Author Topic: in bounds or not in bounds?  (Read 2774 times)

Offline Scott

  • Novice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
in bounds or not in bounds?
« on: February 10, 2013, 09:50:28 AM »
I will try to describe the situation as clearly as I can:

Wrestler A has restler B's right leg on the edge of the mat, wrestler B's left leg is out of bounds. Wrestler A attempts to capture wrestler B's left ankle to secure the takedown and does so successfuly. Wrestler A's feet are clearly inbounds but in the process of attacking wrestler B's left ankle and securing the takedown his knees hit out of bounds. The official awards a takedown to wrestler A. Wrestlers B's coach asks the official to confer his the assistant ref to make sure that wrestler A was infact inbounds. Based on wrestler A's knee hitting out of bounds before control was established even though his feet were clearly inbounds the takedown was waived off. Correct call or incorrect call?

Offline red viking

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 16661
    • View Profile
Re: in bounds or not in bounds?
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 01:34:03 PM »
I will try to describe the situation as clearly as I can:

Wrestler A has restler B's right leg on the edge of the mat, wrestler B's left leg is out of bounds. Wrestler A attempts to capture wrestler B's left ankle to secure the takedown and does so successfuly. Wrestler A's feet are clearly inbounds but in the process of attacking wrestler B's left ankle and securing the takedown his knees hit out of bounds. The official awards a takedown to wrestler A. Wrestlers B's coach asks the official to confer his the assistant ref to make sure that wrestler A was infact inbounds. Based on wrestler A's knee hitting out of bounds before control was established even though his feet were clearly inbounds the takedown was waived off. Correct call or incorrect call?

Action is stopped when both wrestlers have supporting parts  out of bounds. If wrestler B is on his knees his knees are the supporting parts. If he is on his hip then his hip is the supporting part. Lets assume wrestler B is out of bounds though because I think that is what you are implying. Wrestler A has  to have control of both legs to secure the takedown if wrestler B is sitting on the mat. If wrestler A goes out of bounds to do this and wrestler B is also out of bounds then there is generally no takedown. However, per rule 5-25-3 "In awarding a takedown at the edge of the mat, control must be established while all supporting parts of either wrestler are inbounds or while at least the feet of the scoring contestant finish down on the mat inbounds". This is supported by photo 34. Since wrestler A's feet were still inbounds then this is a takedown!  The official made the correct call originally and shouldn't have waived it off.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 01:47:05 PM by red viking »
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." Thomas Paine

Offline Scott

  • Novice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: in bounds or not in bounds?
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 02:52:23 PM »
Thank you, that is my interpretation as well. I am constantly amazed by the lack of understanding by high school officials in their interpretation of these calls.