Rule changes approved - let the discussion begin

[PapaBearSLIM]

After watching how it was called in that event, members of the NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee determined that when wrestling is stopped in the neutral standing position for going out of bounds, the referee can make one of the three following calls:
​

• • Stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the wrestling area.
  • Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds.
  • Wrestling action is taking place. (It should be noted that a tie-up, including an under hook with no attempt to initiate an offensive move, is not considered an offensive or defensive attack).

I can't wait to see them try to implement this. What a convoluted mess this will be.

This doesn't change anything. The refs always had the discretion to hit either guy for stalling or make no call. The problem is that they usually make no call.

The refs don't need more defined rules to call stalling. They just need to start calling it. And actually the more rules that are put in place to define stalling the less it will be called because the wrestlers will do 1000 things that we all know are stalling tactics while the refs will be pigeon holed to only consider calling the 5 defined stall situations in the book and only if they take place exactly as written.

 

[pumpdog20]

I'm not a fan of the 3 pt takedown and 4 pt nearfall, it seems to me to be just inflating the point system. Now people can have 7 pt moves as opposed to 5, and sure the scores may have higher numbers, but do we really expect the number of takedowns and turns to increase by making them worth more?

I was perfectly fine with the rules that were in place this past season, the only thing that was missing was the correct implementation of the stalling rules by the officials. As mentioned by Tim Johnson during the NCAA finals "The rules are there, they just have to call stalling."

One change I would be okay with would be some kind of change to riding time, not necessarily remove it, but it seems that a lot of the 'boring' wrestling that was going on was from people doing the absolute minimum to keep someone down for 1 minute just to get the point.

Being able to get a takedown and not have half those points awarded to the other guy because you let him up will be better.

 

[AFHawk86]

With the potential for increased scoring maybe the NCAA should consider eliminating match termination for technical falls or increase the difference to 20 (or eliminate them altogether and replace them with superior decisions worth 5 team points).

 

[theIowaHawk]

Being able to get a takedown and not have half those points awarded to the other guy because you let him up will be better.

You mean failing to control him. Wrestling isn't about takedowns, it is about control.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

The good ol' super superior decision! Reminds me of the 70's, when it was 4 team points for an 8-point win (superior decision) and 5 team points for a 12-point win (super superior decision). Works for me.

 

[LaxHawk174]

Pump you do make a good point about the escapes, its easier to widen the gap between your opponent, but it's also easier for him to get back in the match, you take him down and let him up 5 times, you're up 15-5, then he hits a 7 point move, suddenly its 15-12. Not saying its necessarily bad, but maybe having something slick in the back pocket to go feet to back becomes just a little more valuable than it once was.

Now thinking about it, this will probably make it much harder for guys to try to sit on tight leads and win a close match, because the opportunity for a comeback is a bit greater, plus the factors of riding time still apply.

side note: It would be cool to go back and rescore a few matches under these new rules, and see if some of the outcomes would be different in some big matches in the past.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

You can rescore them but it doesn't tell much because wrestlers wrestle to the rules/situation. Different rules and/or situation would have had different action.

The new rules are much ado about nothing. The guys looking to win 2-1 will still have 2-1 stallfests.

 

[sloehawk]

You can rescore them but it doesn't tell much because wrestlers wrestle to the rules/situation. Different rules and/or situation would have had different action.

The new rules are much ado about nothing. The guys looking to win 2-1 will still have 2-1 stallfests.

Agree 100%! I know it's a really tough gig, but the only guys who can change things are the guys in the striped shirts, and they've had the ability to do that from the get-go.

It probably wouldn't hurt to get the Coaching Staffs all around the country to get on board that train with them. I know most of them will take a win from their guy any way they can get it, but the large majority if not 100% of them also know stalling when they see it, and if they don't care how it gets done it won't help change the landscape.

 

[pumpdog20]

You mean failing to control him. Wrestling isn't about takedowns, it is about control.

Never seen the old "take down, let up" strategy I take it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Never seen the old "take down, let up" strategy I take it.

You are missing my point. Of course I have seen the "Brent Metcalf", the question is why should one be awarded for failure to keep control? Wrestling, in its essence is about control. So you get two points, and you, basically, lose one for failing to keep control.

If wrestling was only about takedowns...sure, you'd have a point.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Agree 100%! I know it's a really tough gig, but the only guys who can change things are the guys in the striped shirts, and they've had the ability to do that from the get-go.

It probably wouldn't hurt to get the Coaching Staffs all around the country to get on board that train with them. I know most of them will take a win from their guy any way they can get it, but the large majority if not 100% of them also know stalling when they see it, and if they don't care how it gets done it won't help change the landscape.

Wanted to repeat this, in bold:

the only guys who can change things are the guys in the striped shirts, and they've had the ability to do that from the get-go.

 

[LutherAce]

You can rescore them but it doesn't tell much because wrestlers wrestle to the rules/situation. Different rules and/or situation would have had different action.

The new rules are much ado about nothing. The guys looking to win 2-1 will still have 2-1 stallfests.

now it will be 4-1 (escape, escape, 1 TD)

 

[overeasy]

You are missing my point. Of course I have seen the "Brent Metcalf", the question is why should one be awarded for failure to keep control? Wrestling, in its essence is about control. So you get two points, and you, basically, lose one for failing to keep control.

If wrestling was only about takedowns...sure, you'd have a point.

Takedowns are about gaining control, no?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yes, gaining and keeping control. A takedown isn't a takedown without control. It stands to reason that losing that control would reduce the award.

 

[pumpdog20]

You are missing my point. Of course I have seen the "Brent Metcalf", the question is why should one be awarded for failure to keep control? Wrestling, in its essence is about control. So you get two points, and you, basically, lose one for failing to keep control.

If wrestling was only about takedowns...sure, you'd have a point.

You're missing the point. They're trying to encourage more action/risk. It's the same reason freestyle changed the takedown to 2 points from 1. If there was a way that they distinguish between letting them up and not, then I'd see your point. But the escape point is rewarded the same amount regardless. Plus, it's a lot harder to get a takedown than an escape, so it should be rewarded as such.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

now it will be 4-1 (escape, escape, 1 TD)

I was thinking escape and riding time for 2 and conceding late escape for 1.
2-1

 

[theIowaHawk]

You're missing the point. They're trying to encourage more action/risk. It's the same reason freestyle changed the takedown to 2 points from 1. If there was a way that they distinguish between letting them up and not, then I'd see your point. But the escape point is rewarded the same amount regardless. Plus, it's a lot harder to get a takedown than an escape, so it should be rewarded as such.

Stop seeing it as a reward, the escape is a penalty. But it makes more sense to add a point than take one away. They are trying to encourage more action, not just takedowns. Takedowns =/= action. They are not synonyms.

 

[pumpdog20]

Stop seeing it as a reward, the escape is a penalty. But it makes more sense to add a point than take one away. They are trying to encourage more action, not just takedowns. Takedowns =/= action. They are not synonyms.

What exactly is your argument?

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not sure where you got lost. I'm defending the escape point, when I responded to your post wanting to get rid of it.

Are you ok?

 

[overeasy]

I'm not sure where you got lost. I'm defending the escape point, when I responded to your post wanting to get rid of it.

Are you ok?

I don't know about pumpdog20, but I'm still a little bit lost.

You're defending the escape point because it penalizes the offensive wrestler for failure to maintain control, right? And you said that wrestling is about control, not takedowns.

You're also saying that they are trying to encourage action, not takedowns, because takedowns aren't synonymous with action. Are you implying that the absence of an escape point would encourage more takedown/release/takedown/release tactics and, therefore, encourage more takedowns but less action??

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't know about pumpdog20, but I'm still a little bit lost.

You're defending the escape point because it penalizes the offensive wrestler for failure to maintain control, right? And you said that wrestling is about control, not takedowns.

You're also saying that they are trying to encourage action, not takedowns, because takedowns aren't synonymous with action. Are you implying that the absence of an escape point would encourage more takedown/release/takedown/release tactics and, therefore, encourage more takedowns but less action??

Yes? That's pretty much it.

Removing escape point might encourage takedown/release, but that, imo, isn't the "action" we are looking for.

I guess I didn't think my stance was either weird not confusing.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Also, there is plenty of wrestling that is action that isn't simply a takedown.

Streebler is a prime example.

 

[Shafthawk]

Well, a whole match of control is boring, sleep worthy action. So yeah, I want to see some takedowns.

And takedowns being 3 times the points as an escape is a step in the right direction.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think we are differing on our definitions of control.

Stalling needs to be called. "Control" is not hanging out on an opponents side losing his hands, it isn't dropping down on a leg.

Again, Stiebeler is a perfect example. If you've been bored during a his matches, well, I don't know what to say.