|
|
Post by osu122975 on Sept 2, 2015 20:08:08 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhma1hmT1V4Would this press be considered legal in this fed from a sink and heave standpoint? If no, why? He sinks into his chest, but there is no downward movement once its motionless. Curious as to opinions on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3speed on Sept 3, 2015 5:01:20 GMT -5
OSU, I am an International Head Judge with 100% RAW. The way he sunk the bar is legal in our Fed. There was no downward movement after the "Press" command. Our rules simply state that the bar must be motionless and under control. However, the lift would not have counted in 100% RAW because his head was off of the bench during the descent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbunch on Sept 3, 2015 7:05:18 GMT -5
What 3speed said (except the part about being an international judge, I just started judging (lol -offically) this year
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 3, 2015 7:49:21 GMT -5
OSU, I am an International Head Judge with 100% RAW. The way he sunk the bar is legal in our Fed. There was no downward movement after the "Press" command. Our rules simply state that the bar must be motionless and under control. However, the lift would not have counted in 100% RAW because his head was off of the bench during the descent. Woody, curious to get your opinion on this (as an aside, and OSU, dont mean to derail this thread, so I'll make the question simple and to-the-point): Specifically regarding head position on bench, why do certain feds (100% RAW, USAPL and other reputable feds) care if your head's off the bench at any point during the lift? How does that aid the lifter from a leverage standpoint? Can you shed some light? Thanks, Ryan |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 3, 2015 7:52:26 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhma1hmT1V4Would this press be considered legal in this fed from a sink and heave standpoint? If no, why? He sinks into his chest, but there is no downward movement once its motionless. Curious as to opinions on this. I would add to this, just as a lifter and unbiased observer, that in a number of feds, this lift also would not have counted due to soft handoff. Hoornstra's strong as Hades, and anyone who knows what he's done is aware of this, but between the soft handoff, sinking of the bar and head positioning, it's a wonder any fed would be willing to pass this lift. Just saying..... |
|
|
|
Post by 3speed on Sept 3, 2015 8:49:52 GMT -5
In my opinion, the handoff is borderline. 100% RAW rules state that the handoff must be to arms length. It also states that the lift must begin at arms length. It makes no statement that the arms must be locked out or how long the "arms length" must be held. The liftoff guy released the bar at the top and did not follow it down. In our Fed, the only dq I see is the head being up.
This lift was performed at an APA meet. The lift met all of the requirements under their rules.
Ryan, I'll get back to you about the head question. I'm commenting from my phone while trying (pretending) to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbunch on Sept 3, 2015 16:29:41 GMT -5
I never thought about it, I just accepted it as a rule but now that you guys brougt it up . I would be curious to know the reasoning behind the head on the bench rule. I look forward to what ever you rind out.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3speed on Sept 3, 2015 19:17:07 GMT -5
As to the question about the head staying down. My personal opinion is that it was initially just another degree of separation from the geared lifters. Because of the incredible tightness of some shirts and the struggle for some geared lifters just to touch the bar to their chests, they need to lift their head during the descent simply to be able to see when the bar has finally touched.
|
|
|
|
Post by osu122975 on Sept 3, 2015 20:23:05 GMT -5
So am I to assume its ok to sink as long as the bar becomes motionless and there is no downward movement of the bar after the press command?
|
|
|
|
Post by 3speed on Sept 3, 2015 20:43:27 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
