Author Topic: heres another one  (Read 7350 times)

Offline ER Coach

  • Most Pins
  • **
  • Posts: 335
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2009, 09:25:28 PM »
Well, I think we might be talking about different definitions of the same thing.  Locking hands is illegal by application when it occurs under specific circumstances.  A full nelson is illegal by application under all circumstances.  At least I can't think of a circumstance when it's not.  That's where my own personal definition of "by application"  comes from.  The fact that the move, hold or position has been witnessed creates a situation where you have a penalty.  (As I said before with the exception of the opposing wrestler making it illegal).  Seeing an offense wrestler lock hands does not in and of itself create a penalty situation.  They have to be locked around the trunk or both legs, defense is not supporting all of his weight on his feet, it's not a pinning combination, nearfall criteria has not been met, or appropriate reaction time has been allowed.  In other words, there are qualifiers that have to be considered for that tech violation and there are not qualifiers for the illegal move.

Now I'm sitting here mulling this over and thinking "but there's a qualifier for darn near everything when you get down to the real specific details"

So I'm thinking that a "definitional" difference would be that a technical violation is one that has created a situation where a wrestler is getting an unfair advantage without putting the other wrestler in danger, where an illegal move is certainly putting the opposing wrestler in danger and probably also giving the offending wrestler an unfair advantage.

The other factor I can think of that comes into play with these two items is stoppage. The following are as much questions as comments and I'm curios if they're correct thoughts.

For tech violations, the match does not have to be stopped immediately, for illegal move it is.

A tech violation does not necessarily mean a potentially dangerous situation has been created and an illegal move is always considered potentially dangerous.
When you feel it's time to bury your guns.......It's time to dig them up.

Offline matref0

  • Redshirt
  • **
  • Posts: 384
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2009, 02:50:03 PM »
Quote
The other factor I can think of that comes into play with these two items is stoppage. The following are as much questions as comments and I'm curios if they're correct thoughts.

For tech violations, the match does not have to be stopped immediately, for illegal move it is.

Good job Coach.  TV's can be allowed to continue if scoring is a possibility while illegal holds need to be stopped immediately (exception being in some cases during near fall).

Offline royboy

  • LXP
  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 4379
  • you gotta be tough if your gonna be stupid
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2009, 01:29:58 AM »
Matref, Akin whoever

this one is about blood stoppage.

Do you absolutely have to stop the match for bloodstoppage?

i would believe yes but I also feel that in overtime during the riding periods it should not.

lemme know.
"Really? Well please tell your father-in-law that he is a freaking idiot."

Offline woolnojg

  • Novice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2009, 11:19:24 AM »
When the official observes bleeding, the match must be stopped and the bleeding controlled.
No exceptions.

Offline AKIN

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 16561
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2009, 12:54:45 PM »
Wool, how do you define bleeding? Is that I see a spot of blood on a wrestler or his singlet, or I actually see blood flowing? If the wrestler is on his back about to be pinned and I see blood trickling from his nose, should I stop it?
Imagine the good that could be done, if people were less worried about their differences, and more worried about doing good for everyone.

Offline woolnojg

  • Novice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2009, 05:29:42 PM »
See above response.

Offline matref0

  • Redshirt
  • **
  • Posts: 384
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2009, 09:52:13 PM »
For high school, Wool is correct, when you see it or think there is blood, you need to stop; not latitude by rule.  NCAA has a little more latitude and they don't have a blood time clock (I learned that one the hard way).  
Akin,

Quote
If the wrestler is on his back about to be pinned and I see blood trickling from his nose, should I stop it?
 Yes, and award an additional near fall point to what is already earned to the offensive wrestler.

Offline royboy

  • LXP
  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 4379
  • you gotta be tough if your gonna be stupid
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2009, 08:08:13 PM »
would an extra back point off of blood stoppage be included in previously occurred penalty, such as someone have given up two one point penalties for clasping.
"Really? Well please tell your father-in-law that he is a freaking idiot."

Offline matref0

  • Redshirt
  • **
  • Posts: 384
    • View Profile
Re: heres another one
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2009, 09:01:27 PM »
Quote
would an extra back point off of blood stoppage be included in previously occurred penalty, such as someone have given up two one point penalties for clasping.

No, the extra near fall is for blood or injury (used to be called a stoppage point or scream rule).

If I have you in near fall and you bleed and the situation is stopped it is near fall points earned plus one.  If it happens again, it is still near fall earned plus one and so on.

Injury is the same except choice of position comes into play after the second injury time-out and potential DQ if a 3rd injury time out is used.  Bleeding time outs do not fall into this category for choice of position or DQ unless 5:00 of blood time elapses.