as swearing, throwing, tossing, sliding or spiking ear protection or any other piece of equipment (regardless of anger, excitement or ebullience)

May means must?