Anybody else with the same take?

[dicemen99]

After watching both PSU duals this weekend and the Iowa OK State match live, I think we are in for a doozy of a season with the new OOB rule interpretations. During the Iowa/OK State match, every OOB during neutral resulted in a stall call - maybe I missed one, but I don't think so. Every single one. During the two PSU matches I can only recall 2 or 3 times where a neutral OOB resulted in a stall call.

My guess from this limited sample is that we are going to see a wide disparity in this interpretation from official to official. Which is really to be expected - I just can't see why over and over they insist on making wrestling rules subjective. The more they take subjectivity out of the officials hands, the better. After this season, my guess is that EVERYONE is going to be on board with a pushout rule - what they have now is going to be a CLUSTER.

 

[a_mshaffer]

After watching both PSU duals this weekend and the Iowa OK State match live, I think we are in for a doozy of a season with the new OOB rule interpretations. During the Iowa/OK State match, every OOB during neutral resulted in a stall call - maybe I missed one, but I don't think so. Every single one. During the two PSU matches I can only recall 2 or 3 times where a neutral OOB resulted in a stall call.

My guess from this limited sample is that we are going to see a wide disparity in this interpretation from official to official. Which is really to be expected - I just can't see why over and over they insist on making wrestling rules subjective. The more they take subjectivity out of the officials hands, the better. After this season, my guess is that EVERYONE is going to be on board with a pushout rule - what they have now is going to be a CLUSTER.

I agree... subjectivity should be reduced. Look at the NFL for crying out loud! what is a catch!

 

[Tom McAndrew]

My guess from this limited sample is that we are going to see a wide disparity in this interpretation from official to official. Which is really to be expected - I just can't see why over and over they insist on making wrestling rules subjective. The more they take subjectivity out of the officials hands, the better. After this season, my guess is that EVERYONE is going to be on board with a pushout rule - what they have now is going to be a CLUSTER.

Here are the rules for Neutral Position stalling (5.9.2):

"Each wrestler must attempt to work toward the center of the mat and continue wrestling in an attempt to secure a takedown, regardless of the time or score of the match. When wrestling is stopped in the neutral position for going out of bounds, one of the following three calls shall be made: a) stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the wrestling area; b) stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds; or c) wrestling action is taking place. Stalling in the neutral position is defined as follows:"

The text in blue is what was added to the rules this year. The only "defined as follows" that deal with the new aspect of the rules are:

5.9.2.2 Near the edge of the wrestling area, a wrestler shall not leave the wrestling area unless it is to sprawl from an opponent’s takedown attempt or when interlocked in wrestling.
5.9.2.3 A wrestler shall be called for stalling if kicking out from a lower leg hold when this action results in the defending wrestler going out of the wrestling area.
5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.)
5.9.2.5 Pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring. (See Rule 5.13.)

5.9.2.5 is new, so it's in blue.

Back to the question posted by you, I think the refs are put in somewhat of a tough situation in trying to determine what differentiates wrestling taking place and a wrestler pushing another out of bounds or a wrestler pulling the other wrestler out of bounds. Some of the time it's quite clear if pushing or pulling is the primary action taking place, but at times such action can be part of a wrestling move by either wrestler.

I do think there will be inconsistent calls during the year, as well as a lot of hyper-reffing taking place by fans and coaches.

Should be interesting to see how this evolves.

 

[grappler6]

What I have seen watching the Daktronics open and Journeyman Classic.

1. Refs are pretty inconsistent with their calls. Surprising I know

2. Wrestlers seem to circle in out of fear that they might be hit.

3. A lot less stoppages during a match.

 

[PSU-Knocker]

Here are the rules for Neutral Position stalling (5.9.2):

"Each wrestler must attempt to work toward the center of the mat and continue wrestling in an attempt to secure a takedown, regardless of the time or score of the match. When wrestling is stopped in the neutral position for going out of bounds, one of the following three calls shall be made: a) stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the wrestling area; b) stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds; or c) wrestling action is taking place. Stalling in the neutral position is defined as follows:"

The text in blue is what was added to the rules this year. The only "defined as follows" that deal with the new aspect of the rules are:

5.9.2.2 Near the edge of the wrestling area, a wrestler shall not leave the wrestling area unless it is to sprawl from an opponent’s takedown attempt or when interlocked in wrestling.
5.9.2.3 A wrestler shall be called for stalling if kicking out from a lower leg hold when this action results in the defending wrestler going out of the wrestling area.
5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.)
5.9.2.5 Pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring. (See Rule 5.13.)

5.9.2.5 is new, so it's in blue.

Back to the question posted by you, I think the refs are put in somewhat of a tough situation in trying to determine what differentiates wrestling taking place and a wrestler pushing another out of bounds or a wrestler pulling the other wrestler out of bounds. Some of the time it's quite clear if pushing or pulling is the primary action taking place, but at times such action can be part of a wrestling move by either wrestler.

I do think there will be inconsistent calls during the year, as well as a lot of hyper-reffing taking place by fans and coaches.

Should be interesting to see how this evolves.

Any time the refs have discretion to make a call based on their determination of the wrestler's intent, there will be a significant difference in scoring. There will be some discretion given by most refs to the home team. These guys are human.

Most posters are happy with these new rules, but I don't like the refs making a determination of the wrestlers intent as to whether the wrestler is deliberately fleeing/pushing or just trying to make a wrestling move. Wrestlers are going to win or lose based on the ref's interpretation of wrestler's intent.

I know I'm in the minority here, but how many posters will be happy when others question the intent of their post.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Any time the refs have discretion to make a call based on their determination of the wrestler's intent, there will be a significant difference in scoring. There will be some discretion given by most refs to the home team. These guys are human.

I'd have more sympathy for your position if every single rule was a straight black or white rule. Unfortunately, in a dynamic sport like wrestling, it's impossible to craft such rules. And even in some rules that are written to try to make things black and white, there's often some degree of gray area. Example: NF criteria includes: a) any part of one shoulder or scapula, or the head is touching the mat and the other shoulder or scapula is held at an angle of 45 degrees or less to the mat, b) any part of both shoulders or both scapulae are held within four inches of the mat. These are black and white criteria, but in real life they can be difficult to determine. There are times when the raised shoulder is around 45 degrees. The ref can't get out a protractor and determine. They have to make an informed decision, and go with it. Same thing with the 4 inches. There are times when the defensive wrestler's shoulders or scapulae are somewhere between 3.5 to 5 inches above the mat. The ref can't get out a ruler and take a measurement (and keep in mind that the position is usually moving up and down), so they have to make an informed decision and go with it.

How about a slam. The college rule is:

"The term “slam” is interpreted as lifting and bringing an opponent to the mat with unnecessary force. This infraction may be committed by a contestant in either the top or bottom position on the mat and in the neutral position during a takedown. When a contestant lifts the opponent off the mat and brings that wrestler to the mat with excessive force, a slam shall be called without hesitation after the situation occurs."

That seems pretty cut and dry, but unnecessary force is rather subjective.

I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get my point.

I actually didn't bring up examples where intent was part of the evaluation, but the OOB stalling calls are along the same lines, IMHO. Each ref has a very good idea of what is wrestling, and what is pushing or pulling an opponent OOBs. Whether it corresponds with your opinion of what constitutes these things OR, whether you each had the same view of the action, might cause the two of you to reach different evaluations, though that in itself does not make the ref's call right or wrong.

 

[RoarLions1]

Hard for me to fault the officials...theirs is a difficult and thankless job. I might make an exception for complete incompetence, but that's rare. Easy for fans to sit on the sidelines and complain.

Heck, if 10 of us got together to discuss a close call, and with the benefit of instant replay, we'd surely have at least 2 differing opinions on what to call, maybe more.

 

[jtothemfp]

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see which new rules which refs decide they want to focus on. Our main dude yesterday was clearly interested in the 'be set for 1 second before my whistle' one. He'd blown 6 cautions before we even got to Retherford! Felt like there might've been 20 by the time the thing ended.

 

[El-Jefe]

I know I'm in the minority here, but how many posters will be happy when others question the intent of their post.

I know what you're saying and agree with you. Still, this paragraph is downright funny. Message board posters questioning others' intent? NEVER.

 

[El-Jefe]

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see which new rules which refs decide they want to focus on. Our main dude yesterday was clearly interested in the 'be set for 1 second before my whistle' one. He'd blown 6 cautions before we even got to Retherford! Felt like there might've been 20 by the time the thing ended.

Leave it to Zain to take the ref's whistle out of his mouth. Is there anything he can't do?

 

[PSU-Knocker]

I'd have more sympathy for your position if every single rule was a straight black or white rule. Unfortunately, in a dynamic sport like wrestling, it's impossible to craft such rules. And even in some rules that are written to try to make things black and white, there's often some degree of gray area. Example: NF criteria includes: a) any part of one shoulder or scapula, or the head is touching the mat and the other shoulder or scapula is held at an angle of 45 degrees or less to the mat, b) any part of both shoulders or both scapulae are held within four inches of the mat. These are black and white criteria, but in real life they can be difficult to determine. There are times when the raised shoulder is around 45 degrees. The ref can't get out a protractor and determine. They have to make an informed decision, and go with it. Same thing with the 4 inches. There are times when the defensive wrestler's shoulders or scapulae are somewhere between 3.5 to 5 inches above the mat. The ref can't get out a ruler and take a measurement (and keep in mind that the position is usually moving up and down), so they have to make an informed decision and go with it.

How about a slam. The college rule is:

"The term “slam” is interpreted as lifting and bringing an opponent to the mat with unnecessary force. This infraction may be committed by a contestant in either the top or bottom position on the mat and in the neutral position during a takedown. When a contestant lifts the opponent off the mat and brings that wrestler to the mat with excessive force, a slam shall be called without hesitation after the situation occurs."

That seems pretty cut and dry, but unnecessary force is rather subjective.

I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get my point.

I actually didn't bring up examples where intent was part of the evaluation, but the OOB stalling calls are along the same lines, IMHO. Each ref has a very good idea of what is wrestling, and what is pushing or pulling an opponent OOBs. Whether it corresponds with your opinion of what constitutes these things OR, whether you each had the same view of the action, might cause the two of you to reach different evaluations, though that in itself does not make the ref's call right or wrong.

I understand your points and have already acknowledged that I'm in the minority here but the more subjectivity there is in the rules (and certainly there have been several rules added lately that are very subjective), the more the final outcome of bouts are taken from the wrestler's hands. I question the fairness of these added rules.

I know that these rules are put in place to enhance the popularity of the sport, but they can take the result out of the wrestler's hands and that is unfair to the wrestler, although there is a fan "benefit".

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I'd have more sympathy for your position if every single rule was a straight black or white rule. Unfortunately, in a dynamic sport like wrestling, it's impossible to craft such rules. And even in some rules that are written to try to make things black and white, there's often some degree of gray area. Example: NF criteria includes: a) any part of one shoulder or scapula, or the head is touching the mat and the other shoulder or scapula is held at an angle of 45 degrees or less to the mat, b) any part of both shoulders or both scapulae are held within four inches of the mat. These are black and white criteria, but in real life they can be difficult to determine. There are times when the raised shoulder is around 45 degrees. The ref can't get out a protractor and determine. They have to make an informed decision, and go with it. Same thing with the 4 inches. There are times when the defensive wrestler's shoulders or scapulae are somewhere between 3.5 to 5 inches above the mat. The ref can't get out a ruler and take a measurement (and keep in mind that the position is usually moving up and down), so they have to make an informed decision and go with it.

How about a slam. The college rule is:

"The term “slam” is interpreted as lifting and bringing an opponent to the mat with unnecessary force. This infraction may be committed by a contestant in either the top or bottom position on the mat and in the neutral position during a takedown. When a contestant lifts the opponent off the mat and brings that wrestler to the mat with excessive force, a slam shall be called without hesitation after the situation occurs."

That seems pretty cut and dry, but unnecessary force is rather subjective.

I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get my point.

I actually didn't bring up examples where intent was part of the evaluation, but the OOB stalling calls are along the same lines, IMHO. Each ref has a very good idea of what is wrestling, and what is pushing or pulling an opponent OOBs. Whether it corresponds with your opinion of what constitutes these things OR, whether you each had the same view of the action, might cause the two of you to reach different evaluations, though that in itself does not make the ref's call right or wrong.

My big beef with the Officials re: stalling is the "standard" some incorrectly, and inconsistently, choose to apply arbitrarily. With some Officials, they seem to apply the standard that a wrestler needs to prove his "intent" (e.g., stalling) before making a call (IOW, gives the wrestler huge latitude and swallows his whistle). IMO, the standard is the exact opposite - both wrestlers need to prove that they are being aggressive and attempting to score. If a wrestler proves that he is not working to score (lack of self-generated offense - shots - in neutral for instance). Used to be that if an official said, "hey red (or green), gotta show offense" - you knew you were "on the clock" and better be the next wrestler to shoot within the next 10-15 seconds or you were getting dinged.

The onus to prove intent is supposed to be on the wrestler, not the official. Lack of tangible proof (e.g., shots for instance) is enough imo.

 

[PSUAllTheWay]

Rule is definitely subjective but when you are an attack style team like PSU, anything that results in more stall calls is to your benefit. I like the rule change and think it will help us even if the refs aren't completely consistent.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

After watching both PSU duals this weekend and the Iowa OK State match live, I think we are in for a doozy of a season with the new OOB rule interpretations. During the Iowa/OK State match, every OOB during neutral resulted in a stall call - maybe I missed one, but I don't think so. Every single one. During the two PSU matches I can only recall 2 or 3 times where a neutral OOB resulted in a stall call.

My guess from this limited sample is that we are going to see a wide disparity in this interpretation from official to official. Which is really to be expected - I just can't see why over and over they insist on making wrestling rules subjective. The more they take subjectivity out of the officials hands, the better. After this season, my guess is that EVERYONE is going to be on board with a pushout rule - what they have now is going to be a CLUSTER.

The BSD's article in Tom's thread feauturing today's articles on VaTech match has some very interesting statistics regarding VaTech and whether they were stalling during the first period the entire night. Even With their blatant stall tactics during 1st Period, check out the disparity in 1st Period takedowns for the two teams. The stats in that article regarding 1st Period shots by each team and takedowns in 1st Period tell you everything you need to know about what kind of job the Official did in forcing VaTech wrestlers to wrestle in 1st Period....a very poor job to be specific.