| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Deke
|
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Hank
|
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Stu
|
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Richard
|
Confusing Indeed
I spoke with two of the coaches who were at the section seeding meeting and this incident was brought up there. The story was just as confusing there, from the sounds of it. Interestingly, the concensus was that the incident merited flagrant misconduct, and that the referee had originally called that, NOT technical violations (repeat starting position violations are NOT grounds for DQ). It seems that the report filed by the referee was vague as to the exact nature of the call, although he has been telling everybody it was misconduct. Once Hanley wrestled in the divisionals the next weekend, it all became moot, as the section officials all agreed it was too late to do anything about it then. Sort of like the "next pitch," or "next play" rules in baseball and football. It is unfortunate, though, that the incident occurred at all, that the coaches matside weren't more interested in the behavior than the win, and that, with a week to intervene, the league and section officials did not investigate and rule one way or the other. It throws a shadow on the character of wrestler, the coaches involved, and the whole section. And what a shame that is, as it has been a very enjoyable and exciting season for north section wrestling. Best of luck to ALL north section wrestlers in the upcoming Section Championship, and in Stockton next week! By the way, will we see predictions from you on here, Stuart?
DeleteMsg
ReplyToMsg
FORUM: Wrestling
TOPIC:
Lanley should be done
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Dean
|
Why would the section care who wins
If the referee did indeed call Hanley for flagrant misconduct, why were the tournament officials not told? Why were team points not deducted? Why was Hanley allowed to accept his medal? Because obviously flagrant misconduct was not called. I highly doubt there is any conspiracy to give Corning a league title, mainly because one team that lost a league title due to flagrant misconduct in the past was Corning. The Cardinals had one player hit another during a match. That wrestler was ejected and Corning ended up losing the WSL tournament as a result. Why would the section commissioner or the section as a whole care who wins the section championship? If the ref called flagrant misconduct at the WSL meet, it is his responsibility to make sure the wrestler is kicked out of the tournament and the official scorekeepers are notified. Obviously this was not done because it more than likely never happened.  
DeleteMsg
ReplyToMsg
FORUM: Wrestling
TOPIC:
Lanley should be done
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By rv.
|
Does not look good for Hanley
You can not be disqualified for too many starting position penalties. You can be disqualified for 4 technical violations. Such as Locking Hands, Full Nelson….. You can also be disqualified for unsportsman like conduct. If you are disqualified for unsportsman like conduct you are NOT eligible to compete in the following competition. I could be wrong, I have only been involved in High School wrestling for about 20 years. For the sake of the Corning team, I hope Hanley was disqualified for locking hands or other technical violation. I guess we will find out on Friday what the ruling was. 
DeleteMsg
ReplyToMsg
FORUM: Wrestling
TOPIC:
Lanley should be done
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Cecil K.
|
Two types of disqualification
There's two different types of disqualification. THere is disqualification for penalty points and there is disqualification for flagrant misconduct. Disqualification for penalty points only disqualifies the wrestler from the match, not the tournament. Disqualification for flagrant misconduct disqualifies a wrestler from the tournament. Hanley was not disqualified for flagrant misconduct, only for penalty points. Several years ago, Corning had a wrestler disqualified from the WSL tournament for flagrant misconduct after he hit an Orland wrestler during a championship match. He was disqualified from the match and tournament and Orland was able to beat Corning because Corning lost that wrestler's points. THat was not the case with Hanley.
DeleteMsg
ReplyToMsg
FORUM: Wrestling
TOPIC:
Lanley should be done
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Richard
|
Lanley should be done
Replies: 5
I was woundering if Lanley will get to wrestle this week. The CIF rule says that anyone who is DQ will not be able to participate in the next event.Since the next event is a qualifier for Masters is Hanley done. If he is not done what kind of example does it set for the rest of the section. Also if he was DQ he should have lost all of his team points and not finished second.
DeleteMsg
ReplyToMsg
FORUM: Wrestling
| |
Created Jun 02 2011
|
|
|
By Dan
|
Color Legend:
This color used for Message topics
This color used for Replies to message topics
|
