Timely Information for Takedown Scoring and Stats Users
A Letter to the NCAA Rules Committee re: Miller v. Realbuto Controversy
This is an email sent on March 28th to Ron Beaschler , NCAA Wrestling Secretary-Rules Editor regarding the Miller v. Realbuto controversy
[This is an email sent on March 28th to Ron Beaschler (r-beaschler@onu.edu) NCAA Wrestling Secretary-Rules Editor, republished in light of the upcoming NWCA Convention, Jul 31 - Aug 2 2015. This issue deserves attention.]
Hi Ron--
We've been in contact previously about some finer points in the NCAA rule book. I thought you might be interested in our perspective about a specific area of the rule book that needs some attention in light of the Miller v. Realbuto controversy at the NCAAs. This is a very bland, technical recommendation, but I believe it addresses the root cause of the scoring error (no NCAA bashing here -- it's a great and popular sport especially in the wake of this controversy, but not my concern) in this match and, prospectively, others.
Here's the issue, articulated in the context of the Miller v. Realbuto match and excerpted from a broader blog post:
The 2nd Takedown Mystery
With a continuously running clock, by rule it is not possible for a wrestler to score two consecutive takedowns without the opposing wrestler scoring an escape in-between those two takedowns. Yet, that is precisely what happened in this match. At this tournament, scoring was done with an electronic scoring system that, in normal operation, prevents the operator from scoring two consecutive take downs for a wrestler without an interleaved escape by the opponent. That’s the rule and it is incorporated into the electronic scoring system’s logic.
Realbuto’s first takedown (at 0:24) was scored properly. The scoring system, rightly so, would have then disabled Realbuto’s takedown button until an escape for Miller was scored. But, the escape for Miller was never scored and when Realbuto executed his second takedown (at 0:10), the scorer had a serious problem: Realbuto’s takedown button was disabled. But, we know from looking at the scoreboard that Realbuto’s score increased by 2 match points at this point. How did that happen?
It’s been reported that the 2nd takedown was scored using a feature of scoring system that allows adding generic points to a wrestler’s score. These points don’t carry the standard scoring notation — T2 in this instance — but instead are simply recorded as “+1″ or “+2″ depending on the system used. These so-called generic points can be added to the wrestler’s tally at any time, regardless of match context or wrestler position. Some operators of electronic scoring systems use generic scoring when the button they want to tap — in this case, takedown — is disabled. It’s a way to circumvent the scoring system’s logic. And, it’s a bad idea that can lead to bad outcomes.
Generic Electronic Scoring Should Be Banned
Well, that’s a little extreme. But, consider carefully the case of Ian Miller. Had generic scoring been disabled in the NCAA’s scoring system, Realbuto’s final takedown wouldn’t have made it to the scoreboard and the natural wrestling process of everyone screaming bloody murder would have forced the official to give thoughtful deliberation to the scorebook. Instead, the scorer overrode the system’s logic and this action cascaded into a series of unfortunate events that unfairly sent Miller to the consies and Realbuto to the semis, and put an NCAA official in an embarrassing situation. Not good for Miller, Kent State or the NCAA.
s you know, the rule book has a table of scoring notations in 4.6 Scoring Abbreviations (WR-51). This table has a footnote that says "the abbreviations above are the only official terms for recording a result." As a practical matter, the "official" nature of these abbreviations has not been historically enforced. I'm guessing that the referees don't know all the abbreviations, nor do the scorers. And, in the case of manually scoring a bout, it is very difficult to enforce using these abbreviations in any case.
However, with the advent of electronic scoring systems, there is no reason, technical or otherwise, to use anything other than the "official" notations. Had this happened at the NCAAs, Miller would have been declared the winner, controversy avoided. Indeed, I suspect that Miller v. Realbuto's bout has accounted for in a manner in opposition to the NCAA rules in so much as the "official" scoring abbreviations were not used to record Realbuto's final take down.
y recommendation is that the rule book is revised to make clearer the role of the Scoring Abbreviations in official scoring and also articulate just what is meant by "official" in this context. For example, can an NCAA match have a declared winner if the scoring isn't "official"? The way the rules are currently written, that seems a reasonable question.
Further, and this is more specific, I'd suggest that any NCAA sanctioned event using electronic scoring use only the scoring notation in 4.6. This would have the benefits of (1) improving scoring accuracy and (2)standardizing scoring presentation. In turn, this change would reduce coach<->official interaction which often interrupts match flow (though, admittedly, highly entertaining depending on the coach!). For an electronic scoring system vendor like us, using the NCAA abbreviations is easy to implement and, in fact, we comply with most of 4.6 already. I'm sure other vendors would indicate likewise.
Thanks for reading this and I look forward to your response. Also, if you have any questions, please let me know. Our application has been used to score about 60,000 high school and college matches in two seasons, so we have deep user and technical expertise in this area.
____________________________________________
Lose Track of the Score at your Wrestler's Peril: A Harsh Lesson for Kent State and Ian Miller
In the quarter final round of the NCAA Division I Championships in March 2015, Ian Miller (Kent State) lost to Brian Realbuto (Cornell) 11-9 in sudden victory. But, that sudden victory round shouldn't have been wrestled because Ian Miller beat Brian Realbuto 10-9 in regulation. How'd that happen?
[originally published in March 2015; revived in light of upcoming NWCA Convention Jul 31 - Aug 2. This situation deserves some attention from that group.] In the quarter final round of the NCAA Division I Championships in March 2015, Ian Miller (Kent State) lost to Brian Realbuto (Cornell) 11-9 in sudden victory. But, that sudden victory round shouldn't have been wrestled because Ian Miller beat Brian Realbuto 10-9 in regulation. How'd that happen?
Background
With 24 seconds remaining in the 3rd period of bout #360, Miller led 8-5 and the wrestlers were in neutral. Realbuto scored a takedown making the score 8-7, Miller still leading. Four seconds later at 0:20 on the clock, Miller escaped, the score was then 9-7 still in Miller's favor. Realbuto followed with another takedown, tying the score at 9-9. The 3rd period ended with no further scoring. Miller, however, accumulated a riding time advantage in excess of one minute and was awarded the customary riding time point. Miller won 10-9. That's what happened. But, that's not how it was scored.
For whatever reason, Miller's escape at 0:20 was missed by the official scorer. The scoreboard showed Realbuto ahead 9-8 when the clock expired and with Miller's riding time advantage added, the score was tied 9-9. From the moment the whistle blew ending the third period until the whistle blew starting sudden victory, 25 seconds elapsed. Miller's head coach, Jim Andrassy, said that he approached the scoring table at third period's conclusion to question the score, but was rebuffed by the officials. Realbuto scored a takedown in sudden victory to win 11-9. Subsequently, Kent State approached the tournament committee and asked for a review. The tournament committee reviewed the situation in accordance with NCAA Rule 3.11.2 and decided not to overturn the match outcome. Realbuto moved on to the semi-final round and placed 2nd and Miller dropped into the consolations and placed 5th, both All-Americans and excellent wrestlers.
Kent State Reaction
Kent State's head coach, Jim Andrassy, approached the scoring table and officials at the end of regulation to contest the score. Andrassy, in a video interview after the match, said:
I knew the score was wrong, I went up to the head table, the referee said it was right and ... two officials sat me down and started overtime.
There's been no word from the NCAA or the officials on what transpired between the officials and Andrassy at this point in the match.
Referee's Role
Whatever was communicated between the mat officials and Andrassy at the end of regulation, the NCAA Rules (p. WR-27) are clear:
3.12 Questioning the Referee
3.12.1 Coach. A coach shall be permitted, without penalty, to approach the scorer’s table with the intent of correcting or asking for an interpretation of the score or time...The referee and coach shall discuss the situation in a rational manner directly in front of the scorer’s table.
In the 25 seconds from the end-of-regulation whistle to the start-of-sudden victory whistle, the official took 18 seconds to walk to the scoring table and walk out to center mat to start sudden victory leaving about seven seconds for discussing the situation in a "rational manner" with the contesting coach, Andrassy. Perhaps the official heard the coach's protest as he was walking toward the table, so it is possible the official was considering the issue for a longer period. Best case would be, say, 20 seconds of deliberation if he was still pondering the protest as he jogged out to start sudden victory. Still, in a critical match with lots of scoring in the period's final 32 seconds (2 takedowns, 2 escapes, 6 points), the rush to start sudden victory and not give more consideration to the issue seems ill-advised if not in opposition to the NCAA Rules.
NCAA Role
At a sanctioned tournament, the NCAA's Rule Book mandates a three person tournament committee to arbitrate all disputes (3.16.2) . Further details appear in 3.11.2:
Error by Timekeeper and/or Scorers. If there is an error on the part of the timekeeper and/or scorers, the error shall be corrected and the referee will inform the wrestlers, coaches and announcer of the correction...For a tournament, the correction shall be made by the referee and shall take place before the contestants leave the mat area or the bout sheet leaves the scorer’s table. Any error not resolved by the referee shall be arbitrated by the tournament committee.
In this instance, the tournament committee did not overturn the match result. However, in a video interview, the Chair of the NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee offered a mind-numbing explanation of why the tournament committee didn't overturn the match outcome, saying:
I think it's key to understand that there was never an official challenge made at the match...the protocol that's in place is to go over, grab that flag and say 'no, that's wrong' and that never occurred.
The Chair is referring to NCAA Rule 3.21, Mat-Side Video Review which was established to challenge judgement calls by the referee, not clerical scoring errors. Moreover, the protocol for questioning the score is in rule 3.12 cited above. There is no requirement in the NCAA Rules to use a formal challenge, ala 3.21 Mat-Side Video Review, to question the official score accuracy. The NCAA Chair's statement reveals an ignorance of the rules that's distressing. Some suggest that the statement is a red herring, that the real reason the NCAA declined lies elsewhere. I'm not on the committee so I take the Chair's statement at face value.
Where's the escape?
Why wasn't Miller's escape, the one with 20 seconds remaining, accounted for in the official score? Maybe the referee gave a poor signal or none at all, this isn't clear from available match video. We know for certain that the scoring table missed the escape. Much has been made of this missed escape, but the reality is referees often give poor signals and scoring tables miss scores. It happens and, here's the point: missing the escape isn't the critical error in this situation. It's what happened next that is important to understand and internalize.
The 2nd Takedown Mystery
With a continuously running clock, by rule it is not possible for a wrestler to score two consecutive takedowns without the opposing wrestler scoring an escape in-between those two takedowns. Yet, that is precisely what happened in this match. At this tournament, scoring was done with an electronic scoring system that, in normal operation, prevents the operator from scoring two consecutive take downs for a wrestler without an interleaved escape by the opponent. That's the rule and it is incorporated into the electronic scoring system's logic.
Realbuto's first takedown (at 0:24) was scored properly. The scoring system, rightly so, would have then disabled Realbuto's takedown button until an escape for Miller was scored. But, the escape for Miller was never scored and when Realbuto executed his second takedown (at 0:10), the scorer had a serious problem: Realbuto's takedown button was disabled. But, we know from looking at the scoreboard that Realbuto's score increased by 2 match points at this point. How did that happen?
It's been reported that the 2nd takedown was scored using a feature of scoring system that allows adding generic points to a wrestler's score. These points don't carry the standard scoring notation -- T2 in this instance -- but instead are simply recorded as "+1" or "+2" depending on the system used. These so-called generic points can be added to the wrestler's tally at any time, regardless of match context or wrestler position. Some operators of electronic scoring systems use generic scoring when the button they want to tap -- in this case, takedown -- is disabled. It's a way to circumvent the scoring system's logic. And, it's a bad idea that can lead to bad outcomes.
Generic Electronic Scoring Should Be Banned
Well, that's a little extreme. But, consider carefully the case of Ian Miller. Had generic scoring been disabled in the NCAA's scoring system, Realbuto's final takedown wouldn't have been posted to the scoreboard and the natural wrestling process of everyone screaming bloody murder would have forced the official to give thoughtful deliberation to the scorebook. Instead, the scorer overrode the system's logic and this action cascaded into a series of unfortunate events that unfairly sent Miller to the consies and Realbuto to the semis, and put an NCAA official in an embarrassing situation. Not good for Miller, Kent State or the NCAA.
All Coaches Pay Attention
In his post-match interview, Kent State's head coach Jim Andrassy also offered the following:
To be honest with you, I thought [the score] was wrong, but I wasn't 100% sure. It didn't seem right.
From this statement, it's fair to assume that Coach Andrassy didn't confidently approach the officials with a specific description of why the score was in error. To be sure, the referee and scorer bear most of the responsibility. But, a coach without his own detailed, independently generated recording of the scoring sequence is risking an unjust outcome for the wrestler. When that happens in the quarter finals of the NCAA Div I Championship, it's a big deal.
So, coaches, when the outcome matters, use something -- a paper scorebook or, better, an electronic scoring system normally operated -- to correctly and independently record the match scoring activity. Mat officials and table scorers commit errors and it is your responsibility to confidently step in and make it right for your wrestler. They deserve nothing less.
Are Forfeits a Problem for High School Wrestling?
We looked at 116 dual meets, JV and Varsity, from schools across the country and discovered an alarming rate of forfeits -- 18% of all matches! Examining the impact at each weight class, we found the following
We looked at 116 dual meets, JV and Varsity, from schools across the country and discovered an alarming rate of forfeits -- 18% of all matches! Examining the impact at each weight class, we found the following: The problem is clearer when looking at groups of adjacent weight classes:
If this data is representative of high wrestling-at-large, then we seem to have a challenge attracting light and heavy weight wrestlers. Perhaps the NFHS weight classes are misaligned with the underlying student demographic. Other explanations are possible. In any case, the forfeit rate seems undesirable in the context of making wrestling a more fan-friendly sport.
What do you think? Add a comment below.
We Can Do Better
Wrestling Needs Better Stats
We don’t keep very good statistics in scholastic wrestling. Our primary scoring repository -- handwritten scorebooks -- isn't good for retrieving and analyzing data. Also, the statistics getting the most attention -- individual match and team results -- don’t get us to the next level. To be sure, these stats are fundamentally important, but coaches, athletes and fans deserve a richer and more interesting statistical view of our sport. We can and should do better.
Save a Tree and Some Time
Recently, I took a peek inside a high school coach’s desk drawer and found this.
Look familiar? Thought so.
Some coaches or team managers, bless their hearts, will painstakingly comb through pages of manually scored matches and tally up takedowns, pins and so forth. This process is time-consuming, inflexible and error-prone. Also, a coach undertaking manual tallying wastes precious coaching time on a task easily avoided.
To date, alternatives for electronically recording live match results have been few and not very user friendly. Legacy approaches include DOS-, Windows- and browser-based programs, none of which take full advantage of today’s more user friendly technology. However, tablet computers, like the Apple iPad, and native, user-friendly apps, like Takedown Scoring and Stats, make the transition to electronic scoring both easy and compelling.
More Than Runs and Hits
What if professional baseball recorded only runs and hits? These essential stats determine game winner and individual performance, respectively, and are really all that’s needed for figuring out the best team and batter.
But, professional baseball teams and players are measured with a seemingly endless array of stats. Why?
Because coaches and players find the statistics helpful for assessing team and individual performance and taking corrective action.
And, from a fan’s perspective, rich stats make for objective discussion and engaging debate.
For the most part, wrestling is concerned mostly with runs and hits. We know which team won an event and which wrestler beat another wrestler and this data is fundamentally important.
But, from a statistical perspective, do we really understand our sport? Maybe, but I haven’t seen anything published in the US since Gurby’s “Scoring Patterns in High School Wrestling” in 2005.
Certainly some teams maintain a comprehensive statistical understanding of team performance. But, the practice isn't common for good reason: the task is too hard. Most often, the data doesn’t exist in a usable format or might not exist at all.
Further, better stats is part of building a larger, more engaged wrestling fan base. Fans love stats! Statistics offer a deeper understanding of competitor and team performance, and provide an objective departure point for lively discussion and debate. Having a larger group of engaged fans would surely be great for our sport!
Enter Takedown Scoring and Stats
Our scoring and stats app, Takedown Scoring and Stats, helps teams save time by digitizing all of their wrestling information: scoring, stats, video, schedules, rosters and contacts. It’s free to use for a trial period during which you can explore all the capabilities and understand how easy it is to move your team into the 21st century.
If you’re interested in developing comprehensive stats for your team and saving time as well, give it a try.