Not a fan of the rear standing Hand Touch takedown rule

[Psalm 1 guy]

I think, at a minimum, the rule should be modified so that if the wrestler in front immediately (however you want that to be defined) "reverses" his opponent and gains traditional takedown criteria beyond reaction time then the only points given would be to the wrestler who gained the traditional takedown criteria. I would even be OK with the rule going away altogether. I just don't see the logic of carving out an exception to the standard takedown criteria. Dean's match against Laird and Vito Arujau v. McGee are just two recent examples of what I believe are flaws in the rule. I was hoping to get some of your thoughts on the topic. Thanks

 

[82bordeaux]

Why in the heck would you start a thread about wrestling?!!

 

[nitlion6]

I think, at a minimum, the rule should be modified so that if the wrestler in front immediately (however you want that to be defined) "reverses" his opponent and gains traditional takedown criteria beyond reaction time then the only points given would be to the wrestler who gained the traditional takedown criteria. I would even be OK with the rule going away altogether. I just don't see the logic of carving out an exception to the standard takedown criteria. Dean's match against Laird and Vito Arujau v. McGee are just two recent examples of what I believe are flaws in the rule. I was hoping to get some of your thoughts on the topic. Thanks

The reason for the rule was too many examples of hand down catch balance, come back up work towards oob circle.

I am OK with the rule. A guy has worked to gain control and is in a strong position. If there is somebody in the rear standing, hands locked position and his opponent is the one in front defending it isn't the front standing guy who has earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CSauertiegPSU]

Had a conversation about this this with Brock Hite after Laird-Dean. Essentially they want to take subjectivity away from the refs, but it comes with unintended consequences of things being ruled takedowns that were never meant to be ruled takedowns, yet by the book they are.

 

[horraybeer]

It sucks!!!

 

[NoVa Lion]

I think, at a minimum, the rule should be modified so that if the wrestler in front immediately (however you want that to be defined) "reverses" his opponent and gains traditional takedown criteria beyond reaction time then the only points given would be to the wrestler who gained the traditional takedown criteria. I would even be OK with the rule going away altogether. I just don't see the logic of carving out an exception to the standard takedown criteria. Dean's match against Laird and Vito Arujau v. McGee are just two recent examples of what I believe are flaws in the rule. I was hoping to get some of your thoughts on the topic. Thanks

IMHO, anything that gives the ref one less thing to think about is a good thing so I LIKE the rule. Every time sometime someone suggest a modification like you are it is one more thing the refs have to think about and it just makes everything more complicated.

 

[BrockBronson]

I agree. This rule sucks.

 

[WexfordWarrior]

Oxford dictionary definition; a wrestling maneuver in which an opponent is swiftly brought to the mat from a standing position.
I have always thought of a take down as bringing your opponent to the mat with control. I actually think at least 3 out of 4 (hands or knees) be on the mat with control should be the criteria. Hell maybe even all 4. If someone touches their hand for a millisecond, then in my opinion nothing has really changed as far as control. You may as well award the take down when the opponent gets behind you. To me that is no different(relating to control) as a millisecond hand touch.

 

[nerfstate]

Had a conversation about this this with Brock Hite after Laird-Dean. Essentially they want to take subjectivity away from the refs, but it comes with unintended consequences of things being ruled takedowns that were never meant to be ruled takedowns, yet by the book they are.

I am in a small minority, I know, but I actually liked it when the refs had more subjectivity. I feel like a notion of control is always going to be a matter of opinion, so why don’t we let the guys who know the rules the best make the call more? 🤷‍♂️

That said, Cenzo‘s first takedown via slide-by on Imar in their first nationals matchup was pretty sweet.

 

[82bordeaux]

I am in a small minority, I know, but I actually liked it when the refs had more subjectivity. I feel like a notion of control is always going to be a matter of opinion, so why don’t we let the guys who know the rules the best make the call more? 🤷‍♂️

That said, Cenzo‘s first takedown via slide-by on Imar in their first nationals matchup was pretty sweet.

Agreed. We need more booing!

 

[creamery freak]

I think, at a minimum, the rule should be modified so that if the wrestler in front immediately (however you want that to be defined) "reverses" his opponent and gains traditional takedown criteria beyond reaction time then the only points given would be to the wrestler who gained the traditional takedown criteria. I would even be OK with the rule going away altogether. I just don't see the logic of carving out an exception to the standard takedown criteria. Dean's match against Laird and Vito Arujau v. McGee are just two recent examples of what I believe are flaws in the rule. I was hoping to get some of your thoughts on the topic. Thanks

Speaking with my blue and white shades on. When PSU wrestlers get a takedown with that rule, I'm ok with it. When PSU wrestlers give up a takedown by that rule, I think it sucks. 😉

 

[82bordeaux]

Speaking with my blue and white shades on. When PSU wrestlers get a takedown with that rule, I'm ok with it. When PSU wrestlers give up a takedown by that rule, I think it sucks. 😉

 

[GogglesPaizano]

I agree. This rule sucks.

Agreed. In fact, if simply touching a hand is the indicator of being both in control and returned to the mat, one could argue just award the takedown while standing as hand touching is somewhat of an innocuous act. Innocuous other than for the fact that it's pretty friggin hard to initiate a standing gramby without touching the hand. I agree the concept of a standing takedown asforementioned, sucks as well. For a TD, I say you have to demonstrate a period of control, while the wrestler is returned to the mat (not unlike freestyle where a quad pod does not qualify as returned to the mat). Likewise, not so much different from what we often see with reversals a reversal. Reversals are often taken away when there is a continuation of action where true 'control' is lacking, and a momentary touch is sometimes ignored. What this really means is the concept of a hand touch meaning anything should be eliminated.

 

[El-Jefe]

It's just one more way for Ohio State to burn all of their challenges in Session 1.

 

[RoarLions1]

As far back as I can remember, this was the case, but it has been tweaked over the years. In the early 2000's, the rule was that a takedown shall be awarded in the rear-standing neutral position when one or both hands are weight-bearing and it is beyond reaction time. In the mid-to-late 2000's, the "beyond reaction time" language was removed. It was a subjective call to some degree.

Then in 2014 (I believe), the current rule was adopted, making it a clear and easy call for the refs.

Previous to 2014, it was in the hands of the referee to decide if the position for the wrestler fending off the takedown was weight-bearing by one or both hands, and in the early 2000's and prior, the added call of reaction time was needed.

I don't dislike the current rule at all. The referees still have tons of calls that contain some subjectivity. It's ok to have the few objective ones that we do, imo.

 

[lockhavenlion3]

As far back as I can remember, this was the case, but it has been tweaked over the years. In the early 2000's, the rule was that a takedown shall be awarded in the rear-standing neutral position when one or both hands are weight-bearing and it is beyond reaction time. In the mid-to-late 2000's, the "beyond reaction time" language was removed. It was a subjective call to some degree.

Then in 2014 (I believe), the current rule was adopted, making it a clear and easy call for the refs.

Previous to 2014, it was in the hands of the referee to decide if the position for the wrestler fending off the takedown was weight-bearing by one or both hands, and in the early 2000's and prior, the added call of reaction time was needed.

I don't dislike the current rule at all. The referees still have tons of calls that contain some subjectivity. It's ok to have the few objective ones that we do, imo.

a rear standing hand touch has gotten me slapped more than a few times through the years .

 

[NittanyLion84]

a rear standing hand touch has gotten me slapped more than a few times through the years .

Maybe your problem was that you were bearing to much weight on the rear standing hand touch.

 

[nikko57]

Ethan Smith taken down but no takedown given. Any consistency to this rule?

 

[nitlion6]

Subjectivity leads to Jordon Oliver being awarded 2 against Logan Stieber a second after the period ends, even though he had not changed position for 15 seconds or so.

Obviously the simple act of placing a hand on the mat doesn't qualify as control. It is the final act accomplished in bigger picture.

The rule is simple and straight forward, if you are the guy in the front position don't place your hand on the mat.

 

[ChillW]

Agreed. In fact, if simply touching a hand is the indicator of being both in control and returned to the mat, one could argue just award the takedown while standing as hand touching is somewhat of an innocuous act. Innocuous other than for the fact that it's pretty friggin hard to initiate a standing gramby without touching the hand. I agree the concept of a standing takedown asforementioned, sucks as well. For a TD, I say you have to demonstrate a period of control, while the wrestler is returned to the mat (not unlike freestyle where a quad pod does not qualify as returned to the mat). Likewise, not so much different from what we often see with reversals a reversal. Reversals are often taken away when there is a continuation of action where true 'control' is lacking, and a momentary touch is sometimes ignored. What this really means is the concept of a hand touch meaning anything should be eliminated.

I have to agree here. This is a case where a little subjectivity probably leads to fewer bad results.

 

[nitlion6]

I have to agree here. This is a case where a little subjectivity probably leads to fewer bad results.

The reason for the rule is because without it there were repeated inconsistent calls.

 

[El-Jefe]

I have to agree here. This is a case where a little subjectivity probably leads to fewer bad results.

Actually, the opposite is likely true. We're likely to get worse wrestling. Because how do wrestlers train for something that they have no idea how it will be scored, because the scoring is subject to that day's ref's whims?

 

[nitlion6]

Actually, the opposite is likely true. We're likely to get worse wrestling. Because how do wrestlers train for something that they have no idea how it will be scored, because the scoring is subject to that day's ref's whims?

The folks who think a little more referee subjectivity is a positive need to ask themselves "do you want Angel Rivera ad-libbing anymore than he already does?"

 

[NitFan53]

Ethan Smith taken down but no takedown given. Any consistency to this rule?

Looked just like what happened to Max and thought it would be overruled after the review. The ref called no hand touch which Smith clearly did.

 

[El-Jefe]

The folks who think a little more referee subjectivity is a positive need to ask themselves "do you want Angel Rivera ad-libbing anymore than he already does?"

"Just need a little more subjectivity."

 

[El-Jefe]

Ethan Smith taken down but no takedown given. Any consistency to this rule?

I'm not sure if it was the Smith match, but one of the "rear standing takedowns" being debated was where, before being lifted, the front wrestler reached behind and got his arm around the rear wrestler's head.

If your head is in front of the other guy, you are not behind him. You're to his side.

 

[mcpat]

I’d have to watch it again but when I saw it live and then on replay, I thought he went right to the shoulder roll without a hand touching.

 

[nerfstate]

The folks who think a little more referee subjectivity is a positive need to ask themselves "do you want Angel Rivera ad-libbing anymore than he already does?"

I'd be fine w/ that, honestly. But I'm not going to get into it--it's not an argument I think is winnable on a message board. I also don't like video replay in most sports, and especially wrestling. 🤷‍♂️

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

The ref ruled no takedown for Washington because following the review he said Washington was off to the side when Smith's hand touched. And it definitely touched first, much like Dean's, when executing the standing Granby roll.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Actually, the opposite is likely true. We're likely to get worse wrestling. Because how do wrestlers train for something that they have no idea how it will be scored, because the scoring is subject to that day's ref's whims?

Ditto that.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

Thanks for all the replies. I appreciate the different perspectives and opinions.