How could anyone possibly call this a 1 pt move?

[olddirty]

2:15 Ref gives it a 1, mat chairman a 3. Come on guys, what could he possible have done to make this any more of a grand amplitude throw?

[kip444]

Ummm...I'm gonna have to say FIVEEEE!!!!!

[dansabin]

Sweet throw, no way it is possibly 1pt

[quanon]

Should be three points.

***

3 points:
- to the wrestler performing a hold in a standing position, which brings his opponent into a danger position by direct projection over a short amplitude
- for any hold executed by raising a wrestler from the ground, over a short amplitude, even if one or both of the attacking wrestler’s knees are on the ground, provided that the defending wrestler is immediately placed in a danger position
- to the wrestler who executes a grande amplitude hold which does not place the opponent in a direct and immediate danger position
NB. If, in performing a hold, the defending wrestler maintains contact with the mat with one of his hands, but is immediately placed in a danger position, the attacking wrestler will receive three points.
5 points:
- all grande amplitude throws executed in a standing position which bring the defending wrestler to a direct and immediate danger position
- the hold executed by a wrestler in the "par terre" position who completely lifts his opponent off the ground with the execution of a grande amplitude throw which projects the opponent into a direct and immediate danger position


****

[olddirty]

He bounced him off of his head, neck and shoulder, straight over the top.

[quanon]

I've watched it a few times. It looks to me like Nowry did not bridge, and was able to land without touching his neck, shoulder, or back -- so not in a position of danger. It was quick and the video quality isn't great, so I could be wrong.

[gutfirst]

no doubt at all, 3 red. watch closely, the first part of blue to his the mat was his left ear and face followed by his left pec.

tough break for mango, his back arch was a little too explosive.

[Hammerlock3]

Whats the point of this topic?

I ask that as a serious question. Are we saying the ref is crocked? Incompetent?

My responses depend the the supposed implications

[duckvet]

Yes. Anyone scoring this 1 point is incompetent.

[olddirty]

The tone of the post is: What the hell are these guys watching. When I was a kid, any person in the gym who saw that throw would know without a doubt it was a 5, regardless of the letter of the rulebook. If Spenser hits that throw in 1992, every person within a 10 mile radius calls out FIVE!!!! Then waves the 5 fingers in an arch. Now we have some dude in a tie sticking up his thumb.

[gutfirst]

sorry od,

although it's a great throw, it's not 5. i have to agree with being upset about a ref throwing up 1

[mspart]

Maybe he gave the 1 for the lift!!!

mspart

[fullnelson]

I'm impressed with what Mango does at 2:48. I agree with OD about the immediate reaction to the suplay, that most would give the 5 (announcer even refers to 5 pt throw), but the exact rule reads, as Q pointed out, if he doesn't land in danger-3 pts. After freezing at the point the thrown wrestler touches, he is arching toward his belly. Still, my matside reaction would probably go 5 for same reason OD feels Mango deserved. This was clearly more than a lift-no way it's 1 pt.

[tbert]

As a mat official, this is 3pt in my opinion. Thats why you have 3 officials

[olddirty]

If you are going by the letter of the rule, if it could not be called a 5, then it could not also be called for a 3. The difference between a 5 and a 3 is amplitude. Are you seriously saying that was not a 5 because it wasnt straight over the top?

[quanon]

If you are going by the letter of the rule, if it could not be called a 5, then it could not also be called for a 3. The difference between a 5 and a 3 is amplitude. Are you seriously saying that was not a 5 because it wasnt straight over the top?

The difference between a 5 and a 3 is placing your opponent directly in a position of danger (not amplitude).

I posted the rule above.

[quanon]

I should rephrase what I wrote above. The difference between 5 and 3 can either be achieving grand amplitude or placing your opponent directly in a position of danger. If you've done both, it's 5. If you've only done one or the other, it's 3.

[olddirty]

If you are going by the letter of the rule, if it could not be called a 5, then it could not also be called for a 3. The difference between a 5 and a 3 is amplitude. Are you seriously saying that was not a 5 because it wasnt straight over the top?

The difference between a 5 and a 3 is placing your opponent directly in a position of danger (not amplitude).

I posted the rule above.

I stand corrected. I still think its a 5 even based on those rules.

[oldrules]

It doesn't make much sense especially when Mango's opponent was never in control and did nothing to stop the throw. It was all Mango's momentum that made him (the opponent) go all the way over.

[dsnc471]

Common sense seems to indicate that it isn't a 1 point move, but it can't be a five because the guy doesn't land on his back. Upon first glance it looks like a big move, possibly a 5, but if you look carefully it's actually quite remarkable that the opponent rotates in the air and lands almost on his chest. There was seemingly too much momentum and he nearly escaped the danger position altogether on the landing. Had that exact move been used but with slightly less rotation so that the dude landed directly on his back, it would have been a 5 no question.

[afgrasshoppa]

Common sense seems to indicate that it isn't a 1 point move, but it can't be a five because the guy doesn't land on his back. Upon first glance it looks like a big move, possibly a 5, but if you look carefully it's actually quite remarkable that the opponent rotates in the air and lands almost on his chest. There was seemingly too much momentum and he nearly escaped the danger position altogether on the landing. Had that exact move been used but with slightly less rotation so that the dude landed directly on his back, it would have been a 5 no question.

So I think we can all agree it was egregious to give one point. Three would be the correct call, if Nowry were to land in danger (which was extremely close) it would have been most certainly with out a doubt a five point throw.

[gimpeltf]

Now, who can argue with that?

longchamp sale

decided the future relationship between some of the topic organized exchanges,

longchamp bags

deepen mutual understanding of youth leaders. In May 2012, the all-China Youth Federation and Germany

longchamp outlet

Mercator Fund jointly organized the first "bridge of the future young leaders Exchange

longchamp online

in China and Germany camps". From private enterprises,

longchamp wholesale

public institutions and non-governmental organizations 30 outstanding youth and

longchamp on sale

professionals participated in this event to discuss

cheap longchamp

the German cities of important topics such as sustainable development in the 21st

longchamp tote

century. Climate change, sustainable

longchamp le pliage

development and environmental protection are the common challenges facing humanity.

[Tofurky]

Similarly, this was called five

[gimpeltf]

Similarly, this was called five

But when the head hits the back is exposed for a split second. In the original, the thrower over-rotated and all of the exposure was while in the air.

[Tofurky]

Similarly, this was called five

But when the head hits the back is exposed for a split second. In the original, the thrower over-rotated and all of the exposure was while in the air.

I don't see it that way after watching and pausing the video close to 20 times. The throwee is just short of vertical when her right forearm and hair hit the mat. By the time her head hits the mat, her legs have swung just past vertical.

With that, it's scored a five point move, but she doesn't land in danger, as has been discussed many times in this thread. Three, yes, but five? This is why I started my post off with "Similarly,..." Either way, it was an awfully nice suplay.