I agree with this. My impression is both wrestlers avoid the mat's edge because it's too unpredictable for either to feel comfortable.
Brands displayed a can of worms, let's open it
- Thread starter artradley
- Start date
I agree with this. My impression is both wrestlers avoid the mat's edge because it's too unpredictable for either to feel comfortable.
Some of you remember the Iowa - Okla. St. dual years ago when Gable taped several mats together, so OSU couldn't go out of bounds. Unfortunately the NCAA then changed the rule so there is now a maximum size for a mat. I wouldn't mind seeing larger mats so that wrestlers rarely go out of bounds - I know that's no feasible due to space limitations in arenas, but it would be cool.
Would also like the NCAA to get input from offensive-minded wrestlers (Nolf, Spencer Lee, etc.) regarding ways to encourage point scoring.
Would also like the NCAA to get input from offensive-minded wrestlers (Nolf, Spencer Lee, etc.) regarding ways to encourage point scoring.
I like the 3 point takedown and getting rid of riding time. Still hesitant on the pushout rule in folk. I think some of the best wrestling we see involves scrambles on the edge and the pushout while forcing wrestlers to stay away from the boundaries would also eliminate this aspect of folk almost completely.
OK, good point. ^^ I'll amend my position to include that we should implement the "return the grapplers to neutral" within 20-30 seconds if no progress is being made on getting backers.
Just think though...if you are the down wrestler and you get a fresh start from the feet after so many seconds AND takedowns are worth 3, not 2, things could really blow open.
Didn't see those matches, but I trust your report of them and that is EXACTLY why I don't like "solutions" that rely on the refs to intervene. For whatever dang reason...they so often don't. Leave the refs out of it as much as possible.
too bad it was OU, and it was Kurdelmeier not Gable-c'mon, get your story straight
too bad it was OU, and it was Kurdelmeier not Gable-c'mon, get your story straight
At my age, all pertinent facts are prone to foggy recollection! Oh well...
The problem I see with going back to neutral is it still encourages stall riding to not give up the escape. I'm not sure how to fix the stall riding dilemma in this scenario.
We might be the same age. I have to admit in the current wrestling world, your version is better for discussion. But I hate to remember that was done when OU was the defending champion-not that it was done to them, but that they actually won a championship!
Wrestle events in reverse order: start at 285, end at 125. Wouldn't change the amount of action. Would change the perception -- people generally associate an entire event with the last thing they see.
Just a simple change like that would improve the product yet we don't do it 90% of the time.
It's like playing the headliner first than letting the local garage band play last. Given there are some exciting heavy matches but for the most part not
I agree with most of your arguments on rules except for a couple things.
Rule 4
Top man must advance there position for back points or a pin fall riding legs or hooking a leg should a five count just like holding on to the legs
Rule 5
If a bottom man can (control ) the top man to the point where he stops his motion and advantage by posted his (or her) hands and feets to the for lets say a 2 count that should still be considered a pin fall.
Rule 6
The aggressor getting to the legs and sitting an opponent to there hip weather he is locked in the crotch or trying to pass a leg should be 3 points so meaning just less time for the BS scrambling More points for the offensive wrestler less time for the staller/defensive wrestler. Also every two legit takedown attempts ending in a stalemate is an automatic stall warning
Some great suggestions but too much talk about stalling. This thread needs a little more color. How about adding ring girls?
Now when would an official ever get that cue suggesting stalling be called against a home wrestler?
I'm not really understanding what a 3 point takedown does to increase action. I guess if you can't get 2 escapes to tie a tight match, there's more shots taken? If anything there would likely be less tie scores so you'd eliminate a lot of overtime matches which isn't bad either.
I'm still more of a fan of more points for taking the risk and I don't see it being that hard to manage for officials. Basically, if you initiate a shot or throw, meaning you get to a leg/ankle (not a fake or half shot) or you attempt a throw (body lock, headlock, etc.), you're now the initiator of that exchange and if you finish, it's 2 points. If you're the defensive guy on that exchange and defend and score your own takedown, it's 1. In my mind, the reason you don't see kids pushing more offense is because there's no incentive to take the risk. So it becomes a game of chicken in a lot of matches, thus the 1-1 tie in the 3rd period. Go through the Gilman/Mega NCAA final and think about the score being 1-0 at he end of 1 period versus 2-0. Gilman took the shot in the first and Mega countered and scored and rode him out. That's one example, but 1-0 versus 2-0 is a big difference in a match like that.
I also really like Gobblin's idea of starting each period neutral. Earn a takedown in order to ride.
I'm still more of a fan of more points for taking the risk and I don't see it being that hard to manage for officials. Basically, if you initiate a shot or throw, meaning you get to a leg/ankle (not a fake or half shot) or you attempt a throw (body lock, headlock, etc.), you're now the initiator of that exchange and if you finish, it's 2 points. If you're the defensive guy on that exchange and defend and score your own takedown, it's 1. In my mind, the reason you don't see kids pushing more offense is because there's no incentive to take the risk. So it becomes a game of chicken in a lot of matches, thus the 1-1 tie in the 3rd period. Go through the Gilman/Mega NCAA final and think about the score being 1-0 at he end of 1 period versus 2-0. Gilman took the shot in the first and Mega countered and scored and rode him out. That's one example, but 1-0 versus 2-0 is a big difference in a match like that.
I also really like Gobblin's idea of starting each period neutral. Earn a takedown in order to ride.
I have a number of concerns about these proposals. The problem is, really breaking this stuff down makes for long posts which take a lot of time to write and to read, so pardon my being a bit terse. And if I focus on potential drawbacks, rather than give credit to what might be the benefits, don't take it as my being overly negative, or averse to change. I just think it's the most productive thing I could easily add.
Here are three questions to consider when you're thinking about this kind of thing.
First: how you would exploit these rules?
For instance, let's say that if I'm in control, and the bottom man crosses his back, it's one point. So, I jump out front, slap on a front headlock, and start rolling the bottom man. Likewise, we'd probably see the crotch lift, ankle lace, and other freestyle standards start to show up. This would seem to run contrary to the "control" objective.
Or, if I stand up from bottom and I'm anywhere near the edge of the mat, I certainly know where I want to go. Even if you stipulate that running for the edge is stalling, I now have an incentive to make sure that the action takes place as close to the edge of the mat as possible. That's an odd fit with the pushout rule on the feet.
Second: if you make scoring easier, how will the athletes compensate?
There's an equilibrium at work that's really hard to break. If the top man can score back points more easily, how does that affect my willingness to take risks on bottom? Even if you extend nearfall to a one-count (as amended after the point about granbys), does the palatte of viable techniques on bottom become much more limited and boring? If, in neutral, all the opponent needs to do to score is lock his hands around my leg, can I afford to give up any position at all? And conversely, if I can score by just by catching a leg, why would I risk attempting a takedown?
Third: do we trust the referees, or not?
There's a whole lot of talk about how to adjust the rules, because we can't count on the referees to call stalling. But we want to ask them to judge, on every takedown, whether it was offensive or defensive? I'd be sorely challenged to define criteria to distinguish these, except in very simple cases. Without reliable criteria, we're obliging the same people who lack either the judgment or courage to call stalling to exercise their judgment on every takedown. And except in the simplest cases, you really couldn't argue the call, because it's pure judgment.
Here are three questions to consider when you're thinking about this kind of thing.
First: how you would exploit these rules?
For instance, let's say that if I'm in control, and the bottom man crosses his back, it's one point. So, I jump out front, slap on a front headlock, and start rolling the bottom man. Likewise, we'd probably see the crotch lift, ankle lace, and other freestyle standards start to show up. This would seem to run contrary to the "control" objective.
Or, if I stand up from bottom and I'm anywhere near the edge of the mat, I certainly know where I want to go. Even if you stipulate that running for the edge is stalling, I now have an incentive to make sure that the action takes place as close to the edge of the mat as possible. That's an odd fit with the pushout rule on the feet.
Second: if you make scoring easier, how will the athletes compensate?
There's an equilibrium at work that's really hard to break. If the top man can score back points more easily, how does that affect my willingness to take risks on bottom? Even if you extend nearfall to a one-count (as amended after the point about granbys), does the palatte of viable techniques on bottom become much more limited and boring? If, in neutral, all the opponent needs to do to score is lock his hands around my leg, can I afford to give up any position at all? And conversely, if I can score by just by catching a leg, why would I risk attempting a takedown?
Third: do we trust the referees, or not?
There's a whole lot of talk about how to adjust the rules, because we can't count on the referees to call stalling. But we want to ask them to judge, on every takedown, whether it was offensive or defensive? I'd be sorely challenged to define criteria to distinguish these, except in very simple cases. Without reliable criteria, we're obliging the same people who lack either the judgment or courage to call stalling to exercise their judgment on every takedown. And except in the simplest cases, you really couldn't argue the call, because it's pure judgment.
I like the referee / point scoring panel approach we see in freestyle. In college, it's proven that one ref with an assistant ref does not accomplish the calling of stalling rules consistently. We hear a lot that refs aren't calling this or that consistently or in big matches. I would have the assistant ref sit down and be responsible for concurring with the mat ref on calls and enforcing stalling.
I think judging who initiated an exchange through a committed offensive attack is much easier than judging who should be called for stalling when two wrestling go out of bounds which is what is required today. Wrestling officials have been required to make a ton of judgment calls for a long time and they've never perfect. It's part of the sport. But I think the value of rewarding risk and activity outweighs the missed call here and there by an official. No matter what rules are in place, official error will always play a role. The problem with stalling is it doesn't HAVE to be called. When a takedown occurs and you HAVE to decide if it's 2 or 1, then at least a call is made and you have a tangible change. Constantly changing the definition of stalling has not resulted in more stall calls because, again, it is 100% a judgment call by that single official and if he doesn't want to call stalling, he never has to.
Ray - I agree 100% with your assessment otherwise. You can't make folkstyle turn into freestyle through odd rule changes around exposure that disrupt the foundation of folkstyle wrestling. If you're going to do that, just go to freestyle (which I would be fine with).
What really needs to happen is for one of these out of school season HS exhibition tournaments, to implement some rule changes so you could get a larger sample size of how the wrestling would be effected. I know there have been a few tweaks here and there but I'm talking about making 2-3 significant rule changes for a tournament and see how it plays out. It would be hard to do in college as a test case because there aren't any exhibition tournaments, but you could do some fun stuff with the All-Star dual.
Ray - I agree 100% with your assessment otherwise. You can't make folkstyle turn into freestyle through odd rule changes around exposure that disrupt the foundation of folkstyle wrestling. If you're going to do that, just go to freestyle (which I would be fine with).
What really needs to happen is for one of these out of school season HS exhibition tournaments, to implement some rule changes so you could get a larger sample size of how the wrestling would be effected. I know there have been a few tweaks here and there but I'm talking about making 2-3 significant rule changes for a tournament and see how it plays out. It would be hard to do in college as a test case because there aren't any exhibition tournaments, but you could do some fun stuff with the All-Star dual.
Good discussion, just an fyi... The NCAA's Wrestling Rules and Interpretations Handbook is published every 2 years, and the current 2-year cycle (2015-16 through 2016-17) ends this season. Rules changes are far more frequent (likely) at the end of each cycle. Good timing on the discussion...I'm sure the wrestling committee is reading this thread.
I only suggested 3 points for the initiated, 2 points for a counter TD. Basically the same idea as you, but I think even a counter TD should be worth more than an escape.
As you note, only by rewarding more for an offensive TD and a counter do you increase action.
I didn't mention that one in my OP because I wanted to stick to a handful; but that one is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.
I've been an avid reader for a few years now, and figured this is a perfect spot to jump in and join all the fun.
The biggest problem to me when watching collegiate style is riding time. What if, instead of awarding points for quantity of time on top, we award for quality. Award 1 point to a wrestler for finishing a period on top. This would discourage early period stalling on top and encourage hard wrestling at the end of a period. Late takedowns or reversals would essentially be worth 3 points and a late escape would be a 2 point swing. There would be no reason to hang around and erase opponent riding time. I'm ok with it still coming in to play in the OT process, but a rule that discourages action currently has way too much of an impact on the sport IMO.
The biggest problem to me when watching collegiate style is riding time. What if, instead of awarding points for quantity of time on top, we award for quality. Award 1 point to a wrestler for finishing a period on top. This would discourage early period stalling on top and encourage hard wrestling at the end of a period. Late takedowns or reversals would essentially be worth 3 points and a late escape would be a 2 point swing. There would be no reason to hang around and erase opponent riding time. I'm ok with it still coming in to play in the OT process, but a rule that discourages action currently has way too much of an impact on the sport IMO.
How would this discourage stalling on top early in the period? as long as they finish the period on top they get a point so not seeing why this would make someone more active to start the period. They can still ride the entire period and get a point just as they do now. Another problem with that is someone does nothing for a minute and a half gets in a scramble and gets either a take down or reversal and get an extra point for it? If anything I think it might promote guys to stall till late in periods before looking to score rather than getting more action from guys. Just my thought though.
Yeah we're on the same page there. I've just seen a lot of people clamoring for a 3 point takedown (regardless of how scored) and I'm not totally seeing how that increases activity. You would still have wrestlers afraid to make a bad shot and give up a 3 pt takedown. I think there's a possibility it would actually decrease activity.
Last edited:
I would like to see riding time eliminated. Tired of seeing one guy just "control" the other without any attempt to turn. Return to feet if no turning in 30 seconds.
Reward aggression by a freestyle pushout. Reward takedown attempts with something like: if you pickup your opponents leg and can elevate his foot/knee to your waist height, score 1 point, and if you take him down, score the full 2
Reward aggression by a freestyle pushout. Reward takedown attempts with something like: if you pickup your opponents leg and can elevate his foot/knee to your waist height, score 1 point, and if you take him down, score the full 2
Totally valid arguments. Guy needs to score offensive points that period to receive the point (penalty points and ride outs without a score wouldn't count). I don't think anyone has a problem with someone riding out an entire period as long as they are getting turns.
There are already wrestlers who defend, defend, defend and wait around until the end of the period to score. Like any rule change some will adapt their style and take advantage of it, but I think for the most part guys who want to score will keep trying to score early and often and those who stall and wait will continue that style. I don't think it would promote stalling, but I do concede that it could reward the ones who already do.
We already see several teams stand around and hope to get a TD in the final 10 seconds. The rules need to be simplified. Take as much judgement out of the referees hands. Many of the officials are biased and/or incompetent. The only sure thing that needs changed is a push out rule. I also think there should be a stall call after a scoreless first period. Call a double stall if the 2 refs aren't unanimous on who was more passive.
That's just it though, this rule change would do nothing to change wrestling in anyway. Guys like gilman are still going to go out push the pace and get their points just like they do now. Guys who want to stall and do nothing are still going to do it so it won't change anything, sure maybe they don't get the riding time point but if they know they can ride someone out then get an escape and just block out for the rest of a period why will they be anymore aggressive than they are now?
I'm for the 3-point TD not because it will increase activity, but because I don't like seeing a match won by escapes when the losing opponent secured a TD. But in this scenario it is probable that activity would increase because the opponent scoring only escapes would be forced to attempt a TD or lose the match.
Concerning pushouts and edge of mat (off the mat) scoring...is it possible to incorporate both concepts? For example, allow scoring outside the circle but award a pushout point if no scoring occurs?
Last edited:
I don't think a 3 point TD changes anything for stalling purposes. The guys that try winning with 1 TD will continue to do so. The only thing you gain is quicker TF's and more MD's.
And it was one large mat, not several taped together, which the NCAA banned due to crying by one or more Big 8 individuals.too bad it was OU, and it was Kurdelmeier not Gable-c'mon, get your story straight
Sorry Mendoza, I hadn't seen your reply when I posted last one. I, too, am older, and understand the fogginess...
I agree in part, but the scenario I mentioned would be eliminated. Right now a wrestler can win a match without an "offensive" point over a wrestler who scored a TD. That just ain't right.
Concerning quicker TFs and more MDs...if scoring opportunities are increased then maybe the differential for MDs and TFs should also be increased? Or maybe the current thresholds stay put; that could add to the excitement because more risk is added.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep. 127 Ladell Betts is Moving On: Losing Iowa's RBs Coach
- Latest: Eliot Clough