This is probably the right move. Riding time is important in folkstyle and it means guys still have to work to get out from bottom. 3-point takedowns means a lot more tech falls for teams like PSU who are dominant on their feet.
3-point takedown passed, nearfall for riding time not passed
- Thread starter RB-Old
- Start date
With the 3 point Takedown........does that make Will Lewan the early Hodge favorite?
How many points for tie ups and pushing? Asking for an Iowa fan buddy.
https://www.flowrestling.org/articl...ght-panel-passes-13-of-14-recommended-changes
My knee jerk reaction is mixed. The 3pt TD makes sense in certain ways, but it didn’t seem like something that was truly broken. Some of the other rule changes like video review for the entire sequence of action, med FFT, and facial hair make a lot of sense and were needed IMO.
If I was allowed to recommend a rule change, I’d propose making headgear optional. It’s not uncommon for it to slip off late in a match creating a delay in action and most college wrestlers already have cauliflower ear coming into college (or are/were aiming to get it in my case) what purpose does it really serve? Certain guys will still wear it —I’m looking at you Ed Ruth who didn’t want his ears messed up and Brady Berge who wore the Morgan headgear because of concussions— but seeing as how no senior level athletes wear it and it really not serving much purpose aside from a small layer of protection to a usually already damaged ear or ears what function does it occupy? I’ll get down from my soapbox now…
My knee jerk reaction is mixed. The 3pt TD makes sense in certain ways, but it didn’t seem like something that was truly broken. Some of the other rule changes like video review for the entire sequence of action, med FFT, and facial hair make a lot of sense and were needed IMO.
If I was allowed to recommend a rule change, I’d propose making headgear optional. It’s not uncommon for it to slip off late in a match creating a delay in action and most college wrestlers already have cauliflower ear coming into college (or are/were aiming to get it in my case) what purpose does it really serve? Certain guys will still wear it —I’m looking at you Ed Ruth who didn’t want his ears messed up and Brady Berge who wore the Morgan headgear because of concussions— but seeing as how no senior level athletes wear it and it really not serving much purpose aside from a small layer of protection to a usually already damaged ear or ears what function does it occupy? I’ll get down from my soapbox now…
The 3 pt takedown is the equivalent of changing bicycle access to highways rules believing the result will be improved boat safety on lakes.
It isn't going to change individual stalling. Anybody here believe a 3 point TD is going to encourage Cole Mathews to attempt more than one shot every 11 minutes he wrestles? As someone pointed out above, is Lewan's number of attempted shots going to increase to 1 in the first 7 minutes?
With a 3 point TD would DeSanto have actually attemptd to move laterally with RBY's leg or still stayed safely underneath where RBY can not cradle him.
If Warner had any eligibility left would a 3 point TD keep Jacob from running the bottom guy off the mat 8 times in a 2 minute period?
The 3 point TD is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist and has a zero chance of fixing the problem the geniuses hope it solves.
It isn't going to change individual stalling. Anybody here believe a 3 point TD is going to encourage Cole Mathews to attempt more than one shot every 11 minutes he wrestles? As someone pointed out above, is Lewan's number of attempted shots going to increase to 1 in the first 7 minutes?
With a 3 point TD would DeSanto have actually attemptd to move laterally with RBY's leg or still stayed safely underneath where RBY can not cradle him.
If Warner had any eligibility left would a 3 point TD keep Jacob from running the bottom guy off the mat 8 times in a 2 minute period?
The 3 point TD is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist and has a zero chance of fixing the problem the geniuses hope it solves.
I recall a headgear slipping off at the beginning of a match and causing a cradle that sure looked like it was headed for at least back points to fail at BJC this past season.
No assessment is completed until Mason Beckman weighs in...
It’ll be interesting to see what impact it has.
@HawkFan1986 I had promised to tag you whenever I posted something profound.
@HawkFan1986 I had promised to tag you whenever I posted something profound.
Imagine how many points he’d score with 3 point takedowns. At least 3 sometimes.
Not going to increase action or make things any more “fair.”
I guess it rewards people who are good on their feet but not as good on top. But whether that’s a good thing or not is up to your preference.
It’ll also lead to more guys sitting on 4-2 (previously 3-2) leads in the third period knowing that 2 stall calls still doesn’t tie the match.
I guess it rewards people who are good on their feet but not as good on top. But whether that’s a good thing or not is up to your preference.
It’ll also lead to more guys sitting on 4-2 (previously 3-2) leads in the third period knowing that 2 stall calls still doesn’t tie the match.
That is a good point, we could see even MORE stalling to close out matches.
I think the 3 point takedown is a very good rule. In my opinion anybody that outscores their opponent 6 takedowns....or even 7 to ZERO Tds and still hasn't earned a major decision is just silly and unfair. 10 TDs to zero doesn't get you that close to a Tech Fall. Another area where I expect a very noticeable change is the number of times a wrestler chooses bottom at the start of a period. It is almost an automatic now. If the third period is starting and you are 1 point behind you almost always take down. Often a lot of time is invested in getting the escape. Even if you get a TD an escape sends it to overtime. With a 3 point takedown you can choose neutral knowing if you get a TD you will be up by 2 and an escape still keeps you in the lead. More wrestling on the feet sounds good for the viewer and most Penn State Wrestlers.
I just saw that 3-point nearfall is back too. You get 2 for 2 swipes, 3 for 3 and 4 for 4.
Interesting. Personally I think it seems like a change for the sake of change that will lead to more controversy than anything else.
Interesting. Personally I think it seems like a change for the sake of change that will lead to more controversy than anything else.
It will be interesting to see the effect of this rule. Penn State and other teams rely heavily on hooking an ankle and I wonder what changes teams will make to their top wrestling? This rule has the potential to open things up quite a bit in my opinion. For instance, how might this new rule have affected the Haines/O'Connor final?
— The rule which states top position wrestlers must only aggressively work to break down the opponent will change to also requiring him to pursue near-fall points and/or a pin.
“The way it’s (been) stated in the rulebook — and we changed that a little bit — it’s an attempt to break down,” said North Carolina coach Coleman Scott, a member of the rules committee. “That’s what guys were doing, so it wasn’t technically stalling. (But) that’s hard to watch for me. I’ve watched the sport for 30 years and I want guys to be viscous on top and want to turn. If you’re not incentivized to, why do it?”
— The rule which states top position wrestlers must only aggressively work to break down the opponent will change to also requiring him to pursue near-fall points and/or a pin.
“The way it’s (been) stated in the rulebook — and we changed that a little bit — it’s an attempt to break down,” said North Carolina coach Coleman Scott, a member of the rules committee. “That’s what guys were doing, so it wasn’t technically stalling. (But) that’s hard to watch for me. I’ve watched the sport for 30 years and I want guys to be viscous on top and want to turn. If you’re not incentivized to, why do it?”
I was hoping they'd see the obvious sense in elevating reversals to three points alongside takedowns. To my mind, the key reason behind bringing up takedowns was less about the value of takedowns than about diminishing the value of escapes (but since escapes are only worth one point, you can't realistically devalue them further without breaking everyone's brains with half-point values). Accordingly, reversals should have come up too.
I said this 2 months ago. Get a TD, give up an escape. Up 2 under new rules. Can absorb a stall call and still win. So they will.
The combo w eliminating riding time would have made it even worse, but we will go from too many 1 takedown 3-2 matches to waaaaaay too many 1 takedown 4-2 (or 4-3 w a stall point) matches.
Can we stop with the "eliminating riding time" trope? That was never proposed.
What was proposed was requiring a turn to get riding time. Which does not eliminate the stall ride, but removes its scoring incentive.
What was proposed was requiring a turn to get riding time. Which does not eliminate the stall ride, but removes its scoring incentive.
The last time they tried to require back points to earn something was the 4pt Tech Fall. That didn’t stick.
Trope?
Excuse me…. “eliminating the riding time point unless you get a turn”…. Happy?
Which wasn’t the point. I understand the difference and what was proposed. But fact is if a wrestler got a turn 95% of the time the riding time point wouldn’t matter in their match anyway. Guys who get turns almost always win. Usually decisively.
The old (and now current still) riding time point makes a 1 point lead after 1st period less secure, if you are facing a guy solid on top or if you aren’t good on bottom. Unfortunately with the 3 point TD rule it is less valuable than it was. We devalued top wrestling a bit in the (in my opinion) deluded notion that a 3 point takedown will lead to more takedowns. I expect it will lead to less. And less exciting wrestling.
Best new rules, IMHO, are:
1) The first medical forfeit of a tournament will count as a loss on the wrestler’s record, unless the medical forfeit occurs immediately following an injury default in the tournament.
2) The hand-touch takedown has been eliminated, meaning all takedowns, in order to be secured, would require a demonstration of control beyond reaction time.
1) The first medical forfeit of a tournament will count as a loss on the wrestler’s record, unless the medical forfeit occurs immediately following an injury default in the tournament.
2) The hand-touch takedown has been eliminated, meaning all takedowns, in order to be secured, would require a demonstration of control beyond reaction time.
This helps our current team a ton. AB and Carter (especially AB) love collecting TDs. Multiple matches AB missed the TF even though he notches near double digit TDs. Can see it being huge for SVN and Kerk as well.
Bartlett will remain Bartlett but I'd love to see it incentivize him to wrestle a lot like he wrestled Clay Carlson in the consi semis (12-3 major). Also with the RT remaining without turns, it does allow Carter to keep in his backpocket a rideout to win (assuming he's wrestling). Call it boring/stalling but having that in his arsenal is a huge huge tool that has won him so many matches. Similarly, the RT remaining helps Nagao a ton.
Bartlett will remain Bartlett but I'd love to see it incentivize him to wrestle a lot like he wrestled Clay Carlson in the consi semis (12-3 major). Also with the RT remaining without turns, it does allow Carter to keep in his backpocket a rideout to win (assuming he's wrestling). Call it boring/stalling but having that in his arsenal is a huge huge tool that has won him so many matches. Similarly, the RT remaining helps Nagao a ton.
Riding time is good. Don’t want to give it up? Get out from bottom or ride hard yourself. You should be rewarded for imposing your will on a guy.
According to Shane Sparks, Cael's favorite part of folkstyle wrestling is earning your escape. You don't get bailed out for bellying out.
Signed, Tony Nelson.
Yes, trope. You weren't the only one to misrepresent the rule change, though kudos for admitting it.
I don't know if T3 will lead to more or less takedowns. It's an incentive for wrestlers who are inclined to score. Not all are.
For those who score on top, it's a marginal devaluation, more of a correction to a perceived scoring imbalance (i.e., maybe a single turn shouldn't be worth 2 takedowns). For those who don't try to score on top, why is devaluing that such a bad thing?
Good thing you clarified. A.J. might have hired you as his lawyer. Lord, I apologize......a little bit
Yes. Same as now. They just added a 3pt nearfall for 3 swipes between the 2 and 4 point nearfalls.
Because riding, trying to turn or at least staying active, and trying to escape, is exciting,
The notion that “more points” is more exciting is nonsense, Sure, a 10-9 match is more fun than 3-2. But 12-3 isn’t exciting at all, while 2-1 absolutely can have you on the edge of your seat.
It is incredibly nerve wracking to watch your guy try to get out and cannot, or try to get to a minute. Max Dean (who did try to turn but often didn’t) was awesome to watch her the riding time point.
I agree with you that trying to turn vs. trying to escape is exciting.
Nothing is less exciting than the match with 4+ minutes of RT and no NF points. Which is possible with or without the RT point, but more likely with the RT point since that could be the margin of victory or the margin for a bonus point.
I hate when they change anything for any reason. I have been wearing the same pair of tighty whiteys since the Reagan administration.
To me that type of match is as much if not more the fault of the bottom guy than it is the top guy.
Similar threads
