Again, I'm not questioning that the rule was applied correctly, but the clear implication is that you can't record a TD inside of "reaction time", so takedowns granted at the whistle as soon as a wrestler gains control of a 2nd foot are a misapplication of the rule (according to the interpretations the defensive wrestler is entitled to "reaction time" even if it's an O/U pancake taken flat to his back with a second to go, it's not a TD as the defensive wrestler has not been given any reaction time). I've seen takedowns awarded at the buzzer when the Offensive wrestler grabs a second ankle. The rule is not sufficiently specified such that it is utterly unclear what precisely "reaction time" is and some get the benefit of it while some do not. It's a bad rule imo as it is currently specified and results in inconsistent application. They need to specify how long control must be maintained and get away from this ambiguous "reaction time" bs. If "Control" must be maintained for a full 2 count after all elements of a takedown are met, then that's what the rule should specify - this can be measured on a challenge and review..... bs, completely subjective and ambiguous "reaction time" cannot.
2026 B1G Tourney Session IV Thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
Again, I'm not questioning that the rule was applied correctly, but the clear implication is that you can't record a TD inside of "reaction time", so takedowns granted at the whistle as soon as a wrestler gains control of a 2nd foot are a misapplication of the rule (according to the interpretations the defensive wrestler is entitled to "reaction time" even if it's an O/U pancake taken flat to his back with a second to go, it's not a TD as the defensive wrestler has not been given any reaction time). I've seen takedowns awarded at the buzzer when the Offensive wrestler grabs a second ankle. The rule is not sufficiently specified such that it is utterly unclear what precisely "reaction time" is and some get the benefit of it while some do not. It's a bad rule imo as it is currently specified and results in inconsistent application. They need to specify how long control must be maintained and get away from this ambiguous "reaction time" bs. If "Control" must be maintained for a full 2 count after all elements of a takedown are met, then that's what the rule should specify - this can be measured on a challenge and review..... bs, completely subjective and ambiguous "reaction time" cannot.
He knew he’d have nothing to argue about.
I was blessed to watch the B10 tournament live at the BJC. I was grateful that Dan Monthly didn't have to leave his seat only one or two times. Going through any tournament b4 Nationals, and coming out healthy is a plus.
Winning 7 of 8 was awesome! Blaze's loss might be a blessing in disguise. He's going to be more motivated than ever to solve the Davino riddle. I'm confident the coaches will have him ready, and he'll get the winning takedown at NCAA's.
Winning 7 of 8 was awesome! Blaze's loss might be a blessing in disguise. He's going to be more motivated than ever to solve the Davino riddle. I'm confident the coaches will have him ready, and he'll get the winning takedown at NCAA's.
Off topic for this thread, but speaking of the special ~move of RBY’s one armed stance … couldn’t DeSanto have developed an attack to that side to take advantage of RBY’s missing defending hand/arm? Or was DeSanto so reliant on setting up his shots with his arms that without a hand hold on that side, he could not comfortably/quickly shoot to that side from space? Or, maybe he should have developed his mirror image skill so as to grab the other [tri]cep. It just seems like he should’ve been able to counter that ridiculous one-armed business. Has anyone made a YouTube video that analyzed actual or proposed counters to RBY’s one-armed stance? I’d love to see it.
Last edited:
Could you please elaborate a bit? I'm not sure I understand your point.
I heard the reason was the ref told him that Cael said if you walk away it won't hurt as much.
If I am interpreting what youre writing correctly, the rule and its application is clear as mud to me well.
I haven’t hit 170 for a bit…. But on a completely unrelated not STOP asking for feet pics UNLESS YOURE WILLING TO PAY
@Tom McAndrew is the rule in HS the same? I noticed in one of Teag Sanderson's recent matches that his opponent did exactly this right in front of the referee who didn't call it. The time stamp is 3:25.
172 lbs Consi 5 - Christian Burd, Hershey vs Teag Sanderson, State College
172 lbs Consi 5 - Christian Burd, Hershey vs Teag Sanderson, State College
Davino learned from it and isn't likely to make that mistake again. Marcus needs to adapt, as well.
He landed in a granby position. See Willie’s explanation with Basch.
Not just the ambiguity of how the rule is currently specified, but it also results in calls and outcomes being inconsistent. It all is quite unnecessary imho - it's stupid to focus on "reaction time" which actually differs from one individual to the next. Just state in absolute terms how long "control" must be maintained after all criteria are met - rwo counts, three counts.... - whatever "beyond reaction time" is, just state it in absolute terms so it can be measured on Video Review and you can eliminate the absurd inconsistency in these calls. Totally unnecessary, and fairly absurd, to leave the amount of time control must be maintained undefined such that calls are all over the place unnecessarily in these situations.
Last edited:
He landed in a Granby position but McEnelly never let go, or lost control, of Welsh (the precise reason Welsh was planted, and it failed from the get go, on the Granby attempt.... and McEnelly never lost control of Welsh throughout the attempt.). In the example cited earlier, Mendez did a Granby on BB, but his Granby was 100% successful in breaking BB's control. My point is, just because he attempted a Granby doesn't mean it was successful - it wasn't, not only completely unsuccessful from the get go, but never close to being successful or breaking McEnelly's control.