3-point takedown passed, nearfall for riding time not passed
- Thread starter RB-Old
- Start date
With a 3 point takedown there is even less incentive for the bottom guy to try to get out if he is up 3-1. Even w riding time he can absorb a ride out and a stall call and still win. And if a late period takedown puts him up by 3-0 he can get ridden out and stall the entire 3rd and probably be safe.
I hate the 3 point NF. There are going to be tons of NF calls challenged this year. 2 seconds is enough buffer to make the variation between the refs swipes and the actual time exposed a challenge that is difficult to win. Now with the one second buffer everyone is going to be throwing them. We'll have both sides throwing them on 3 point NF calls, just watch.
Sometimes bottom can work harder to get out, just like sometimes top can work harder to turn. The difference is: top **always** has the option of going back to feet. Once you get over (approx) 2:30 RT without turning, continuing to do so is a willful decision to milk the clock.
Tan Tom may run out of bricks before the 157 opening round match.
It's been suggested a ton of times, but I don't understand why they don't test some of these rule changes in select tournaments before they try to implement.
Hey on the bright side, at least these rule changes give us something to talk about besides the Ferrari clan.
I do like the removal of the hand-touch takedown language. I think it strikes the proper balance between the rear wrestler needing to establish control while also potentially rewarding the athleticism and scrambling needed for the front wrestler to avoid that control. See the 6:05 mark of David Taylor's match with Nick Moore:
On one hand I agree, on the other, I feel like most tilts and turns are either quick (1/2 count) or they’re tight and the guy could hold them there for an eternity
I'm still in favor of the 1st takedown in the 1st period being 3 points and a free release. I think it could have jump started match action, but I can see the stalling aspect also.
Guys that were content to get the first takedown, maybe give up the escape, then trade escapes would win 3-2. Now they win 4-2. Oh, how exciting!
As bonus should be easier, PSU’s all-time scoring record chances at NCAAs just went up.
In a very broad sense, offense should be rewarded and incentivized. The 3 point TD does this. IMO, the greatest fault with the prior point system is the scenario where the only wrestler who scores a TD loses. This should never occur and the 3 point TD virtually eliminates that scenario.
I would honestly like to know how many times this has happened in the past, say, 3 years. Plus how many times this rule change would fix such a scenario.
I mean, to win against a guy with a takedown, without getting one yourself, almost has to be a situation where the winner got a turn. Outside of that, maybe a 1 in a 1000 match where the winner goes:
Escape
Escape after starting down to begin a period
Rides out the other period and gets the RT point.
In the former, 3 point take downs do help but not if the winner gets the 4 point turn.
In other words, I tend to think that this might fix a problem that rarely, if ever, has been a problem.
Wrestler gives up a takedown and gets an escape, down 2-1. Takes bottom, gets an escape, 2-2. Then rides out 3rd, and wins 3-2. Not sure how often it’s happened, but would think it’s not that uncommon.
I said it before, a lot of what appears to be bottom or top stalling is the handfighting, per se, that can lead to cheap tilts.
If you lose and get the only takedown - simply means you got beat in the sport. The sport isn't just a takedown.
Also, the sport, originally, isn't about majors but about getting a pin.
I don't know if the point system needs to be altered, not even crazy about the 4 point near fall tilt, but the current rules do need enforced.
Working for offensive points is easily discernable IMO. If you are not doing that, then enforce stalling rules.
If you lose and get the only takedown - simply means you got beat in the sport. The sport isn't just a takedown.
Also, the sport, originally, isn't about majors but about getting a pin.
I don't know if the point system needs to be altered, not even crazy about the 4 point near fall tilt, but the current rules do need enforced.
Working for offensive points is easily discernable IMO. If you are not doing that, then enforce stalling rules.
When we say "not that uncommon", I think I need to clarify.
I doubt that scenario happens more than once a season in Division I wrestling.
To build on this, whatever the amount is, I think that this scenario happens at least 50x more:
Takedown/escape
escape from starting down
escape from starting down
Guy up 3-2 runs around for a minute and gets the token stall call at 12 seconds, never the 2nd, and wins 3-2.
Instead of adding an impetus to make the guy up 3-2 wrestle more, we just gave him a reason at 4-2 to even take an extra stall if necessary. Note that no more wrestling ever actually occurred, nothing got "fixed".
Willie nailed it. I think it’s even more likely that wrestlers are going to be content winning with one takedown. Defensive wrestling has gotten so much better the past 15 years that a three point takedown could disincentivize shooting for fear of being countered. I think we see less action, not more because of this. Imo I think this is a rule change that has good intentions but is ultimately short sided.
You as a Hawk fan by rules of Gia sub section 237 Part B can not agree with Willie.. You better hope Iron Bird isn't reading or you will lose your seat at the House of Carver..
I think they should have had the push out rule and the riding time rule to only be awarded if you have an offensive point..
I think they should have had the push out rule and the riding time rule to only be awarded if you have an offensive point..
I can tell by reading this that you are a Iowa supporter. Crazy to think that one teams fans are THRILLED too see TD’s worth 3 points and others bummed. Totally different mindsets.
So the wrestler who won in your example was better in 2 of the 3 positions.
Nailed it.
99% of the issues trying to get fixed are fixed with stalling getting called more often. Or adding a step out or a C+1.
3 point takedown won't kill the sport or anything. Just isn't helping either.
So the winning wrestler “won” 2 of the 3 folk style positions (Top and Bottom).
Seems okay to me.
Agree. Responded the same thing a few minutes ago. I'm going to call this new rule change "The Ohio". Great on your feet but not so good on the mat. No need to deadlift at tOSU anymore.
The end of the reversal.
There's now an incentive to escape for a point and get a takedown for three points; as opposed to reacquiring control in one fell swoop.
It's a lot harder to reverse an opponent than to escape.
Dammit I wish supposedly smart people would think things through.
Dr. Thomas Sowell pointed out a lot of stupid ideas would be rejected if people simply asked "and then what", understanding there are secondary and tertiary effects.
There's now an incentive to escape for a point and get a takedown for three points; as opposed to reacquiring control in one fell swoop.
It's a lot harder to reverse an opponent than to escape.
Dammit I wish supposedly smart people would think things through.
Dr. Thomas Sowell pointed out a lot of stupid ideas would be rejected if people simply asked "and then what", understanding there are secondary and tertiary effects.
Kevin Dresser said it best:
They [the NCAA] keeps throwing shit at us and we keep adjusting.
They [the NCAA] keeps throwing shit at us and we keep adjusting.
The best way to ameliorate (I believe it is impossible to eliminate it) stalling in wrestling is to keep the rules basically as they were and encourage Penn State to retain Cael Sanderson as head coach.
That's a misguided thing to say. Don't let contempt for Iowa cloud EVERY decision or opinion.
There are plenty of valid reasons to think that this rule change is unnecessary. Many here have laid out those reasons.
Sorry but the changes only enhance the Penn State model and philosophy...if they were meant to level the playing field then they backfired.
If you've outscored your opponent 6 takedowns to zero and not won by major, then you should ask yourself why you aren't very good at turning dudes.
The more I thought about it, the more I thought eliminating RT without near fall was a GREAT rule change proposal.
They picked the unnecessary and potentially stupid one and not the good one.
Similar threads
