I Got 2nd Place In The Mundials?

Here is why I don't think it was a sweep. Dave gave up position for a submission attempt. I see this much like someone laying back for a foot lock and not being able to finish it. He gave up position for a sub attempt and was unsuccessful. When someone lays back for a heel hook or ankle lock and are not successful and the other guy ends up on top they are not awarded points for a sweep.
 
Sean-Roberts said:
He is really good. It could of gone either way it was an awesome match. If you compete long enough stuff like this will happen. The things I said before was not really me I was very upset at the time.
Click to expand...

What people say and do when they're upset is just as "them" as however they'd act in an elated mood. Says just as much, if not more.

Not to bash on you at all, really; it's completely understandable, no ones a saint. I just had to say.
 
AnOddParadigm said:
That is not necessarily true. If you fall back from guard to go for a long lock and eventually lose it and end up back in guard after a scramble, your opponent is not rewarded points for a sweep even though the positions were inverted. I am just saying there is a gray line on what is and what is a sweep and not every movement that brings you from bottom to top is a sweep.
Click to expand...

You're 100% wrong about this rule.
 
RadBoy said:
Here is why I don't think it was a sweep. Dave gave up position for a submission attempt. I see this much like someone laying back for a foot lock and not being able to finish it. He gave up position for a sub attempt and was unsuccessful. When someone lays back for a heel hook or ankle lock and are not successful and the other guy ends up on top they are not awarded points for a sweep.
Click to expand...

They absolutely are under IBJJF rules.
 
goatfury said:
They absolutely are under IBJJF rules.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to explain. Guys here start saying "while I think this" and "I would not

award points" for that. The rules are clear and strait forward. From reading the postings and

comments, Sean said the ref even said sorry after the match. If true, I am unsure how any

one would question the sweep when the ref admits to not awarding points.


I am sure they will meet again, and Sean will try and not leave the final outcome up to the ref.
 
Definitely not a sweep. He was trying to finish a submission by pulling guard.

That's like calling going into a guillotine a sweep.
 
Widow_Maker said:
That's what I was trying to explain. Guys here start saying "while I think this" and "I would not

award points" for that. The rules are clear and strait forward. From reading the postings and

comments, Sean said the ref even said sorry after the match. If true, I am unsure how any

one would question the sweep when the ref admits to not awarding points.


I am sure they will meet again, and Sean will try and not leave the final outcome up to the ref.
Click to expand...

theres a lot of vagueness concerning "rules."
 
It sounds like the rules weren't written with all the necessary legalese. I think this is a clear case of "good" and understandable judicial discretion.

All this "but the rules say this and this only!" jazz seems so lame. We have human moderators in everything for a reason.
 
seems like david bass was basically winning and won. he was more agressive on top and on the bottom.
 
Was cool to finally see the match. I remember reading all this when it was first posted.

As far the sweep goes, I wouldn't of awarded you any points there either. Seems like you legitimately lost and got 2nd. So no reason to be upset... he was just better that day. Either way it's a big accomplishment you can be proud of.
 
There is another Video that has all the othe 6 finishes but not the 7th

In every single one he literaly runs forward jumps and closes his guard. In one of those, the othe guy actually falls backwards and Sean lands in mount.

That made me LOL


But he should have got the 2 points IMO, David was in Sean's half guard, had David been on side control then yes, no points, but I'd give the points based on that
 
there is no abiguity what-so-ever in the rules, he was on bottom half-guard and the position was inverted, it was a sweep, there is no stipulation in the rules that he has to be trying to sweep, if you are on the bottom and have someone in your guard and they off-base themselves and you end up on top it's a sweep, doesn't matter if it's a sub attempt or not. The rules are quite clear:

F-) THE SWEEP: is when the athlete that is underneath has his opponent in his guard(in between his legs ) or the half guard (having one of his adversary
 
IMO it was a sweep. But I think that the rule sucks, and if you are trying to finish a sub and go to your back to do so, there should be no sweep. Anyways great match. Both of you are gonna be monsters, even though everyone is gonna hate Bass for being like Ryan Hall.
 
codemonkey76 said:
there is no abiguity what-so-ever in the rules, he was on bottom half-guard and the position was inverted, it was a sweep,
Click to expand...


My interpretation of "inverting the position" is basically a total reversal of position. ie going from bottom guard to full mount, or going from bottom 1/2 guard to top 1/2 guard. Going from 1/2 guard bottom to someone's full guard isn't an inversion. Just my two cents (even though I'm probably wrong. lol)
 
Flounder said:
My interpretation of "inverting the position" is basically a total reversal of position. ie going from bottom guard to full mount, or going from bottom 1/2 guard to top 1/2 guard. Going from 1/2 guard bottom to someone's full guard isn't an inversion. Just my two cents (even though I'm probably wrong. lol)
Click to expand...

Yes, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if you end up in the person's guard... it's ruled a sweep. Rules are rules, whether or not you agree with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,541
Messages
58,295,677
Members
175,998
Latest member
Move With Love

Share this page

Back
Top