Washington Wrestling Message Board II

Washington Wrestling Message Board II
[ Washington Wrestling Message Board II ]

Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by jte User icon on 2/27/2010, 7:15 pm

This is re-posted from the dark side. Just for grins, record initial answer along with your final answer.

You make the call

Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by Phil Lercher User icon on 2/27/2010, 10:08 pm, in reply to "Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

Takedown. Weight on hands then on knees then standup. Didn't even need slow-mo for that one. Do coaches see their wrestlers in slow-mo?

Depends on how one defines reaction time

Posted by By the Book User icon on 2/27/2010, 11:06 pm, in reply to "Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

Control - YES
Down on the mat - YES
Beyond reaction time - ???

When I first watched the video, I felt like it was T2. But, the missing piece is that I only get to see a few seconds of these two wrestlers. So, I don't have a good basis for knowing a better gauge of what reaction time is with these guys. Giving a takedown means that reaction time is very, very brief. And, if it's that brief, then there should be a lot more locking hands called.

My normal bias with high school wrestlers is that I would probably want to see him hold him down a bit longer before giving a takedown. But, like I said, watching in realtime the first time, my instinct said T2.

Re: Depends on how one defines reaction time

Posted by John Barry User icon on 2/27/2010, 11:18 pm, in reply to "Depends on how one defines reaction time"

Just my opinion, but it looks to me like the defending wrestler makes two moves after he is brought down to the mat. It is his second move that brings him back to his feet. This, in my mind, helps to define reaction time. If 2 wrestlers are on their way down to the mat in a similar circumstance, I am looking to see how one reacts. If it is wrestler A's first reaction move that brings him back to his feet, then I would not award a takedown, but if his reaction does something else and then makes a motion to bring him to his feet, then I would say that wrestler B has held wrestler A on the mat beyond wrestler A's reaction time. That is how I look at reaction time.

Without looking at other posts/opinions NO.

Posted by Jhall User icon on 2/28/2010, 5:16 am, in reply to "Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

The "top" wrestler certainly had position, yet in slow mo, it was clear that only 1 knee touched down on the mat .. It looked like the right leg/knee never hit the mat, which to me would constitute control.

Re: Without looking at other posts/opinions NO.

Posted by Valkyrie Wrestling User icon on 2/28/2010, 10:11 am, in reply to "Without looking at other posts/opinions NO."

So you would have called a TV because the hands were locked beyond reaction time?

That's the conundrum

Posted by By the Book User icon on 2/28/2010, 12:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Without looking at other posts/opinions NO."

VW, my point exactly. If we are going to say reaction time happens that quickly, then we should be seeing way more locked hands violations called.

In this particular clip, it's pretty close. I know at the NCAA level, this is T2 for 100% of the officials. But, in high school or below, there will be a split opinion. The more I dwell on this particular situation, the more I wonder about exactly how much the guy on top was able to control the opponent, down on the mat. If he was really controlling him down on the mat beyond reaction time, then why is the opponent up on his feet so quickly?

Anyway, this video generates lots of good discussion.

Re: That's the conundrum

Posted by Seattle Coach User icon on 3/1/2010, 1:46 pm, in reply to "That's the conundrum"

I was curious as to what you were going to say. In the other thread, I posted that I thought it would be a takedown because B brought his right hand (which was previously in the air when the left hand and left knee originally touched) down to the mat to push off. In other words, if he hadn't used an additional supporting point, he would not have gotten to his feet.

Here's my question (serious question, as I don't know the answer):

Suppose we're neutral and wrestler A is behind wrestler B with his hands clasped, both still on their feet. Wrestler A trips wrestler B and B touches his right knee to the mat, then pops back up. Takedown or no?

Reaction time is the key

Posted by By the Book User icon on 3/1/2010, 6:46 pm, in reply to "Re: That's the conundrum"

If B pops up within reaction time, then no takedown. A has to gain control, down on the mat, beyond reaction time. Hitting a knee puts B "down on the mat" (his supporting points are no longer his feet), but popping back up probably means "not beyond reaction time".

And that's what is such a close call in the video. In slow motion or with repeated chances to view the action, we can see certain things that we might have missed or overlooked in real time. Not seeing these guys for more than a few seconds, I have trouble knowing whether their reaction time is on the very fast side, about average, or on the slow side. Using "average" for me, I would probably not award a takedown in the video clip in real time in most cases. I'm assuming that these kids are more skilled and faster since their match ends up online, thus I entertain the notion that it was a takedown.

Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by jte User icon on 2/28/2010, 7:37 am, in reply to "Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

I originally called it "No takedown" - didn't think control was beyond reaction time.

Further viewing showed that the defensive wrestler's left hand posts off the mat twice - so I have to believe that the first post is "reaction" and the second post is a new move. Therefor "Takedown".

Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by Captain 97 User icon on 3/2/2010, 10:34 am, in reply to "Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

In my oppinion it was beyond reaction time the wrester Was down and had sort of a pause then he put his hand back down on the mat to push himself up. To me another way of interpreting reaction time is as a continuation of the motion. If his knee had hit the mat and bounced immediately back up in the same motion I would have said no takedown. But that little pause and then the adjustment by the bottom wreslter to put his hand down put him beyond raction time.

Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by R-man Khadart User icon on 3/7/2010, 4:11 pm, in reply to "Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

Maybe I need to get a rule book and get some up to date knowledge, but I can't call this a takedown. Unless the attacking wrestler takes him back down to the mat, I don't see the "top" wrestler covering and going behind with the bottom wrestler off his supports. How was this called in the match???

Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)

Posted by robd User icon on 3/9/2010, 12:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Takedown, or not? (Reposted from the dark side)"

IMO, a takedown. First instinct, then confirmed by slo mo. I have seen it called that fast in HS and NCAA matches this year. I thought the control was established and bottom had to work to get off the mat again, but one thing cemented it for me. Although right knee stays up, at one point both hands were used to push off the mat to finally stand up, therefore a tripod position with top man's wt forcing it. The action before the tripod was convincing to me as well, but the tripod made a stronger case for me.

« Index

2362

[ Washington Wrestling Message Board II ]