Rule for stopping match, i.e., Kindig

[okiecowboy]

I must have blinked as I thought Kindig had a perfectly executed fireman's with Penn. St. flat on his back for a second, then he countered back to almost a netural position and then Kindig regained full control and then the ref. stopped the match per Cale's request.

My question is how can a coach stop the match in the middle of the action; especially when the top guy is clearly in control? There must be a rule whereby once a takedown is called, it can be challenged. Doesn't make sense as Kindig had clearly gained back full control when Cale requested the review. The body language of the ref. was like he was very comfortable with his calls and I didn't sense any tension or uneasyness on his part; therefore, leaving me highly perplexed as to the rule and/or how he was able to interpet it in favor of Cale.

Anyone aware of this particular rule regarding stopping a match per a coaches request, please come forth and advise.

 

[Azchief32]

Cael was questioning the two at the point it was called. Kind of a reverse of Sorensen/Kindig when they gave the two to Sorensen. Kindig kept on fighting him off but then Sorensen eventually got the sure thing. If John had stopped the match, would the same thing have applied? I really think that was questionable as Cael stopped it about thirty seconds after the initial two was called. Had his guy still been fighting it off, it might have been legit. It was B.S. call IMO.

 

[april racer]

AZ, I didn't get to see the match, but nice to hear the perspective of a knowledgeable fan that is unbiased in this match.

 

[okiecowboy]

I was hoping someone knew the rules on when a coach can stop a match and would share by posting. Guess, I will have to try and download them and figure it out myself.

 

[EquiteVaccatores]

O'Colly pic just before takedown was awarded

This post was edited on 2/16 9:09 AM by EquiteVaccatores

 

[okiecowboy]

Thanks, this confirms my original thought that Kindig had complete control on the fireman's. Beitz then proceeded to fall flat on his back. I know the ref saw this; therefore, I remain perplexed as to why this is not a takedown.

 

[mrsokstatefan]

I found this in the NCAA Wrestling 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rules and Intrepretations

3.21.2 The Review. The two ways a match may be stopped for a video review
are by the action of the referee or by the action of the coach.
a) Referee's Action. The referee may stop a match when there is no significant action when the
referee believes: 1) there is reasonable doubt that an error was made regarding timing, scoring, or
the proper positioning of the wrestlers; 2) the situation is reviewable; or 3) the outcome of a
review may have an impact on the result of the match. The referee should review all unsportsmanlike
conduct and flagrant misconduct calls.
There is no restriction on the number of times a referee may stop the match for a review and there
is no time limit to conduct a review, but the referee(s) should strive for each review to be
efficient and timely.



WR-32 Rule 3 / ConduCt of Meets and touRnaMents





b) Coach's Challenge. Each team is allowed one challenge per dual meet, including team advancement
tournaments, to be used at the coach's discretion. Each team in an individual advancement
tournament, excluding open tournaments, is allowed one challenge for one to three participants,
two challenges for four to six participants, and three challenges for seven to 10 participants, to
be used at the coach's discretion. If a coach's challenge is supported after the review, the team
retains that challenge.
If a coach believes an error was made, the coach shall immediately approach the mat-side table and
raise a flag matching the color assigned to his corner (red or green) thereby indicating to the
mat-side table scorer the request for a video challenge. This signifies the coach believes an error
was made, and the referee will stop the match when there is no significant action taking place to
conduct the video review. Once the coach raises the flag, the challenge cannot be retracted.
Wrestlers and coaches are to remain in their designated coaching area (restricted zone, see Rule
3.13.1 and 3.13.2) during the review.
If a coach challenges a previously made ruling on a challenge or if a coach challenges a ruling
when the team's allotment of challenges has been used, the actions are considered intentional delay
of the match and the coach is penalized for failure to comply. (See Rule 3.13.4.) In addition, if a
coach challenges a fall, which is not reviewable, it shall count as a challenge.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WR15.pdf

 

[okiecowboy]

mrsokstatefan, thanks for posting the rules. It is clear to me that Cale had the right to challenge and the ref. made the correct calll in stopping the match and reviewing the takedown.

 

[cachap5327]

Interesting that the rules state "one challenge per dual meet". Seems like there were way more than that yesterday. Robert always explains it as one challenge per match during the home duals. Enforcing the one per dual meet rule would certainly make the coaches more carefully consider when to challenge.

 

[Kingk0ng]

Did they put time back on the clock to where the original TD occurred? I see nothing in that rule that would reverse the TD that Josh eventually got?

 

[cachap5327]

Originally posted by Kingk0ng:
Did they put time back on the clock to where the original TD occurred? I see nothing in that rule that would reverse the TD that Josh eventually got?

Yes, they did put time back on the clock to where the original non-TD occurred. As we know, it worked out to being a big advantage to the PSU wrestler, since Josh eventually fully secured the takedown, but that was all wiped out and they went back on their feet. It not only took away two points, but also took away the position of advantage that Josh had built and also (possibly) messed with his head a bit. I do not know if it is possible, but I would really have like to see the ref say "Yes, I blew the original TD, so that is waved off, and the second TD is now awarded."

 

[EquiteVaccatores]

If the original call was indeed incorrect, you couldn't award a takedown based on the fact that Kindig eventually got control. After the takedown was awarded, Beitz' status changed from neutral to defense, so his strategy would shift from fighting off the takedown to trying to escape or reverse. Sometimes it's a subtle difference. I thought Kindig had the takedown, and believe he would have eventually gotten it more decisively, but the only thing you can do is start over from the point of the incorrect call. It played out unfortunately for Josh and favorably for Beitz. I don't remember seeing that ref before, but I thought he did a pretty good job yesterday. I have to assume that upon review, he saw that he clearly awarded the takedown too soon. I'm sure he regretted it and realizes that it likely affected the outcome of the match and caused a 9 point swing in the team score. Sometimes you can't fix a bad call. I'm okay with video reviews. The coaches are careful to request them, knowing that they count against them if the call is upheld. I wish the rules had allowed video reviews in 2012 when Jordan Oliver was robbed of an NCAA championship in St. Louis.