Ref gave Konopka's opponent the win
Konopka didn't do enough, to be sure, but that NEVER should have been a passivity on him. He was instigating the action for 5:55 of that match.
8 Replies
2w
create angles and maintains movement. But because he isn't in the very center of the mat, "he's being passive" vs the guy who stands defensively in the center and simply spins around like he's an electric football player piece.
(In response to this post by Nafeikoh)
D
donjfs3
2w
That was a ridiculous passivity, but if your only scores are a step out and activity point it's hard to argue. Disappointing that we won't get to see Konopka vs. Ladd Holman though
(In response to this post by Nafeikoh)
V
VTsoilDr
2w
Despite winning cons. quarters. How come?
(In response to this post by La Gargola)
2w
Long story short, if you lose in the quarters (Rd of 8), you actually drop to the consi quarters (Rd of 12). IF you win there, you then go to the consi-sub-semis (Rd of 8... again) which is a truly terrible name. But that's where he lost, which dropped him into the 7th/8th place match. If he had won, he would've gone to the consi-semis (Rd of 6).
The Rd of 12 is also called the "blood round" because if you get past it, you're an All American. If you lose, your tournament is over.
Confused yet?
(In response to this post by VTsoilDr)
2w
(In response to this post by donjfs3)