I’m with you, I do not want to change my name on here😉
Proposed changes to college wrestling rules
- Thread starter The Vak
- Start date
Was tried decades ago. Didn’t really change much.
I’m always in favor of stalling being called more aggressively and don’t have a problem with the double call after a scoreless 1st period. Just noting that it was tried and abandoned.
I’ve never understood this argument. “Scoring on the edge” is one of the worst aspects of college wrestling, IMO. It’s usually the aggressor diving at the feet of his opponent who is fleeing the mat without being called. Our current edge rules penalize aggression and the refs are clearly incapable of calling them correctly, as many of us predicted.
The push-out rule naturally keeps the action in the center, where the sport was intended to take place.
There’s still plenty of action on the out of bounds line in freestyle so that argument holds no water. Plus how exciting would these matches be in the last minute when one guy is up by one and instead of running out of bounds over and over and taking a meaningless stall call, now they have to stay right there and actually wrestle!
After 30 seconds of riding time and you cant turn the bottom guy, stop the match and restart...sorta like Freestyle but you just go back to the referees starting position...this will allow the chance to be more escapes and reversals and also allows the top man to reestablish another hold for exposure points or the fall. No more hooking the ankle for the P#%N State ankle ride stall that allows for zero action.
If you don't, you'll either be looked upon as nostalgic or the one who favors reversals and 2-pt nearfalls.
Three point TDs would have ended nearly all of Desanto’s matches in the first period.
I reffed a tournament this year with modified rules. It was folkstyle with two exceptions: 1 pt push out rule and every restart the wrestlers went back to neutral. Definitely a lot more action and scoring
I don’t know.
First, I think NCAA would need standardized bigger mats with room for safe continuation out of bounds (and maybe a warning area before out of bounds) to accompany any step out rule. These would have to fit in school and tournament host arenas.
Second, the the concept of in/out of bounds would seem to need to change from a cylinder to an entire or portion of some body part being in contact with the mat beyond the warning area.
I've seen plenty of fast-footed freestyle wrestlers with tremendous body and spacial awareness flip the script at the edge for a one point step out when the wrestler who appears to be controlling the center gets aggressive near the edge.
And then there's the whole deal with being grounded or not.
Each of these would need to be addressed, but by far the biggest would have to do with the mats themselves and accommodating them in associated arenas. This seems too much for the NCAA wrestling rules committee to propose under the guise of growing the sport.
The costs might end up shrinking the sport, at least for an the interim period. That would mean less coaching jobs, you know, the jobs that the guys on the rules committee hold. For this reason, I don't ever see the NCAA rules committee proposing a step out rule.
I see more likely a group of universities leaving the NCAA for wrestling and moving completely to freestyle rules.
I like keeping a TD at 2 points, but make it more difficult to score 1.
RT only accumulates for a TD or reversal.
Make hooking the ankle a stall call.
Start all periods on your feet.
RT only accumulates for a TD or reversal.
Make hooking the ankle a stall call.
Start all periods on your feet.
So you'd like overtime rules to also change (or they'd have to, most likely), yes?
The riding time differential when accumulated without a takedown was instituted to reduce match length.
How would you propose OT rules changing after SV to similarly control longest match length?
That hasn’t been the case in freestyle. It makes for exciting edge wrestling and aggressive circling to get back to the center of the mat. Those that share your opinion are typically novice freestyle viewers
What say you, @Multi-Hawk?
With all the new rules, criteria will be somewhat more complicated than current freestyle rules with all the different scoring values: 1 (two ways, excluding stalls / technical violations), 2 (two ways), 3 (two ways), and 4 (one way).
Going to need scoring software updates, and hopefully the current university clocks have a way to indicate criteria. Probably would take a little more money.
I think I'm getting a migraine just imagining the BTN student broadcasters explaining it all.
Also imagining coaches and wrestler tactics erroneously being misguided by their in match understanding of who has criteria.
Last edited:
Sorry Jacob. Your "riding" was hogwash to watch.
Viewership was WAY down. and scoring was WAY down. You have to incentivize scoring and punish inactivity. This is a huge step in the right direction. These rules are fine for the next century.
The only thing that TRULY needs to be fixed now? Calling stalling.
It doesn't need to be defined more. Even in FS its not very cut and dry. But there is a punishment for inactivity and UWW has encouraged and demanded that officials take action every match. And that's all the NCAA has to do:
no scoring in 1 minute? SOMEONE was less active - hit him for stalling
Someone is evading wrestling? HIT HIM FOR STALLING
It's absolutely comical and disgusting all at the same time that a wrestler can literally RUN from contact for ANY amount of time and not get hit for stalling. And it happens far too often with too much time on the clock.
I'll never understand hitting the wrestler for stalling because he was running... and then LETTING HIM CONTINUE TO DO IT. What was the point? Hit him again.
Because the one thing FS has right, right now? the end of the match is exciting based on criteria and the fact that you can't evade.
It need to be REdefined. Todays rule allows for riding without going for near fall points. It has to change to allow exactly what you are advocating for.
Agree. 2 is 2, and if can hold it for for you get an extra 2. It doesn’t mean it has to very 2-3-4.
And yes, this would be challenged constantly. Pass!
The riding rules hinge on refs making stall calls. Ride the ankle for a 4 count, then immediately go back to it. That had to be an automatic warning!
Same with not working to turn. I can't believe they actually struck that from the rules to begin with. Sorry Warner, you have to work to turn...
No RT without NF points, right on brotha!
I like the proposals minus 3pt NF. It's not needed.
I'm either way on the pushout rule... again, call stalling properly and it's not an issue. But that would require refs to not be gutless.
No, they didn’t. These are proposed rule changes.
I’ve come to enjoy freestyle but the #1 reason I like folk better is exposure points. Simply having part of the back exposed to the mat just doesn’t feel like enough to be an offensive move for me. And I don’t like the break between periods. But I do like the push out rule.
There are lots of great points in this thread but this might be the simplest solution. Adopt international FS rules and take the NCAA rules committee out of the equation.
I’m so tired of the delays associated with reviews as well as the inconsistencies in regards to stalling calls and officiating in general. Let’s work to simplify scoring/officiating for everyone's sake.
This discussion focuses on rule changes but ALL involved need to truly want to “grow the sport” through aggressive/offensive wrestling and the rules should encourage such. Gable knew this, coached it & encouraged it. The more consistently aggressive/offensive teams are those winning championships. It was this way when Gable coached, even during John Smith's championship runs, J Robinson's MN teams, Brands' best teams and now with Carl's domination. It begins with coaching, athletes need to be rewarded and the officials need to understand the importance of aggressive wrestling as well.
Officiating is subpar, so keep it simple & minimize judgement calls but consistently call stalling of any manner & be aggressive with it and penalize it, possibly with added points. Eliminate the riding time for the 1 point bonus and reward/incentivize the fall/NF. I'd be okay with awarding the 3 pt nearfall but both officials should be in agreement. Can't we eliminate the coaches challenge in these instances? I think wrestling on the edge of the mat can be exciting but would also be in favor of a push out rule.
Most anything the NCAA is involved in regulating/overseeing is a mess...
This discussion focuses on rule changes but ALL involved need to truly want to “grow the sport” through aggressive/offensive wrestling and the rules should encourage such. Gable knew this, coached it & encouraged it. The more consistently aggressive/offensive teams are those winning championships. It was this way when Gable coached, even during John Smith's championship runs, J Robinson's MN teams, Brands' best teams and now with Carl's domination. It begins with coaching, athletes need to be rewarded and the officials need to understand the importance of aggressive wrestling as well.
Officiating is subpar, so keep it simple & minimize judgement calls but consistently call stalling of any manner & be aggressive with it and penalize it, possibly with added points. Eliminate the riding time for the 1 point bonus and reward/incentivize the fall/NF. I'd be okay with awarding the 3 pt nearfall but both officials should be in agreement. Can't we eliminate the coaches challenge in these instances? I think wrestling on the edge of the mat can be exciting but would also be in favor of a push out rule.
Most anything the NCAA is involved in regulating/overseeing is a mess...
No it wouldn't. If a shot starts in bounds, there can be continuation while the ref holds one. If a scramble on the mat starts in bounds and they both go out, they are grounded.
Yep. At first I thought the freestyle rule of "last person to score wins a tie" was insane. But in essence it means that one wrestler is always ahead, and one is always behind, so as the last minute of the match approaches there is absolutely going to be action.
I would do the following:
- Criteria to avoid OT
- Push out rule. Alternate - instead of a point it is a stall warning.
- After no scoring in the first period, official has to tag one of the wrestlers with a stall warning, using their judgement as to who was avoiding the action. Double warning isn't bad, but because each wrestler is affected evenly it does not encourage aggression.
- One swipe awards one point, two swipes is two points, four swipes is four points. Make it easier to earn a point on top to encourage aggressive top action.
- Top wrestler must be working for a turn.
- Double hooks is an illegal move
I wish they would have guts enough to trust officials for this one: When there is a TD, it's only one point unless the wrestler who scores the TD initiated the action. Counters only score one point. I could go along with changing the TD to 3 for initiator and 2 for a counter; making it worth the risk of initiating action.
I actually think we need more officials' judgement, not less. They don't call stalling because they don't want to insert themselves into the match. They always call "action" when wrestlers go out of bounds, because they don't want to insert themselves into the match. Point of emphasis should be to not be so afraid to use judgement. The wrestlers know what is happening, the fans know what is happening, and the officials know what is happening - encourage them to call what we all see.
No scoring in the first period? Force the official to say what we all saw ourselves: one guy was more aggressive so the other one should get the stall warning. One wrestler attacks and the other one counters? Tell the official to award three points if the initiator scores the TD, only two points if the counter wrestler scored the TD.
The referees are not incompetent. Most of them have more experience and knowledge than the average fan. They just don't want to be seen as inserting themselves into the action, which is worse.
Folkstyle rules with one exception - after a true attempt to work a turn is stalled, stand them up. No need to change scoring as the 2 for 1 takedown/escape would be for a true quick escape only. This would solve a lot of the problems. The stall ride is eliminated and more action from the feet that benefits the takedown specialists.
It doesn't have to. You can call a step out but let action continue.
It always gets brought up to just call stalling more. If that was a viable solution we wouldn't be having these discussions. The refs are not going to call stalling more.
I think the stubborn refusal to not implement a step out rule must be based in reasoning as stupid as wrestlers not shaking hands after a match during covid . . . irrational safety standards.
They're probably just worried someone will grievously drive somebody way out of bounds and get injured. But that is such shallow thinking. It hasn't significantly caused more injuries in freestyle so it won't cause any more in folk. Plus, you can penalize such to stop it.
And I agree with those that say a 3 pt. TD should be for those who initiate the offense. The defensive TD should stay at 2.
They're probably just worried someone will grievously drive somebody way out of bounds and get injured. But that is such shallow thinking. It hasn't significantly caused more injuries in freestyle so it won't cause any more in folk. Plus, you can penalize such to stop it.
And I agree with those that say a 3 pt. TD should be for those who initiate the offense. The defensive TD should stay at 2.
One problem I see is that there will still be too much opportunity for refs to swallow their whistles on someone just riding to keep someone down versus trying to turn. If it passes that they must ride to turn, then that will be impossible for refs to figure out. I remember Jay Borschel getting three stalling calls while riding for grabbing the arm and pulling it in at nationals in Omaha.
Agree it is conceptually simplest from a rules management standpoint. It also would likely lead to even greater US international success.
It isn't as simple when it comes to cost implications to universities and the potential to reduce the number of teams due to those costs.
One option would be to have OT, but in the event neither scores, go to a criteria based decision.
Playing devil's advocate here a little bit. Riding time does reward a wrestler who dominates in a position. I would like to see riding time only get started after a takedown.
I hope a 3 point takedown reduces the number of periods that start on the mat.
Last edited:
A lot of good ideas here.
If you want supreme action, make the matches 4 minutes. No fall, no team points.
Lung time-out places you on your side with top man having a leg laced through.
You would witness balls-out action.
If you want supreme action, make the matches 4 minutes. No fall, no team points.
Lung time-out places you on your side with top man having a leg laced through.
You would witness balls-out action.
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.
I wish they'd just get rid of video review. Whatever the upside, it's not worth the ridiculous delays.
Similar threads
