Did they change the OT rule to 1st TD wins in sudden death? Please tell me they did
3 Point TD Approved
- Thread starter Multi-Hawk
- Start date
Highly doubt the refs can even tell if the top man is trying to pin. Top will just act as if they are trying something and the ref will fall for it and not call anything. 1 of the biggest problems with wrestling is the inconsistency with the refs.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Good post. Many are overlooking the fact that this will likely lead to more majors/bonus points. Will affect dual and tournament scoring in a good way IMO. I'm interested to see how it plays out in individual matches. If it doesn't achieve the desired result, just go back to 2 pt takedowns the following year. I'm in favor of trying new things and seeing how it goes.
If a wrestler only gets TD’s and one escape point with the new rules, the opponent only has escapes, the match ends with 7 TD.
With the old rules it took 13 TD’s with one RT point and one escape.
With the old rules it took 13 TD’s with one RT point and one escape.
I also really like the 5 sec change on ankle rides. What has me concerned is the definition of "grasp". I hate the PSU ankle lock and ride/stall. If that ankle lock is not considered a grasp (because it's not with the hand) the rule won't fix it.
Not sold the 3 point change on takedowns will work. Happy to try it as we've got some really shitty stalling in the sport right now. Ultimately calling stalling correctly would work, but for some reason we as a sport can't get consistency.
Desanto sure wouldnt have been on the mat very long with a 3 pt takedown.
No, just easier to get a tech fall with inflated points for near fall and take downs. It’s the refs that need properly call stalling to keep action going. Key word is properly!
what refs used to be told was top man can't stay parallel-needs to go perpendicular to work for a fall. Very tough to do with that restriction with a trapped ankle ride, unless they are working away from the body trying to cradle.
Will be interesting to see the enforcement.
Just ordered my new license plates:
THREEEE
THREEEE
I don't think it will make a difference. It's too subjective, and stall riders will simply disguise their stall ride with incorporated weak fake turning attempts.
I do not think it needs to be called properly, but rather just called frequently. If that was the case, no one would stall for fear of being called. Working for position or pushing is not attempting to score. Putting your head in the guys chest is not working to score. Backing up without level changes and shots is not working to score.
Stalemates should be almost non existent. If you are in a position that neither guy can score, hit the guy who created that situation for stalling. If I take a shot and am trying to finish and we get all tangled up in ankles etc.. the guy who created the position (the one grabbing ankles in the first place) is called for stalling. If I take a shot and get caught in a front headlock and no one is moving, hit the guy in the front headlock for stalling. He is free to change position and if it means giving up a point, then that is too bad. The other guy created the action and took the risk - reward him.
Also, no warnings. Stalling is a point. What the hell is a warning for stalling.. Either you are stalling or you are not. That would end a lot of the last period dancing and running because the guy knows he has a stall call to give up. Do they give the NBA a shot clock warning if they do not get a shot off in time? NO!! They automatically give up the ball. That same should go for stalling.
I think freestyle has hit it completely on the head with the way the deal with stalling.
Pipe dream..: I would like to see dual meets scored different. I think this could change the action.
Aggregate scoring Instead of outcome based scoring. You get team points for every individual point scored.
A fall would have to be 22 points (the highest margin of victory in a tech is 21 if TD is worth three and you’re up 14 and go feet to back).
Now, a 6-3 victory vs a 10-3 victory are different and there is incentive to chase every last point in every match.
Pipe dream.
Aggregate scoring Instead of outcome based scoring. You get team points for every individual point scored.
A fall would have to be 22 points (the highest margin of victory in a tech is 21 if TD is worth three and you’re up 14 and go feet to back).
Now, a 6-3 victory vs a 10-3 victory are different and there is incentive to chase every last point in every match.
Pipe dream.
If you are up 14, go feet to back and time runs out of the match and you have enough riding to where you get 1 for RT, you could have a 22 point tech fall
I think the freestyle way of team scoring is better. If each guy scores a point the losers team gets 1 point, unless it is a fall. So a 6-3 decision is 3 team points to the winner's and 1 to the loser's team. A major would be 4/1 and tech would be a 5/1 split.
If we scored every match point as a team meet point, it would be possible to have 3 guys on the team getting techs and then lose the other 7 matches, but still win the meet.
Might be true. The devil is in the enforcement and what the points of emphasis are with the officials. The days of the parallel ride (among other things) need to be over. It wasn’t acceptable 20+ years ago but somehow it’s been OK since.
Points for the losers is nonsensical and only adds silliness. This isn’t the CBA basketball league. There’s no reason to add such a complication.
The goal should be fewer and simpler rules versus more and complex ones.
I was thinking about woods getting dinged for two quick stalls and a point at the end of the period against Nebraska kid at nationals.
I beginning to think that maybe freestyle should be the way to go. With the exception that they limit the amount of guts or leg laces that can be scored after a takedown.
Stall rides in folk have become all to common, and now counter wrestlers have no incentive to take a shot with the new three point take down.
It just doesn’t seem like they can get the folk rules figured out. Almost as if the people implementing the rules don’t understand the essence of the sport. It’s a lot easier now to wrestle a 3-1 match then it was 20 years ago. Some scoring might go up against lesser competition, but we’re gonna see low scoring inactive matches against guys that are equal in skill level. Very limited shots and more points being scored late off of counters in 1-1 matches. Not sure this new rule helps offensive wrestlers at all.
I’m pretty bummed they can’t figure this crap out. Get ready to see more pushing, snapping, and fleeing the mat. There’s no longer a reason to not simply be a counter wrestler anymore. The Cam Amines and Sammy Sasso’s of the world are taking over.
Rant over. I’m gonna go drink some now and watch highlight videos of the 80’s and 90’s where our favorites were forced to wrestler hard not just circle each other.
Back in the early 80s they implemented a rule at Midlands for one tournament. First wrestler to 12 won the match, didn't matter if it was 12-11, game over.
Made for some fast and furious wrestling.
3 points for a TD is an awful idea, as is the 4 point NF. How about a bonus point for a feet to back TD, like freestyle used to have?
Made for some fast and furious wrestling.
3 points for a TD is an awful idea, as is the 4 point NF. How about a bonus point for a feet to back TD, like freestyle used to have?
This has proven indispensable. And when it's not there the whistles tend to get swallowed at the end of the season.
1. 3 point takedowns aren’t cool and all.
2. Duck Dynasty beards and headgears/chin cups are a disgusting look. Get rid of the headgears if you’re allowing that.
So … if the TD is 3pts, why not make a reversal 3pts? I get the math TD v escape. But if the period goes: TD3 followed soon after by an R2, the period ends 3-2, which doesn’t seem fair. The losing wrestler (arguably) proved superiority in 2/3 positions and scored last. Feels like it should be tied 3-3.
Wrestling moves essentially reward the competitors for doing one or more of these 3 things. TD’s and Rev’s both do all 3.
1. Exposes a technical flaw of the opponent
2. Improves the position of the scoring wrestler with Pin>Turning>Top>Neutral>Bottom
3. Establishes the scoring wrestler in a sustainable position of greater control.
By virtue of being the ultimate exemplification of all 3 criteria, the match ends.
Assuming those are the 3 things one is rewarded for in wrestling, TD being 3 points makes sense to me, but so does as does a Reversal being 3.
TD3 achieves #1, #2, #3
Rev2 achieves #1, #2, #3
NF3 achieves #1, #2, #3
NF2 achieves #1 and #2, but isn’t sustained
Esc achieves #2, not necessarily #1, and not #3
RT, achieves #1 only
Penalties etc. fall under #1
Admittedly, this scoring philosophy doesn’t explain NF4. I guess it would be #1, #2, #3, #3? I don’t know, NF4 never made sense to me. Anyhow, why not R3?
Wrestling moves essentially reward the competitors for doing one or more of these 3 things. TD’s and Rev’s both do all 3.
1. Exposes a technical flaw of the opponent
2. Improves the position of the scoring wrestler with Pin>Turning>Top>Neutral>Bottom
3. Establishes the scoring wrestler in a sustainable position of greater control.
By virtue of being the ultimate exemplification of all 3 criteria, the match ends.
Assuming those are the 3 things one is rewarded for in wrestling, TD being 3 points makes sense to me, but so does as does a Reversal being 3.
TD3 achieves #1, #2, #3
Rev2 achieves #1, #2, #3
NF3 achieves #1, #2, #3
NF2 achieves #1 and #2, but isn’t sustained
Esc achieves #2, not necessarily #1, and not #3
RT, achieves #1 only
Penalties etc. fall under #1
Admittedly, this scoring philosophy doesn’t explain NF4. I guess it would be #1, #2, #3, #3? I don’t know, NF4 never made sense to me. Anyhow, why not R3?
Because a takedown should be worth more as it’s an offensive move.
Also, no way I’m reading all this.
I have a real problem with the title of the committee implementing the changes; the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel.
Get the title right for FFS.
Get the title right for FFS.
Ok. One is an offensive move that asserts control from neutral. The other is an offensive move that asserts control from bottom. What is the qualitative difference that deserves a quantitative one? Has the scoring of the two always been wrong?
So to confirm: All takedowns are offensive moves? Every time? Even if my opponent shoots on me, I sprawl, and circle behind him, it’s a result of my offense?
Its simple. A very vocal part of the fan base are not big fans of mat wrestling. Short of Spencer Lee level dominance, which is beyond rare, many don’t find mat wrestling entertaining and immediately consider it boring and stalling.
The problem is, it is such a HUGE aspect of the sport, which makes it unique and adds considerable tactics. There is no more effective way to break an opponent, than a hard ride. Even if you never come close to turning the guy, getting ridden for 2 minutes can be very debilitating. Quite a few Iowa guys have implemented this very well the past few years. Warner and Murin being two that stand out in that regard.
With that said, I am NOT a fan of the 3 point takedown. Mat wrestling should be an equalizer. Mat wrestling really isn’t the problem. Clearly defining stalling and enforcing it correctly is where all the focus should be. Adding a point to takedowns is a weak parlor trick and I do NOT see how it will improve the product in ANY way…
All takedowns have to meet the same criteria of being in control of the opponent on the mat. I don't care who shoots. If one guy is doing more shooting the other guy should be getting stalling calls. The fact Iowa tends to struggle with counters and scrambles is a coaching deficiency vs a rules issue.
I generally agree with many of the sentiments here — although I can see my way to a takedown being worth 3 points (see criteria above). That said, the same logic that justifies a TD3 for me also applies to a reversal.
Also, like you, I’m not convinced this rule change will make the product better, fairer, or more exciting. I’m afraid this rule change will actually have the opposite outcome and result in fewer “exciting” takedowns:
1. In “DeSanto Style” matches, the winner can now TF with 7 TD’s instead of 15 as before (53% fewer TD’s). So even when wrestlers aggressively pursue Takedowns, we’ll see fewer of them.
2. A 3pt TD increases the relative risk of going to neutral for both wrestlers. After a TD3, the guy on bottom is less motivated to escape and risk going down 6-1 as opposed to 4-1. Doing something “exciting” on the mat for a reversal isn’t worth the relative risk just to make the score 3-2. I think we see less activity on bottom since giving up RT or SW is a better alternative to another TD3.
3. I also think we see more stalling on top. If the bottom wrestler can only score E1 and R2 — now fewer max points than any other position — there’s little incentive to let him out to give him better scoring options. I’ll believe the new stall verbiage when I see it enforced.
4. Given the damage a TD3 can do relative to a team score, I expect even MORE defensive edge wrestling late. A 5-0 match can now go from decision to major in a single TD. It’s smarter for the loser to give up 2 points stalling at the perimeter than giving up a TD3 by engaging in action.
To be clear, I don’t like or advocate this style of wrestling, but while we hope TD3 premium incentivizes more offense, I’m afraid this version of implementation will result in the opposite. I hope I’m wrong.
Let’s just quit screwing around and wrestle freestyle ……might help our international results bringing our kids up wrestling the same style they’ll wrestle internationally
This reminds me of when leadership in almost any profession creates work-arounds to try and address systemic issues instead of getting to the root of the issue and addressing it there. The international wrestling folks (surprisingly) addressed root cause issues that made freestyle boring and made it the most exciting style to watch (imo). No rule set is every going to be perfect and wrestlers will find ways to game the system but for the most part, the best guys usually win and are rewarded for their skills and offense.
College wrestling needs to address stalling and encourage staying in the middle of the mat. The 3 point TD has the the potential to exacerbate the issue. Yes, dominate guys will put up points quick but in a close match between two evenly matched opponents, it just gives one guy another point to cushion a lead and stall his ass off.
College wrestling needs to address stalling and encourage staying in the middle of the mat. The 3 point TD has the the potential to exacerbate the issue. Yes, dominate guys will put up points quick but in a close match between two evenly matched opponents, it just gives one guy another point to cushion a lead and stall his ass off.
True. Stalling, lack of action, failure to engage. Whatever term you like, has been the issue for a long long time because refs have not and will not make subjective calls. As you said, the attempts they have made to fix the issue are not directly addressing the issue and until hard rules like step out and lack of activity calls are made like freestyle the problem won't be fixed. The 5 second counts are a joke because the guys just stall, release for a second and stall some more. If they want to do a count for stalling then do silent swipes so they can't game the system as easily. They know the rules, if they choose to grab an ankle they know they are stalling. We don't need an audible count to tell them when to stop. If they can't stop in time on their own then they get dinged.
Touche. So a fall would be worth 23? Or maybe 1 more than the highest tech of the match? Not sure how to do it in this fantasy rule change scenario.
This is exactly how I feel. The two issues in the sport in my mind are stalling and an overly convoluted scoring system that isn’t friendly to new viewers(hell, sometimes long time die hard fans). This doesn’t help either and has the potential to make both issues worse.
