i heard from a reliable source that they are going to have 5 brackets with 17 men.
Conferance calls occurring this morning.
Results later in the day hopefully.
Conferance calls occurring this morning.
Results later in the day hopefully.
5 new brackets
- Thread starter Iowa hawk fan
- Start date
People down here have been saying that they changed it to help us get more wrestlers at states and by the looks they are right. Did even one henlopen kid get overlooked or left out because of the new way? I have not heard one complaint from our fans about who got in or left out.
Not sure...but dang!! We went from 1 kid done wrong by the system (Mayo) to let’s add a bunch more ♀️ So what’s the reason all these others are being added now?
I believe the same flawed thought concept used to exclude Mayo was applied to all weight classes.
They found 5 weights where things didn't seem to work out right by the new rules intent.
Some thought and further seeding criteria will need to be in place next year it seems,
They found 5 weights where things didn't seem to work out right by the new rules intent.
Some thought and further seeding criteria will need to be in place next year it seems,
Hey the more the merrier!! But I guess I just thought that Mayo was only an issue because of this slam that resulted in an ethically questionable result, then putting him back so in conjunction with the new system caused this problem. I didn’t realize this was a question of going back and reevaluating all the choices or lack there of. That’s all
That’s because the majority of henlopen kids got the at large slots at the expense of the others. You got nothing to bitch about.....
Weren't yiu crying that they wouldn't change it and they did. Now go play with your balls little fella while the men wrestle.
So a kid that went Bye-Bye-L-L-L in his conference tournament finishing 17-17 on the season was an overlook? I'm sure he is a great kid, but really?
To reiterate: a kid that was 28-8 (including the two forced forfeits) who was ejected because of dropping a reactionary f-bomb because he was trying to set up a throw and tripped (drop your dinner plate and listen for your own words), is still out because the DIAA committee is SOOOO offended by the use of that particular word. Bunch of hypocritical nonsense.
To be fair, I am not, really, defending the wrestler's use of language. I feel an unsportsmanlike was warranted. This would have resulted in the same penalty as the athlete from Smyrna. The current penalty, clearly to clear thinking people, does not fit the "crime." DIAA's verbiage for a flagrant misconduct is when an athlete punches, kicks, or bites and opponent, or uses tobacco, or any other action that the official deems requires removal from the facility. If this is the case it is more of an "the official needs to grow up and get some thicker skin problem" instead of a wrestler is a danger to someone or has done something truly egregious problem.
I assure you all, were the roles reversed and my athlete had thrown his headgear and cursed an official I would, not only be thankful and relieved that my athlete was treated fairly and allowed to wrestle in the states, but would also be on hear sounding off on what I see is clearly a ridiculously poor decision by the DIAA committee when it comes to the other wrestler. Anyone who really knows me, knows this about me.
To reiterate: a kid that was 28-8 (including the two forced forfeits) who was ejected because of dropping a reactionary f-bomb because he was trying to set up a throw and tripped (drop your dinner plate and listen for your own words), is still out because the DIAA committee is SOOOO offended by the use of that particular word. Bunch of hypocritical nonsense.
To be fair, I am not, really, defending the wrestler's use of language. I feel an unsportsmanlike was warranted. This would have resulted in the same penalty as the athlete from Smyrna. The current penalty, clearly to clear thinking people, does not fit the "crime." DIAA's verbiage for a flagrant misconduct is when an athlete punches, kicks, or bites and opponent, or uses tobacco, or any other action that the official deems requires removal from the facility. If this is the case it is more of an "the official needs to grow up and get some thicker skin problem" instead of a wrestler is a danger to someone or has done something truly egregious problem.
I assure you all, were the roles reversed and my athlete had thrown his headgear and cursed an official I would, not only be thankful and relieved that my athlete was treated fairly and allowed to wrestle in the states, but would also be on hear sounding off on what I see is clearly a ridiculously poor decision by the DIAA committee when it comes to the other wrestler. Anyone who really knows me, knows this about me.
Is there a Matrix somewhere in the DIAA Handbook that tells us which curses get which punishment? I only ask because whenever one of my children have slipped up here or there with a curse it has been the same punishment regardless of which curse word they used but it seems to me the DIAA have a scale to different words or something.
Nope, its subjective. So to one official an f-bomb is flagrant (apparently), to another its unsportsmanlike, to another its cause for a warning.
Had this conversation official with a DIAA tournament coordinator this weekend.
And let’s also be reminded that if things were recorded in an honest fashion and the rules were followed then neither wrestler would have qualified!! And I am NOT in any way bashing these young men!! I have a mouth myself and know it so I don’t tend to flinch when a curse is used, unless directed at an opponent and every circumstance is different but I just believe in following the rules and being honest and truthful and not trying to get an unethical leg up on an opponent.
suspensions for athletes and coaches are handled similarly. The coach who received a misconduct in the state dual finals was required to not participate in the opening round of the conference tournament. It is my belief that the next available round in the precedent.
I mean I get it that one wrestler could miss a shot or lose in overtime with a bad shot and say “F#*%” but then another wrestler could say “F#*% You” to an opponent or ref and yes they should be handled differently but it is also difficult when it is the same tournament and two officials judged things a certain way and only one officials judgement is being questioned here. Idk what the answer is, maybe there should be a second referee opinion before a DQ in a tournament this meaningful or something idk. But what I do know is that we ,as adults, are supposed to be showing these young men how to act in the grown up world and that there are consequences to their actions but it seems to me that one young man is being shown that some ppl do not follow the rules and not everyone is judged equally even in youth sports. And that is truly sad!!
I am referring to no DQ being recorded and then that same athlete being awarded a Forfeit in the 2nd match for 5th/6th yet that should have been a double Forfeit. Not to mention the fact that the rules state “in order to get a Forfeit the wrestler must be present and come to the mat to check in and be dressed in full uniform” and none of that happened so how was anyone awarded a Forfeit?
I do not think there was any chicanery involved in how 5th/6th was recorded in Track as you are suggesting. Track will record the match as a double forfeit and no winner designated. Then, since the Laurel kid was given a flagrant misconduct his team points were removed and he was not eligible for further matches in the tournament, removing him from participation in the 5th place match.
One thing I'll add, in looking over the DIAA handbook the school has great weight in seeing that their athletes behave in a manor that promotes sportsmanship.
I did not write down the section or paragraph but it's there to read.
Thinking of the 3rd Athlete, with a scuffle in the hallway, being allowed to wrestle this weekend it appears possibly the school is obligated to step in and not allow the athlete to compete. Yes this would be a tough position to take.
Just my take on the wording.
And yes the refs need thicker skin as long as the verbal assault was not against the opponent or ref,
I did not write down the section or paragraph but it's there to read.
Thinking of the 3rd Athlete, with a scuffle in the hallway, being allowed to wrestle this weekend it appears possibly the school is obligated to step in and not allow the athlete to compete. Yes this would be a tough position to take.
Just my take on the wording.
And yes the refs need thicker skin as long as the verbal assault was not against the opponent or ref,
I don’t know if I would go to the extent to say that the majority of Henlopen kids got the at large slots at the expense of the others. What I would say happened here is a new system that has bugs to work out. They did right by it but to suggest that Henlopen kids are getting the nod over others is stretching it. If they are going to use different criteria to allow these kids into the tournament as an after thought should they go back an reseed every wrestler in the tournament that may have had a “bad” conference tournament?
Do you believe that DIAA should go back to the old way of doing the state tournament? The intent was to get the best 16 wrestlers into the state tournament. This is the first year of the system and there will always be unforeseen circumstances that arise. The way that the committee did things this year would work in 9 out of 10 scenarios. It’s a start and something that needs to be improved upon.
I had a similar situation in a dual against Middletown this year. My kid ran through a double, got mixed and pinned. Stood up, dropped the F bomb (at himself not ref or opposing wrestler) and we were hit with a flagrant, three team points and my kid had to sit next event which we lost by one and in turn cost us the championship (it's a 4 team local dual event we do). Hefty price to pay for a 16 year old getting mad at himself. I asked around because the parents wanted to appeal. Most refs said while they wouldn't call it a flagrant that it is at the discretion of the official. The rules state a similar view. Sorry for your kid paying that steep price. Wasn't there and only saw the video.
I’m sure it would help if players actually read the handbook
I agree, the school does have the obligation. I spoke to the AD of the district in question and asked him ,"If this were a band competition and that kid was some kid in the drum line would he still be here." His response was,"this isn't a band competition and he's not in the drum line." Then he turned and walked away.
The DQ was not recorded and a Forfeit was given in the 5th/6th place match ,although no Forfeit occurred!! The rule book states the following “In order to receive a forfeit the wrestler shall be dressed in a legal wrestling uniform and appear on the mat.” <——Didn’t happened!! I’m not for, against or anything but I am a believer in following the rules you have set in place and equally for everyone. And keeping things honest and transparent!!
It has been made abundantly clear that the rule book is little more than a guide of preferred behavior, and they are making it up as they go at this point.
The full quote you are looking for states: "It shall be considered a forfeit when the opponent, for any reason, fails to appear for a match. In order to receive a forfeit the wrestler shall be dressed in a legal wrestling uniform and appear on the mat."
Another relevant rule: "A disqualification may eliminate a contestant from further competition in a tournament, depending on its severity."
An eliminated wrestler means no match occurred for the 5th place spot for the Smyrna kid to show up for.
The rulebook also states that "All vacancies created in the tournament pairings after the first round shall be scored as a forfeit." The vacancy created by the Laurel kid's flagrant misconduct means that the 5th place match was scored as a forfeit. Again, there was no match that necessitated the Smyrna wrestler showing up to receive a forfeit, it was simply scored as such.
I guess this is just another example of how important interpretation is when it comes to the rules. I do not argue anything you have said but just pointing out how one rule is picked to follow while another is to the wayside. What I believed to be true, is that a Flagrant Misconduct left a vacancy yes....However, the other wrestler must show up and be present on the mat in uniform in order to receive a Forfeit. Bc if no wrestler is present to receive the Forfeit does it then not fall back to the first sentence of the rule which states ‘It shall be considered a forfeit when the opponent,for any reason, fails to appear for a match.
As I stated: "An eliminated wrestler means no match occurred for the 5th place spot for the Smyrna kid to show up for." The flagrant created a vacancy, there was simply no match for Smyrna to show up for. I am not sure how else I can explain it.
Not trying to argue. Just saying how it looks with no DQ recorded and Handy’s name continued to move through the bracket. That’s it!!
It looks like a DQ was recorded. His name continues through the brackets and his opponents received forfeits. Not sure what the problem is.
Just out of curiosity, are you concerned whether the ST kid showed up in the consi semis to receive his forfeit or just the Smyrna kid?
Both but since the thread was not mentioning the ST kid I was not going to. The topic of following the rules ,or not so much, was brought up and so I was simply mentioning what it had looked like to me and a few others I have spoke with as far as the recording and the forfeit situation. I personally do not have a preference of how this entire situation goes. I feel for both of the young men that they even have to deal with any of this and wish it wasn’t the case but it is. I personally stand behind the referees in whatever decision they make. They were out there on that mat to know what was said and how it was said.
Read the other thread dipshit. I happily gave props to the adults who fixed their wrong. As I said, right won over wrong.
Have a great day
Actually I can see the arguement being made here. How many of you were looking at track just 2 days ago under the Henlopen Conferences? If you had, you would have seen the same thing for Handy as you see today. He was listed as a DQ in match 254 and a forfeit in match 296. HOWEVER, under match 311 there was a big old "DFF". Now there is a forfeit with Moyer being listed as the winner.
As for Moyer there was his loss by decision for match 253. Then it listed him as a forfeit for match 295 (still the same)... but now, under match 269 (as mentioned above) he is listed as a winner by forfeit under 311.
This begs the question, when did match 311 change from a double forfeit with NO wrestler ever taking the mat to have their hand raised to a forfeit by one of the wrestlers naming the clear winner of 5th place?
As for Moyer there was his loss by decision for match 253. Then it listed him as a forfeit for match 295 (still the same)... but now, under match 269 (as mentioned above) he is listed as a winner by forfeit under 311.
This begs the question, when did match 311 change from a double forfeit with NO wrestler ever taking the mat to have their hand raised to a forfeit by one of the wrestlers naming the clear winner of 5th place?
Last edited:
Look little man if you don't mind getting slapped around by a girl keep talking out of your rear end. Plus are you lost? Think they talk soccer in the girls sports forum.
We need a laughing reply like the thumbs up button
If i liked metrosexual soccer guys and wasn't already married...nah never mind.Bet your a looker hunPackin a lip too I'm sure
