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.
My one thought is Blaze needs to learn better riding skills. Maybe learn from Mitchell or Levi.
Last edited:
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.
I know this is a waste of time, but why can't you just accept like the rest of us, that even though we don't agree or know what "reaction time" means, that is the way it is being called this year and we can't change that. You're preaching to the choir.
The rule is stupid - especially it's focus on "reaction time". If the intent is to require control beyond the initial moment of control from when criteria are met, then just state how long control must be maintained from the instant criteria are met - a full one count (i.e., full second).... two count... It really isn't that difficult and it just makes no sense to leave it so subjective and ambiguous leading to inconsistent calls that are all over the place and impacting outcomes - completely unnecessary.
Thanks for the beginning of the opening sentence in your reply. I do try, to the best of my ability, to assist folks in understanding wrestling rules in general, and as in this case, in specific incidents/moves where there is a lot of debate by fans as to what should have been called.
I don't really accept your last sentence -- especially how you ended it. The rule was called correctly in this sequence. There really isn't something to which you should disagree (agree to disagree). I'm not offering an opinion as to what might be the case of what the ref did, or a guess as to what happened that we can't see on film -- those are things that folks can disagree on. I'm stating how a ref assesses whether to award a TD.
When a defensive wrestler is lifted off the mat, when a TD has not yet been awarded, then when they are returned to the mat, the ref must wait to determine if control is established after the return. Some defensive guys hit shoulder rolls, or granby rolls, or hit a switch as they are returned to the mat after being lifted (and other moves as well; I'm just listing a few). In none of those cases would a ref, or should a ref, award a TD. A ref has to be patient, and make sure control is established.
I think that McEnelly would have established control after returning Welsh, if he had enough time to do so. But a ref can't award anything based upon what they think will happen. Welsh is moving as soon as he hits the mat, which has been established was at something under 1 second left on the clock. McEnelly didn't have enough time to establish control, especially with Welsh moving after the return.
You've indicated in your reply that you are convinced that control was established. That's your opinion. But pretty much any established ref that watches that sequence is going to tell you that control was not established.
Happy to help.
I've mostly avoided mentioning reaction time, because it is a red herring. As you note, it's establishing control beyond reaction time.
As a ref, I try to avoid discussing reaction time with coaches when they want to discuss things at the table, as they tend to treat it as the key component in determining whether or not a TD should have been awarded. In this instance (different for locked hands, and other situations), it's the qualifier which means control is established (i.e., that the defensive wrestler isn't instantly responding in a way that shows control wasn't established).
he needs to bake him a cake before their next match and stop with the right hooks.
@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 Collegewww.flowrestling.org
The rule is the same in HS. The problem with enforcing it is that it's not always clear if the defensive wrestler deliberately touched off the mat. Most wrestlers, if they are in States, know how to make it look as though a touch off the mat was the result of a wrestling move. If the defensive wrestler is bellied out, or on their back, and just eaches their arm straight overhead, or straight to the side, for the off-the-mat region that is in no way related to a move, then a ref is comfortable in hitting them for stalling. But HS mats are generally smaller than college mats. And in tournaments, there is often a collection of mats of different sizes -- some with a really small apron. With smaller mats, it usually doesn't take much effort to make it appear that a touch off the mat was the result of a wrestling move, so it's just a stoppage.
28-15 for the finals dual meet. Basically, we forfeited 141 & Hvy. 133 was a decision loss. 15 points for the Big 10 All-Stars.
And I think that all-star team has 4 that are due to graduate to our team with one senior, 3 freshman, 3 sophomores with an All-America and world champ waiting in the wings.