Rule changes approved - let the discussion begin
- Thread starter GG121AND2
- Start date
The 5 count is way too long. Should be a 2 count or an automatic stall warning. Too many guys hanging on the ankle to prevent escapes last year.
Interlocking hands from neutral? Not sure I fully understand that one. So no bear hugs.. Or is a pinning combo not part of this?
I believe they are talking about when you interlock your fingers with your opponents. So, if we are neutral and I reach my hand out and you counter by reaching out yours and then interlocking your fingers with mine, neither of us can really do anything.
Separating the “control-of-mat area” and “questioning the referee” penalties in the penalty chart. If a coach leaves the restricted area, the penalty structure will be: a warning on the first offense; loss of a team point in the event standings/score on the second offense; and loss of two team points and ejection on the third offense.
Coaches better get under control, losing team points is huge!
Coaches better get under control, losing team points is huge!
After watching how it was called in that event, members of the NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee determined that when wrestling is stopped in the neutral standing position for going out of bounds, the referee can make one of the three following calls:
Recommending that teams wear contrasting-colored singlets at dual meets.
I could see a scenario where Oky State pulls out the black singlets for a home dual against the Hawks just to mess with us. What would we wear?
- Stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the wrestling area.
- Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds.
- Wrestling action is taking place. (It should be noted that a tie-up, including an under hook with no attempt to initiate an offensive move, is not considered an offensive or defensive attack).
Recommending that teams wear contrasting-colored singlets at dual meets.
I could see a scenario where Oky State pulls out the black singlets for a home dual against the Hawks just to mess with us. What would we wear?
I read the "recommending..." as only that: No requirement and no enforcement. The rule book is simply requesting that teams try to wear contrasting-colored singlets.
This is just a "recommendation," right? I can't remember Iowa wearing anything but black. Ever.
Also makes for some pretty good porn... so I've heard anyway.
I concur. 5 seconds is an eternity unless it's cumulative.
I like the experimental 3-pt TD.
Disappointed the NCAA refuses to address the elephant in the room...riding time.
The 5 second rule is really a 10 second rule, because it seems it takes that long for refs to begin their count. Though they did clarify the rule a little better I think. The count starts even if one arm is around the waist. Maybe that was the rule before.
They were waiting for Mike Evans to get done before they implemented it. He always seemed to lift an ankle and drive forward off the mat...
"While officiating the drop-down rule, the referee will immediately begin a five-second count for stalling once the offensive wrestler positions himself with one or both hands below the buttocks of the defensive wrestler. The referee will stop the count when the offensive wrestler improves his position, moves his hold above the buttocks of the defensive wrestler or releases the hold."
I don't think it is the intent at all, but could a referee begin a 5 count for a spiral ride? Your hand is positioned below the defensive wrestler's buttocks, no?
I don't think it is the intent at all, but could a referee begin a 5 count for a spiral ride? Your hand is positioned below the defensive wrestler's buttocks, no?
This rule is still pretty darn easy to game. Drop down, wait for the ref to count to 3/4, come back up above the waist/butt to kill the count, repeat.
I think it's in situations where the offensive wrestler is in danger of losing control and giving up a point/hanging on for dear life.
Spiral ride usually entails one arm under the same side armpit of the opponent, and the other arm around the waist or as a post. The offensive wrestler is not in danger of losing control.
So we still have riding time, the dumb assed 5 second rule will be different with every ref, and the ref may, or may not ding the aggressor for the "push-out"??? Seems legit... SMFH.
There would be less/no need for the 5-second rule if RT were eliminated. Sure would simplify a large aspect of officiating.
After watching how it was called in that event, members of the NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee determined that when wrestling is stopped in the neutral standing position for going out of bounds, the referee can make one of the three following calls:
- Stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the wrestling area.
- Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds.
- Wrestling action is taking place. (It should be noted that a tie-up, including an under hook with no attempt to initiate an offensive move, is not considered an offensive or defensive attack).
I can't wait to see them try to implement this. What a convoluted mess this will be.
First of all - it will be hard to game the system by waiting for a 3/4 second count and then going above the waist, then dropping back down below it. Usually when a guy drops down he is losing control of the guy and when he tries to climb back up he will lose control again. Keeping control while going back above the waist is much tougher to do than it sounds. Personally, I think that one rule change helped Matt Brown win a national title more than any other thing (besides hard work and talent etc..). Maybe I should have said it is the thing that pushed him over the top. Otherwise it would have been him and Mike Evans going into a double overtime 0-0 battle.
Also, I think it is good that the powers that be at least (although it has taken way too long) recognize that something has to be done about stalling and they have to let the officials know exactly what it is. Otherwise the officials will not call it. For whatever reason, the officials are afraid to call stalling and the rules committee has to give them permission. I am sure that could be someone's doctoral thesis- Why college officials are afraid to call stalling.
Also, I think it is good that the powers that be at least (although it has taken way too long) recognize that something has to be done about stalling and they have to let the officials know exactly what it is. Otherwise the officials will not call it. For whatever reason, the officials are afraid to call stalling and the rules committee has to give them permission. I am sure that could be someone's doctoral thesis- Why college officials are afraid to call stalling.
For some reason I was thinking the rule regarding pushing someone else out of bounds being stalling was enacted to stop this happening while someone has control. For example, top guy pushing the bottom guy out of bounds to prevent him from escaping. I may be off base with this or misremembering. But if I am correct, this doesn't clarify that which could be a huge problem.
Did you watch any wrestling at all last season? Guys did this all of the time last year.
I'll maintain my skepticism about these rules having any effect until I see it. It really doesn't matter how many rules changes you make, if the officials don't want to follow them then wrestling will continue to suffer. I don't know how to make officials do their jobs but that has to be fixed before any of these rules has any effect.
Prior to last season I thought the 5-second dropdown count was a great idea. It wasn't. As interpreted by the officials, the top man gets to drop down on an ankle for 5 seconds - repeatedly. It's a license to stall in 5-second increments. IMO if a wrestler drops repeatedly to the ankle, the next time I'd call the stall immediately. Why give the staller 5 more seconds? The stallers should love this rule change.
I remember the PSU guys chasing a guy around the mat and pulling like crazy to keep control. Other than that I do not remember anyone dropping down and back up repeatedly. I hardly saw any hanging on like the previous year or two. I saw a lot of times where the official got to about 3 or 4 and the other kid let the ankle go. I guess i am saying that I think it had a positive effect on the wrestling action overall.
I couldn't count how many times I saw guys game the system by moving up after every 3-4 count.
1.I would guess not doing it in high school is as much a technical consideration. Keeping the score right is a challenge, getting Mr sock-collector-in-training to do the clock too would be tough.
2.Agree, riding time is what is destroying wrestling. Even top wrestlers who can dominate typically don't get going until they have the riding point secured. That is a huge waste of time in getting to the pin.
I agree.
Pushing someone out from the neutral position doesn't get punished in freestyle, it gains a point. That practice was actually suggested to the rules committee, if I remember right.
I vote for putting Craig Sesker on the committee. Here's his column from March:
http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Wrestlin...ing-lack-of-offense-hurting-college-wrestling
"Guys aren’t scoring points and they aren’t working for falls. They’re backing up, stalling and playing the edge of the mat. And trying to win matches by holding on and riding their opponent. It’s ugly, it really is. And it’s sad that this is the product we have to watch right now at the collegiate level."
it's a nice ploy to "increase" the scoring by making the top man work towards getting a fall...all but eliminates the need for a 5 count now. Just a four count for more points....probably will see an increase in Major decisions...taken down to your back could be down 6-0 before you know it.
I've looked, but cannot find an article I read that I believe intimated that the riding time point was, statistically, the single most important factor in winning an NCAA championship match. My memory is known to fail me but, if true, do we want that point to control the outcome of most matches? Heck - I've seen Randy Lewis matches where Lewboo would be up, maybe, 14 - 10 and not have riding time (and then pin the guy). That's the kind of stuff that ought to win national titles.
This is exactly what Schopp did with his side headlock against Richards at the last Midlands. Would wait for the ref to get to 4, briefly release his grip and then right back to it. Did it 3 or 4 times while looking the ref in the face. Ref eventually called a stalemate when it was obviously stalling.
I'm not a fan of the 3 pt takedown and 4 pt nearfall, it seems to me to be just inflating the point system. Now people can have 7 pt moves as opposed to 5, and sure the scores may have higher numbers, but do we really expect the number of takedowns and turns to increase by making them worth more?
I was perfectly fine with the rules that were in place this past season, the only thing that was missing was the correct implementation of the stalling rules by the officials. As mentioned by Tim Johnson during the NCAA finals "The rules are there, they just have to call stalling."
One change I would be okay with would be some kind of change to riding time, not necessarily remove it, but it seems that a lot of the 'boring' wrestling that was going on was from people doing the absolute minimum to keep someone down for 1 minute just to get the point.
I was perfectly fine with the rules that were in place this past season, the only thing that was missing was the correct implementation of the stalling rules by the officials. As mentioned by Tim Johnson during the NCAA finals "The rules are there, they just have to call stalling."
One change I would be okay with would be some kind of change to riding time, not necessarily remove it, but it seems that a lot of the 'boring' wrestling that was going on was from people doing the absolute minimum to keep someone down for 1 minute just to get the point.
