Let's do stick to the facts. There are two things going on here.

1. Illegal Grasping of the Headgear -- Clearly a Violation.

Let's take the easier one first. The assistant saw a grasping of the headgear which is illegal under Rule 7-3-2. It does not matter if the head official saw it, that's what the assistant saw and signaled. In fact, it is why you have the assistant and head official opposite each other--if the assistant saw it, the head probably could not. As a veteran offical, you understand the rules and the call. There was nothing wrong with that call and if the assistant saw it, he had to call it. That's a TV and a point. This gets called all the time, just like locked hands or grabbing the singlet. Boos from the fans or coaches does not change a violation and it was the right call. Its not a "questionable" call at all, its a questioned call..questioned by those who didn't like it and who probably didn't see it--not because it didn't happen, but because they weren't on the mat. Its a big match, folks are worked up and blinded by emotion, so what's new about that? An official will see that that a thousand times in thirty years. Unless you have some film, let's support that call rather than criticize it.

2. Hair Coming Out of a Hair Cover is Not Illegal.

What about the hair? First, it has nothing to do with the grasping call so someone is looking for a "make up" point to even out the match score. There could have been any number of other "missed points" in that match or any other match. Again, its the emotion of the circumstances talking, not the facts. The hair is a "red herring" issue. By rule, if the hair cover was on and IF the hair met the rule at the start of the match, there was no violation. Under Rule 4-2-2, if the hair is longer than allowed by rule "it shall be contained in a cover so that the hair rule is satisfied." This does not require that the hair be completely inside the cover, it only requires that it meet the hair rule (not below the earlobe and off the collar--doesn't matter if its in the eyes). So sticking out doesn't make it illegal. IF the hair was sticking out and longer than allowed by rule, as you say, then it would have been a violation - failing to report ready to wrestle--TV, injury time and a point. But that isn't what was called and apparently there was no complaint by the opposing coach at the beginning of the match. So I am going to assume the cover and hair were legal to begin with, or that nobody really cared. If that was not the case, then the opposing coach in this match, and in any earlier matches during the day, had every opportunity to alert the officials but apparantly there was no complaint until this match. In fact, the kid that lost this close match by a point could be asking his coach a pretty pointed question right about now.... But let's be paying attention to what really matters--good sportsmanship, support for the wrestlers, coaches, and officials, and making the trip to state a good experience for all those fortunate enough to qualify.

Once that match was started, and assuming the hair cover was legal, there should have been no charged time-out or penalty assessed if it became illegal or was first noticed during the match. Under Rule 3-1-5, "a referee's time-out shall be declared for the purpose of correcting legal equipment which becomes illegal or inoperative through use." There is no number on the limit of referee time outs. So, if there is a complaint, it should be that the kid was charged with a time out when the head cover become illegal during wrestling. It should have been corrected using an official's time out, just like when the headgear comes off repeatedly--you fix it but you don't ding the kid. It was an error to charge an injury time out for this situation. And certainly there could never, by rule, be two injury timeouts for the same illegal equipment in the same match. The first time out would fix the problem, making the equipment "legal" -- thereafter it would always be a referee's timeout under the rule. So no points for that.


So once again, we have a controversial call that really wasn't controversial at all, under the rules. It was controversial because of the outcome and a misunderstanding of the rules.