Proposed changes to college wrestling rules

[Bones Malone]

I actually think we need more officials' judgement, not less.

I agree we need officials to consistently call stalling & in more scenarios than we typically see called. Unless progressing for a turn, sitting on an ankle is stalling, as is the leg hump. Call it.
Based on current inconsistencies from official to official I’d be hesitant to add more judgement calls.

 

[vhsalum]

How about escape point only if away in less than 30 sec. After 30 sec riding with no back points, back to feet with no escape point given.

That's just freestyle. Which - i'm not opposed to switching too.

But folk is folk. And no one is saying you can't ride anymore, you just have to actually try to score. Refs aren't going to be keen on turning it into FS, they're not just going to start hitting guys for stalling at some unprecedented rate.

But if they did? Well, that would be good. Neutral wrestling is better wrestling than 2 guys "laying on each other."

 

[artradley]

I agree we need officials to consistently call stalling & in more scenarios than we typically see called. Unless progressing for a turn, sitting on an ankle is stalling, as is the leg hump. Call it.
Based on current inconsistencies from official to official I’d be hesitant to add more judgement calls.

But I believe these refs see what we're seeing and just are afraid to make the call. So you force them to make the calls:

• No score after the first period? The ref must pick the less aggressive wrestler and give them a stalling warning.
  
  
• A TD is worth three points if the scorer initiates contact, but only two if they score off a counter. So every TD the official is forced to make that judgement call.
  
  
• Two wrestlers go OB on their feet? The official MUST give a stall to whoever went out first. No option to swallow the whistle and call "action."

As I said, they see what we're seeing and they are as knowledgeable as we are. But they do not HAVE to make these calls, so they don't because they don't want to be seen as inserting themselves into the results.

 

[LIV4GOD]

Whatever rule changes take place, a primary goal has to be to take the subjective ruling of the referee out. No matter how many rules are added, no matter how specific they are, no matter how detailed in description, they will be incapable of 1) not swallowing their whistles come nationals, and 2) being completely neutral in calling them.

Thus, I think the new rule to call stalling when the top wrestler is not trying to turn will be a nightmare.

 

[T8KUDWN]

3 point takedown will make less action in a wrestling match.

 

[vhsalum]

3 point takedown will make less action in a wrestling match.

like the 2 point takedown did for FS?

Come on man.

 

[T8KUDWN]

like the 2 point takedown did for FS?

Come on man.

Not really comparable
Just because a takedown is worth more points does not mean it is going to create more offense. Right now you can be aggressive and give up a takedown off of a counter or reshot, get your escape and you're only down by 1. With a 3 point takedown, you give that up to a guy with good defense and the best you can do is try to tie it and hope he doesn't escape. I believe this is going to make wrestlers more cautious.
I'm going to say it one more time, making a takedown worth 3 points by no means is going to create more action on the mat. There might be more points on the scoreboard, but not necessarily more action. I really hope this change does not go through.

 

[artradley]

like the 2 point takedown did for FS?

Come on man.

Big difference between the two. In freestyle, when attacking, you could give up two points for back exposure even while completing your TD. So you were risking 2 points to get 1. They needed to even that out to make the risk/reward ratio event.

Currently in folk there is already a high risk when you initiate contact; you are risking two points to get two. However, in folk if you escape you get one of those points back; so you aren't burying yourself if you initiate an attack and get countered. With a three-point TD, if you initiate an attack against a good counter wrestler you would be taking a huge risk to get that TD. Late in the match you might get more action, but I think you would see even more 0-0 first periods.

Which is why I would favor the official declare each takedown either three points (guy scoring the TD initiated the action) or two points (guy scoring did not initiate the action.) This would encourage aggressive wrestling and punish passive wrestling.

 

[T8KUDWN]

Big difference between the two. In freestyle, when attacking, you could give up two points for back exposure even while completing your TD. So you were risking 2 points to get 1. They needed to even that out to make the risk/reward ratio event.

Currently in folk there is already a high risk when you initiate contact; you are risking two points to get two. However, in folk if you escape you get one of those points back; so you aren't burying yourself if you initiate an attack and get countered. With a three-point TD, if you initiate an attack against a good counter wrestler you would be taking a huge risk to get that TD. Late in the match you might get more action, but I think you would see even more 0-0 first periods.

Which is why I would favor the official declare each takedown either three points (guy scoring the TD initiated the action) or two points (guy scoring did not initiate the action.) This would encourage aggressive wrestling and punish passive wrestling.

I think you and I are on the same page with this rule, but getting officials involved in deciding makes me nervous. You would think it should be pretty black and white, but some of these officials' judgement can be a bit goofy at times I also think you will see more challenges due to the official's interpretation on 2 or 3 points awarded.

 

[vhsalum]

Big difference between the two. In freestyle, when attacking, you could give up two points for back exposure even while completing your TD. So you were risking 2 points to get 1. They needed to even that out to make the risk/reward ratio event.

Currently in folk there is already a high risk when you initiate contact; you are risking two points to get two. However, in folk if you escape you get one of those points back; so you aren't burying yourself if you initiate an attack and get countered. With a three-point TD, if you initiate an attack against a good counter wrestler you would be taking a huge risk to get that TD. Late in the match you might get more action, but I think you would see even more 0-0 first periods.

Which is why I would favor the official declare each takedown either three points (guy scoring the TD initiated the action) or two points (guy scoring did not initiate the action.) This would encourage aggressive wrestling and punish passive wrestling.

I honestly think its apples to apples. Because in the same manner that a 2 point TD in free led to more scoring and even better comebacks - the same will happen in Folk.

But you know what? I could be completely wrong as well. Because UWW require the refs to "encourage" action.

My biggest thing is - no way should an escape be worth 50% of an escape.
Hate to use one of our guys as an example, but if Yianni is up 12-5 on Murin (and not 8-5) - he's going to do more to get the major.

Conversely, a 3 point takedown means guys are going to try harder to score if they're behind. And it will be easier to come back as well. I just think we can use FS as A data point and say that increasing the scoring value of TD's is going to lead to a better product.

 

[artradley]

I think you and I are on the same page with this rule, but getting officials involved in deciding makes me nervous. You would think it should be pretty black and white, but some of these officials' judgement can be a bit goofy at times I also think you will see more challenges due to the official's interpretation on 2 or 3 points awarded.

I actually think officials are perfectly capable of making the right call when they MUST make a call. In this case, if the officials miss it 10% of the time but we get significantly more action, I would call it a good trade-off.

The primary problem now is not officials missing calls - it's that they don't want to make a call if they don't have to. Take the push-out. Certainly there can sometimes be questions in FS about who really should have gotten the point. But it's a helluva lot better than folk, where the official has the opportunity to "punt" the call and claim nobody was at fault.

I would rather officials be forced to pick between "A" and "B" than give them the "None of the above" option; because they are going to consistently call "None of the above."

 

[artradley]

I honestly think its apples to apples. Because in the same manner that a 2 point TD in free led to more scoring and even better comebacks - the same will happen in Folk.

But you know what? I could be completely wrong as well. Because UWW require the refs to "encourage" action.

My biggest thing is - no way should an escape be worth 50% of an escape.
Hate to use one of our guys as an example, but if Yianni is up 12-5 on Murin (and not 8-5) - he's going to do more to get the major.

Conversely, a 3 point takedown means guys are going to try harder to score if they're behind. And it will be easier to come back as well. I just think we can use FS as A data point and say that increasing the scoring value of TD's is going to lead to a better product.

Well, it's all speculation. You could be right. I just don't like rewarding counter wrestlers, and I think this would be a windfall for them.

However, I do agree that escapes being worth 50% of a takedown is a problem.

 

[SPOONER]

Big difference between the two. In freestyle, when attacking, you could give up two points for back exposure even while completing your TD. So you were risking 2 points to get 1. They needed to even that out to make the risk/reward ratio event.

Currently in folk there is already a high risk when you initiate contact; you are risking two points to get two. However, in folk if you escape you get one of those points back; so you aren't burying yourself if you initiate an attack and get countered. With a three-point TD, if you initiate an attack against a good counter wrestler you would be taking a huge risk to get that TD. Late in the match you might get more action, but I think you would see even more 0-0 first periods.

Which is why I would favor the official declare each takedown either three points (guy scoring the TD initiated the action) or two points (guy scoring did not initiate the action.) This would encourage aggressive wrestling and punish passive wrestling.

Leaving scoring up to a ref boxing style might completely drive me away from the sport. Yeesh. That’s as bad as the “it doesn’t count because he slipped” freestyle rule.

You guys are too pessimistic. A greater points reward for takedowns means more guys trying for takedowns, not less. IMHO, of course.

 

[Inthecircle]

What happened to breaking down your opponent and getting perpendicular? If you can’t break a guy down flat in 30 seconds or get perpendicular for at least a five count you are stalling. Start a clock on it like riding time or as they do with inactivity in FS. If the clock gets to 30 make a stalling call. The top guy would then have to cut him to avoid stalling.

I don’t like 2,3 and 4 point near falls, it is way to subjective. There will be be an extraordinary amount of stoppage to see what the NF count actually was. I’ve seen a lot of 4 pt. NF points called in less than 4 actual seconds.

 

[slushhead]

What happened to breaking down your opponent and getting perpendicular? If you can’t break a guy down flat in 30 seconds or get perpendicular for at least a five count you are stalling. Start a clock on it like riding time or as they do with inactivity in FS. If the clock gets to 30 make a stalling call. The top guy would then have to cut him to avoid stalling.

I don’t like 2,3 and 4 point near falls, it is way to subjective. There will be be an extraordinary amount of stoppage to see what the NF count actually was. I’ve seen a lot of 4 pt. NF points called in less than 4 actual seconds.

There are lots of good ideas/solutions in theory, but so many are not plausible because executing on them would be damn near impossible. Unfortunately, I do not see a scenario where an additional clock is a viable option. Managing just the RT clock in addition to the match clock seems too difficult too often. And we know review times are too long in part because after a decision is made, they then have to go back to the video yet again to see where the clocks should all be set back to.

I often find myself in similar conundrums when exploring logical solutions to improve a matter — too often the “logical” solutions add complexity that the system is not equipped to handle. That’s how I am feeling about wrestling now. It might be time to simplify. As much of a traditionalist as I am, it may be time to just jettison riding time. It would help reduce pressure on the system in multiple ways . . . or at the very least, allow for use of a 2nd clock for something more beneficial.

 

[SPOONER]

What happened to breaking down your opponent and getting perpendicular? If you can’t break a guy down flat in 30 seconds or get perpendicular for at least a five count you are stalling. Start a clock on it like riding time or as they do with inactivity in FS. If the clock gets to 30 make a stalling call. The top guy would then have to cut him to avoid stalling.

I don’t like 2,3 and 4 point near falls, it is way to subjective. There will be be an extraordinary amount of stoppage to see what the NF count actually was. I’ve seen a lot of 4 pt. NF points called in less than 4 actual seconds.

Covering the hips and riding to ride used to be stalling but at some point in the past 10-20 years that changed and it was acceptable. The proposed new rules are a step towards fixing that huge mistake.