Rule change considerations

[AFHawk86]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by andegre:

Originally posted by andegre:
You can't win on RT without a takedown (or reversal)

Woops, i guess Menace Sockeyes already had this idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This, imo, should be obvious, but if not this, need backs for RT.

I really don't know why people just want to get rid of riding time, it is a large part of collegiate wrestling. A lot of work and strategy takes place, as long as stalling is properly called, it shouldn't be an issue.

Adding a requirement of TD or backpoints would solve any problem.

Getting rid of it entirely seems ridiculous and over-reactionary. Sure I loved watching Metcalf wrestle, but his style of attack isn't the only style.

I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with you. Our sport will be stronger and more exciting if we keep it simple. The more complicated the rules the more we deal with unintended consequences. Right now we're dealing with a community that has engrained the principle that RT is more valuable than scoring points. Eliminate RT and force wrestlers to score points by taking down and turning their opponents.

 

[AFHawk86]

Originally posted by Gobblin:

Originally posted by buf87:
No to 1 and 8 & 9 all as a group, Not sure about the quick tilts.

Also I don't mind the 3 points for 1st takedown.Â

This post was edited on 2/24 11:53 AM by buf87

My fear with the first TD being worth 3 is that guys would tighten up even more in fear of giving up that TD... Or if one guy comes out guns blazing and is clearly the aggressor only to give up some cheap TD to a defensive scrambler.

A takedown is a takedown, IMHO.

Eliminating riding time is an absolute must and the push out is close to it too... Again, IMHO.

They should replace #5 with... "Wrestlers start from neutral to begin each period".

Posted from Rivals Mobile

My thoughts exactly. This type of thinking is what drove our current freestyle rules. If the score ends in a tie then wrestling should continue until someone scores in OT.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by andegre:

Originally posted by andegre:
You can't win on RT without a takedown (or reversal)

Woops, i guess Menace Sockeyes already had this idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This, imo, should be obvious, but if not this, need backs for RT.

I really don't know why people just want to get rid of riding time, it is a large part of collegiate wrestling. A lot of work and strategy takes place, as long as stalling is properly called, it shouldn't be an issue.

Adding a requirement of TD or backpoints would solve any problem.

Getting rid of it entirely seems ridiculous and over-reactionary. Sure I loved watching Metcalf wrestle, but his style of attack isn't the only style.

I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with you. Our sport will be stronger and more exciting if we keep it simple. The more complicated the rules the more we deal with unintended consequences. Right now we're dealing with a community that has engrained the principle that RT is more valuable than scoring points. Eliminate RT and force wrestlers to score points by taking down and turning their opponents.

+1. The problem is that stalling hasn't been properly called for decades now. I don't think anyone should have the least bit of confidence that refs are going to start calling it properly after decades of failing to do so. The less we leave the sport up to subjective calls by the refs, the better.

IMO, riding time has become too large a part of college wrestling -- that's part of the problem. Guys are just hanging out on top for the sake of the RT point (i.e., stalling). When you value 1 point so highly, odds are that you're not planning on scoring much for the rest of the match. We see guys winning on RT alone, with RT and an escape, etc., far too often. If we end this obsession with 1 RT point, wrestlers are forced to find other ways to score.

And, as AF says, we need to KEEP IT SIMPLE. I'm sure there's no intent to implement the entire list above, but the last thing we need is a bunch of new rules that complicate matters for the refs. I'm sure they're doing their best, but they're not doing very well under the current rules -- the last thing they/we need is more to think about during the action.

Let's start by getting rid of RT, implementing a push-out, and changing OT to sudden victory starting in the neutral position, with the clock turned off. Those three changes, alone, would instantly make it a much more exciting sport, and none of them requires subjective decisions by the refs.

This post was edited on 2/25 8:36 AM by WWDMHawkeye

 

[sloehawk]

Originally posted by hawkeyesports92:
I hate the first TD is worth 3 points. The consequence will be even worse stalling than we see now.

This post was edited on 2/24 4:21 PM by hawkeyesports92

I believe this to be true as well. The thought being it will increase action for the 1st takedown is probably true. The fact that many milk the 1st 2 point takedown NOW all the way to a 1 point win seems plenty prevalent as it is.

I could see the push-out, and any attempt to take away riding time is good (though it is a fixture of the sport - I would probably prefer the suggestion to award it after a takedown or reversal, but not accumulated from the start of a period).

Maybe they should add a #11 - call stalling as it is written.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by Menace Sockeyes:

Alternative to #10: How about "riding time will only be accumulated after a takedown or reversal". Eliminates the stall ride from the top position to start a period. (My guess is Missouri might object.

Expand on this. Wrestler starts on top, but doesn't actually gain RT? What is the usefulness of this? Won't that, largely, just become an automatic point for the bottom guy?

Imo, RT should absolutely start ticking, the wrestler does not have to choose down. As I say above, requiring backpoints for RT to decide a match might be an improvement, although I'd probably allow RT to tie a match (just not win) without backs.

It would make it more of an automatic point for the bottom guy, however there are two benefits in my eyes: 1) It puts far less incentive on the top man to stall if it does him no good on RT. The ref would have the full period to call stalling on the top man if he can't put in a "proper" ride. 2) There still IS incentive for truly masterful riders if they can do it the right way for the full period.

I think you'll see a lot more wrestling from the feet this way, and I think we need that. I do understand the hesitation to it though.

 

[Gjderaad]

1 and 2: yes as package. Reward people making attempts to turn instead of just riding.
3 yes, yes, OMG yes!
4 no, I think singlets are the perfect wrestling uniform. Totally don't get movement against them.
5 no!! Hawks in CHA dressed in gold t-shirts and shorts!?
6 neutral or yes. seems like all takedowns should be worth same, but I do like to see the scoring get started sooner in matches.
8 and 9 sure
10 I lean toward no, I like having riding time in play more, maybe that's just because so many matches are so boring that there is nothing else to get excited about.
11 yes, yes, yes!! We want wrestlers defending their hips and trying to score off it instead of just letting opponent penetrate and then grabbing for stalemate.

 

[honkey69]

I like the 6 point major and 10 point tech, if it will encourage action and aggressiveness. But I don't think the match should be terminated once there is a 10 point gap- keep wrestling until time is up, and then award the extra team points.

 

[overeasy]

Originally posted by clhawks00:
3 and 10 are the only definites in my book. 11 needs further clarification.

This.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by andegre:

Originally posted by andegre:
You can't win on RT without a takedown (or reversal)

Woops, i guess Menace Sockeyes already had this idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This, imo, should be obvious, but if not this, need backs for RT.

I really don't know why people just want to get rid of riding time, it is a large part of collegiate wrestling. A lot of work and strategy takes place, as long as stalling is properly called, it shouldn't be an issue.

Adding a requirement of TD or backpoints would solve any problem.

Getting rid of it entirely seems ridiculous and over-reactionary. Sure I loved watching Metcalf wrestle, but his style of attack isn't the only style.

I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with you. Our sport will be stronger and more exciting if we keep it simple. The more complicated the rules the more we deal with unintended consequences. Right now we're dealing with a community that has engrained the principle that RT is more valuable than scoring points. Eliminate RT and force wrestlers to score points by taking down and turning their opponents.

Except I don't think what you are claiming is based in fact. I don't think we are "dealing with a community" that believes Riding Time is more valuable than scoring points, I think that is YOUR (and others') overreaction.

I think eliminating RT will actually move further away from turning opponents. If they get no credit for a "masterful ride" (as another poster termed it), than why would they work so damn hard to get backpoints, when they will likely give up the escape at some point (1), or suffer a stalling warning/call in the process. It will push towards just Metcalf-like wrestling (which is what I believe so many of you want), attack, takedown, release, attack, takedown, release. That is not the only way to wrestle.

But maybe we can actually boil this down to numbers. How many matches actually end with riding time awarded? How often is it a factor?

Wrestling is about control. Part of control is keeping control. If there is no real benefit to keeping control, why would someone work so hard for it? If one can exert control while improving, they should be credited for doing so.

2-1, 4-2, 6-3, 8-4 takedown, release, takedown, is not a solution to the "excitement" problem in my opinion.

I keep reading about how the refs can't/won't change, therefore we need to change the rules, but I think that is misplaced. The refs must enforce the rules they are told to do so, and the people above them must force them to do so.

Using an analogy: One might think police don't enforce certain laws enough (say, speeding or OWI), but simply adding (or removing) more laws doesn't solve the problem that the police aren't, you know, doing their job. Let's fix what we know to be the problem: consistency in subjective calls.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

The intended objective for the top man in folkstyle is to work to score back points and/or a fall. I don't believe the intent was ever simply to remain on top. I'll need to research the history of riding time, which would add a lot to this discussion. . . . I'll see what I can find. Or if any wrestling historians out there want to chime in, that would be very interesting. Anyway, it's my impression that riding time was intended as more of a reward for controlling the man while working for back points and/or the fall -- not necessarily an end in itself.

I think you're making a huge assumption that the absence of riding time would cause everyone to just work the takedown game. I think there would be great incentive for guys to develop their top game and learn to turn people effectively. I think there would be more incentive to score more than just 1 RT point on top. Plus, without that "carrot", I think guys would abandon the strategy of trying to just ride out the opponent and get their escape, winning tight matches 2-0. I think it's a huge leap to conclude that everyone -- or even a majority -- would resort to just taking guys down and letting them up.

The problem with simply enforcing the rules is that there will never be a way to get around the subjectivity of the stalling call. You can train refs all you want, but the decision will still be left up to each ref's subjective impression. Furthermore, even when stalling is called, refs have a very clever way of avoiding any consequences (i.e., awarding points) by so often delaying the first call to the point that they can let time run out before the second call that would result in a point. One (partial) solution would be for every stalling call to result in a point awarded to the opponent. That would light more of a fire under the wrestlers, but it would still be entirely subjective.

The more you relieve the refs of having to make judgment calls, the better. Abolishing RT and adding the push-out would encourage action without making the refs' job any harder. In fact, I think it would make their job quite a bit easier.

 

[overeasy]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by andegre:

Originally posted by andegre:
You can't win on RT without a takedown (or reversal)

Woops, i guess Menace Sockeyes already had this idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This, imo, should be obvious, but if not this, need backs for RT.

I really don't know why people just want to get rid of riding time, it is a large part of collegiate wrestling. A lot of work and strategy takes place, as long as stalling is properly called, it shouldn't be an issue.

Adding a requirement of TD or backpoints would solve any problem.

Getting rid of it entirely seems ridiculous and over-reactionary. Sure I loved watching Metcalf wrestle, but his style of attack isn't the only style.

I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with you. Our sport will be stronger and more exciting if we keep it simple. The more complicated the rules the more we deal with unintended consequences. Right now we're dealing with a community that has engrained the principle that RT is more valuable than scoring points. Eliminate RT and force wrestlers to score points by taking down and turning their opponents.

Except I don't think what you are claiming is based in fact. I don't think we are "dealing with a community" that believes Riding Time is more valuable than scoring points, I think that is YOUR (and others') overreaction.

I think eliminating RT will actually move further away from turning opponents. If they get no credit for a "masterful ride" (as another poster termed it), than why would they work so damn hard to get backpoints, when they will likely give up the escape at some point (1), or suffer a stalling warning/call in the process. It will push towards just Metcalf-like wrestling (which is what I believe so many of you want), attack, takedown, release, attack, takedown, release. That is not the only way to wrestle.

But maybe we can actually boil this down to numbers. How many matches actually end with riding time awarded? How often is it a factor?

Wrestling is about control. Part of control is keeping control. If there is no real benefit to keeping control, why would someone work so hard for it? If one can exert control while improving, they should be credited for doing so.

2-1, 4-2, 6-3, 8-4 takedown, release, takedown, is not a solution to the "excitement" problem in my opinion.

I keep reading about how the refs can't/won't change, therefore we need to change the rules, but I think that is misplaced. The refs must enforce the rules they are told to do so, and the people above them must force them to do so.

Using an analogy: One might think police don't enforce certain laws enough (say, speeding or OWI), but simply adding (or removing) more laws doesn't solve the problem that the police aren't, you know, doing their job. Let's fix what we know to be the problem: consistency in subjective calls.

"Consistency in subjective calls" sounds almost like a oxymoron to me. It would be great to have, but impossible to achieve, in my view.

High school wrestling hasn't had riding time for several decades now. Is the sport better because they got rid of it? Don't know for sure, but my answer would be "probably."

However, I think the better solution is to award RT only if you get back points. In fact, I think that is a really, really good suggestion. Adding that along with some sort of clear push-out rule would go a long way toward actually reducing the impact of subjectivity.

.
This post was edited on 2/25 1:30 PM by overeasy

 

[AFHawk86]

Originally posted by overeasy:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by andegre:

Originally posted by andegre:
You can't win on RT without a takedown (or reversal)

Woops, i guess Menace Sockeyes already had this idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This, imo, should be obvious, but if not this, need backs for RT.

I really don't know why people just want to get rid of riding time, it is a large part of collegiate wrestling. A lot of work and strategy takes place, as long as stalling is properly called, it shouldn't be an issue.

Adding a requirement of TD or backpoints would solve any problem.

Getting rid of it entirely seems ridiculous and over-reactionary. Sure I loved watching Metcalf wrestle, but his style of attack isn't the only style.

I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with you. Our sport will be stronger and more exciting if we keep it simple. The more complicated the rules the more we deal with unintended consequences. Right now we're dealing with a community that has engrained the principle that RT is more valuable than scoring points. Eliminate RT and force wrestlers to score points by taking down and turning their opponents.

Except I don't think what you are claiming is based in fact. I don't think we are "dealing with a community" that believes Riding Time is more valuable than scoring points, I think that is YOUR (and others') overreaction.

I think eliminating RT will actually move further away from turning opponents. If they get no credit for a "masterful ride" (as another poster termed it), than why would they work so damn hard to get backpoints, when they will likely give up the escape at some point (1), or suffer a stalling warning/call in the process. It will push towards just Metcalf-like wrestling (which is what I believe so many of you want), attack, takedown, release, attack, takedown, release. That is not the only way to wrestle.

But maybe we can actually boil this down to numbers. How many matches actually end with riding time awarded? How often is it a factor?

Wrestling is about control. Part of control is keeping control. If there is no real benefit to keeping control, why would someone work so hard for it? If one can exert control while improving, they should be credited for doing so.

2-1, 4-2, 6-3, 8-4 takedown, release, takedown, is not a solution to the "excitement" problem in my opinion.

I keep reading about how the refs can't/won't change, therefore we need to change the rules, but I think that is misplaced. The refs must enforce the rules they are told to do so, and the people above them must force them to do so.

Using an analogy: One might think police don't enforce certain laws enough (say, speeding or OWI), but simply adding (or removing) more laws doesn't solve the problem that the police aren't, you know, doing their job. Let's fix what we know to be the problem: consistency in subjective calls.

"Consistency in subjective calls" sounds almost like a oxymoron to me. It would be great to have, but impossible to achieve, in my view.

High school wrestling hasn't had riding time for several decades now. Is the sport better because they got rid of it? Don't know for sure, but my answer would be "probably."

However, I think the better solution is to award RT only if you get back points. In fact, I think that is a really, really good suggestion. Adding that along with some sort of clear push-out rule would go a long way toward actually reducing the impact of subjectivity.

IowaHawk - I don't think this can be boiled down to numbers because it doesn't matter how many times RT has been the deciding factor in the match. It's not about the outcome, it's about the philosophy that drives the mentality and therefore the behavior.

Overeasy - I don't understand how awarding RT with back points makes sense. Back points are the reward so why award an additional 1 point for RT? I do think this would be better than the current rule though.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

IowaHawk - I don't think this can be boiled down to numbers because it doesn't matter how many times RT has been the deciding factor in the match. It's not about the outcome, it's about the philosophy that drives the mentality and therefore the behavior.

I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. If, for example, this were not affecting any matches...what would be the point? That it is "about the philosophy"? You need to reread my posts, wrestling philosophy = control, riding time awards control. You, imo, are actually advocating from changing the philosophy of wrestling from control to just takedown.

As I said, I think it (in its obvious sense) will just lead to a free point at the beginning of the second and third period, or more likely to just starting neutral. That goes, again imo, against the history of wrestling. Wrestling isn't only about takedowns, but control, that is why there are options for starting.

One who controls, properly, while improving their position should be rewarded. Getting rid of riding time, imo, rewards those who a) can't keep control and b) who can't get out from control. That I don't approve of.

Now, requiring backpoints to award a match-deciding RT point is acceptable and I think would solve much of the problem you perceive.


Overeasy - I don't understand how awarding RT with back points makes sense. Back points are the reward so why award an additional 1 point for RT? I do think this would be better than the current rule though.

Because it isn't an "additional" reward. The RT award is for 1 minute of it. You can be turned in much less than 1 minute. You should, imo, be awarded more points for consistent, continuous, proper control of a person and the achievement of backpoints than a person who throws their opponent straight to their back, but can't keep control.

I think you misunderstand the actual purpose of riding time. That is, likely, largely due to how it is often used today (allowed by referees). The subjective refereeing should be corrected, not the rule.

Let me ask it a different way: What is the "ultimate purpose" in wrestling? If it is to score a pin, than backpoints aren't important, they are just a failure of a pin. If backpoints/pin are, then riding time isn't important because it is a failure to get backpoints. This seems to be your line of thinking, but I think it is misplaced.

Those aren't the only objectives of wrestling, and a wrestler, properly, working with control, but ultimately fails to turn a wrestler shouldn't be penalized (no RT point) for "failing" to turn him, but should be rewarded for his impressive work on top.

Just my thoughts.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by overeasy:

"Consistency in subjective calls" sounds almost like a oxymoron to me. It would be great to have, but impossible to achieve, in my view.

Why? Every sport has subjective calls, and they will obviously get them "wrong" from time to time. But subjectivity is taught in all of these professions, and referee behavior can absolutely change, if they want it to.

High school wrestling hasn't had riding time for several decades now. Is the sport better because they got rid of it? Don't know for sure, but my answer would be "probably."

I would answer probably not. I understand why hs wrestling went away from it, there are so many athletes who aren't, for lack of better term, athletically gifted/talented enough to compete with the "big boys". Keeping riding time would just allow the "haves" to further dominate the "have nots". I don't think collegiate wrestling suffers in this way. Also, on the flip side, no riding time allowed some hs wrestlers to dominate, where they didn't in college and vice versa. There are always wrestlers in hs who you can tell will translate brilliantly to college because of their ability to control their opponent (as opposed to simply out-athlete-ing them with takedowns).

However, I think the better solution is to award RT only if you get back points. In fact, I think that is a really, really good suggestion. Adding that along with some sort of clear push-out rule would go a long way toward actually reducing the impact of subjectivity.

.

As you can see from my above post, I am on board with this. I would modify it that standard RT could tie a match, but it couldn't win without backpoints. I could be convinced to even do away with that.

A clear push-out rule would help, but, as you allude to in your opening paragraph, it would still be subjective and hard to keep consistent refereeing.

BTW, I don't think the five-count helps, it just allows refs to let them automatically stall for five seconds. Seems to me that if they are stalling (which starts the count) then they are, uh, stalling. The only time it seems to work is when they really let the wrestlers know, and the wrestlers let them go instead of being hit with the call. The ones that still hang out aren't getting dinged.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by WWDMHawkeye:
The intended objective for the top man in folkstyle is to work to score back points and/or a fall. I don't believe the intent was ever simply to remain on top. I'll need to research the history of riding time, which would add a lot to this discussion. . . . I'll see what I can find. Or if any wrestling historians out there want to chime in, that would be very interesting. Anyway, it's my impression that riding time was intended as more of a reward for controlling the man while working for back points and/or the fall -- not necessarily an end in itself.

I agree with that, but the reward of a point must have necessarily meant that they wanted to reward that work on top, regardless of the outcome (backpoints, pin, nothing). If the top man is not working to score from top.....he needs to be hit with stalling. That, essentially, is my main point. There really isn't a realistic way to count riding time only when working towards fall, but not when just riding. And there isn't need, there is no such thing as "just riding."

I think you're making a huge assumption that the absence of riding time would cause everyone to just work the takedown game. I think there would be great incentive for guys to develop their top game and learn to turn people effectively.

If I'm making a huge assumption then so are you. My belief stems from the concern that a person on top would know that they could spend their entire period on top and gain only one thing, no point for the other guy. Right now they know they can gain a two point benefit, which, obviously equates to a takedown....one point doesn't.

With no benefit, I think they wouldn't spend as much time on top. And let's be logical here, if the point of taking away the RT point is to force action, than it only makes sense that people believe that it will, you know, force action, i.e. takedowns and releases.

Putting it another way: If taking away RT was going to (as you suggest) cause guys to get even better on top......it would have the opposite effect people want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that, according to you, it would actually cause more top-riding? Just doesn't follow. If it isn't to force more neutral action...what is the purpose?

I think there would be more incentive to score more than just 1 RT point on top. Plus, without that "carrot", I think guys would abandon the strategy of trying to just ride out the opponent and get their escape, winning tight matches 2-0. I think it's a huge leap to conclude that everyone -- or even a majority -- would resort to just taking guys down and letting them up.

The problem with simply enforcing the rules is that there will never be a way to get around the subjectivity of the stalling call. You can train refs all you want, but the decision will still be left up to each ref's subjective impression.

This can be said in, literally, every sport. Even baseball, which is done one single play at a time. Sure there is problems with subjectivity, but they DO get corrected and changed. It is up to the people in charge to actually force that change. I don't think it is near the impossibility that others think, although sometimes watching these matches it does feel that way.

Furthermore, even when stalling is called, refs have a very clever way of avoiding any consequences (i.e., awarding points) by so often delaying the first call to the point that they can let time run out before the second call that would result in a point. One (partial) solution would be for every stalling call to result in a point awarded to the opponent. That would light more of a fire under the wrestlers, but it would still be entirely subjective.

Disagree. That would have the opposite effect of what you want, imo. If every stalling call was a point, the refs would be even more gunshy than they are now. But, I do agree with you, these refs often try to avoid calling stalling until it is too late. That does need to be corrected.

The more you relieve the refs of having to make judgment calls, the better. Abolishing RT and adding the push-out would encourage action without making the refs' job any harder. In fact, I think it would make their job quite a bit easier.

You think that a push-out rule will be objective? Even without RT, no changes to the stalling rule will have taken place, it will be as subjective as always.

Can Gable be put in charge of training/punishing refereeing? Do we really think he couldn't get this done?

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Good discussion IowaHawk, even though we disagree.

You'll come around eventually.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by WWDMHawkeye:
Good discussion IowaHawk, even though we disagree.

You'll come around eventually.

Seriously, we need someone to crack the whip on refs. Do people really think this can't be accomplished?

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

I really don't think that's the way to go. In an ideal world where every ref had flawless judgment on what does and doesn't constitute stalling, yes. In this imperfect world of ours, I'm afraid not. The simpler for the refs, the better, IMO, and the more the rules incentivize aggressive wrestling, the better. I think you know where I stand on which rules need to be implemented; that horse has been roughed up pretty good by now.

 

[overeasy]

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Overeasy - I don't understand how awarding RT with back points makes sense. Back points are the reward so why award an additional 1 point for RT? I do think this would be better than the current rule though.

I look at it a little differently -- it's not that you're adding another point, but that you're not rewarded a point for simply "controlling" your opponent. The rules state that the wrestler in the top position is supposed to be working to put his opponent on his back. Rewarding him for not trying seems counter-productive.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by WWDMHawkeye:
I really don't think that's the way to go. In an ideal world where every ref had flawless judgment on what does and doesn't constitute stalling, yes. In this imperfect world of ours, I'm afraid not. The simpler for the refs, the better, IMO, and the more the rules incentivize aggressive wrestling, the better. I think you know where I stand on which rules need to be implemented; that horse has been roughed up pretty good by now.

Except, and now I feel redundant, you are inherently saying that top-wrestling (control) is not "aggressive wrestling". THAT is where we disagree.

Is it always aggressive wrestling? No, but guess what isn't always either: "shooting". Not all shots are created equal and there are plenty of guys stalling on their feet, even when they are pretending to shoot.

Simple point: No matter which way you slice it, stalling MUST be called. It happens in every single position, it can never be removed from the referees.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by overeasy:

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Overeasy - I don't understand how awarding RT with back points makes sense. Back points are the reward so why award an additional 1 point for RT? I do think this would be better than the current rule though.

I look at it a little differently -- it's not that you're adding another point, but that you're not rewarded a point for simply "controlling" your opponent. The rules state that the wrestler in the top position is supposed to be working to put his opponent on his back. Rewarding him for not trying seems counter-productive.

Overeasy: I'm confused by what you mean? Are you saying that someone who isn't actually improving on top (stalling) should not receive riding time?

If so, I completely agree.

I think you are saying that only those who are successful in turning, even if, by all measurements, is working extremely hard at it and always improving (not stalling). You'd only give the point for success.

I would compromise with that. As I've posted before, I'd allow RT w/out backs to tie a match but not win it.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by WWDMHawkeye:
I really don't think that's the way to go. In an ideal world where every ref had flawless judgment on what does and doesn't constitute stalling, yes. In this imperfect world of ours, I'm afraid not. The simpler for the refs, the better, IMO, and the more the rules incentivize aggressive wrestling, the better. I think you know where I stand on which rules need to be implemented; that horse has been roughed up pretty good by now.

Except, and now I feel redundant, you are inherently saying that top-wrestling (control) is not "aggressive wrestling". THAT is where we disagree.

Is it always aggressive wrestling? No, but guess what isn't always either: "shooting". Not all shots are created equal and there are plenty of guys stalling on their feet, even when they are pretending to shoot.

Simple point: No matter which way you slice it, stalling MUST be called. It happens in every single position, it can never be removed from the referees.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not at all saying that "top-wrestling (control) is not 'aggressive wrestling'". If the bottom man is working to escape, sometimes all the top man can do is control him. That's an easy distinction to make for any competent ref. What I am saying is that awarding a point for staying on top for 1:00 more than the opponent encourages hanging out on top for the sake of just staying on top. In other words, it encourages stalling.

I never said that any combination of rules would ever excuse refs from having to call stalling. What I'm saying -- and what many other fans are saying -- is that the rules should encourage aggression and minimize the burden on the refs to keep the action going. Taking away RT, IMO (and in the opinion of many others), would take away the incentive to hang out on top just to accumulate RT. You'd have less guys just trying to accumulate RT (well, since RT wouldn't exist, you'd have zero guys trying to accumulate RT, but the point is that you'd have less guys riding just for the sake of riding). As a result, you relieve the refs of the burden of constantly trying to determine whether a guy is stalling on top.

Similarly, the push-out rule keeps the action in the center, encouraging aggression and discouraging wrestling the edge. At the same time, it relieves the refs of constantly having to make the judgment call of whether a guy is fleeing or just defending -- stalling or not.

Of course, stalling will have to be called in some cases. But why not tailor the rules to give wrestlers more incentive to get after it and minimize the need for judgment calls by the ref?

This post was edited on 2/26 4:13 PM by WWDMHawkeye

 

[Kwoodhawk]

Originally posted by artradley:
My son got the NCAA annual survey today, here are some rule change considerations that they included for feedback:





1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one count A one count does not show much control. Why reward that? Instead reward more control and skill. Make 2 count worth 3 and 5 count worth 4 or 5. Or perhaps 1 point for each count up to 5. Incentivize turning for back points. 1 point for 1 count does not do that.


Eliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count. Hard enough for some to get 2 count much less 3 count. Might make for less scoring.



Push-out, but not from a scramble situation Above all else.....YES.


Allow MMA-type gear instead of singlets Seems like a superficial change. How does this increase scoring? Sounds like a clothing manufacturer was on the advisory committee.

5. Home team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams. Is this a joke or what??? Different teams singlets are confusing to the fans?

6. First takedown in the first period is worth three points Maybe. Wait a few years. Try other things first.

7. Falls are worth 7 points OK. That incentivizes pinning. Why not 8 or 9 points?



8. Major Decision at 6 points instead of 8 Not if you change other ways of awarding points. If you did 3 for first TD you could go feet to back and have 6 right away. If you changed 5 count to 5 points you could have 8 right off the bat.



9. Tech Fall at 10 points instead of 15 See above.



10. Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back points

Seems like it would make it a bit more complicated for scoring. If you take away RT points you may make wrestling a takedown contest. Great for Jordan Oliver types, but would take away from others. Clark would be at a disadvantage. What would we think of Sorensen? Would his match with Tshirt even be over by now???



11. When defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso I like this a lot. Too many times a wrestler takes the shot and gets a leg and the OP grabs around his back or waist and no TD given. (That's Nick Moore's biggest problem.) Hence you have rewarded the person who did not take the shot. If we want more offense you have to reward those who initiate the action.



What say you?

This post was edited on 2/26 8:07 PM by Kwoodhawk

 

[overeasy]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by overeasy:

Originally posted by AFHawk86:

Overeasy - I don't understand how awarding RT with back points makes sense. Back points are the reward so why award an additional 1 point for RT? I do think this would be better than the current rule though.

I look at it a little differently -- it's not that you're adding another point, but that you're not rewarded a point for simply "controlling" your opponent. The rules state that the wrestler in the top position is supposed to be working to put his opponent on his back. Rewarding him for not trying seems counter-productive.

Overeasy: I'm confused by what you mean? Are you saying that someone who isn't actually improving on top (stalling) should not receive riding time?

If so, I completely agree.

I think you are saying that only those who are successful in turning, even if, by all measurements, is working extremely hard at it and always improving (not stalling). You'd only give the point for success.

I would compromise with that. As I've posted before, I'd allow RT w/out backs to tie a match but not win it.

I could go with that.