Point of Emphasis for this college wrestling season

[Tom McAndrew]

I had not seen this previously discussed; my apologies if it was.

Most of you are aware that I'm friendly with several college wrestling refs. I saw some of them this evening, and one of them was talking about working an Open this past weekend. A non-college ref asked him about rule changes this season, and he indicated that changes are generally done on a two-year cycle in college, but there is a major point of emphasis this season -- one I think you guys will really like.

Supposedly, all college refs have been informed that a major point of emphasis this year is hands to the face. Wrestlers are allowed to put their hands on an opponent's forehead. However, there is basically a triangle between the eyebrows and the chin. If a wrestler puts his hand in the triangle area of an opponent while on their feet, there is not supposed to be any warning -- the ref is supposed to stop the action and award a point to the wrestler whose opponent placed their hand in the face triangle area.

Per the college ref, the college ref community has also been informed that if they do not enforce this point of emphasis, they will lose assignments. In short, this truly is a major point of emphasis.

As hands to the face has been frequently discussed on this board in past seasons, I have no doubt that you guys will be analyzing/discussing how effectively this point of emphasis is enforced this season.

 

[nerfstate]

Some early takes:

 

[Ja1339]

I had not seen this previously discussed; my apologies if it was.

Most of you are aware that I'm friendly with several college wrestling refs. I saw some of them this evening, and one of them was talking about working an Open this past weekend. A non-college ref asked him about rule changes this season, and he indicated that changes are generally done on a two-year cycle in college, but there is a major point of emphasis this season -- one I think you guys will really like.

Supposedly, all college refs have been informed that a major point of emphasis this year is hands to the face. Wrestlers are allowed to put their hands on an opponent's forehead. However, there is basically a triangle between the eyebrows and the chin. If a wrestler puts his hand in the triangle area of an opponent while on their feet, there is not supposed to be any warning -- the ref is supposed to stop the action and award a point to the wrestler whose opponent placed their hand in the face triangle area.

Per the college ref, the college ref community has also been informed that if they do not enforce this point of emphasis, they will lose assignments. In short, this truly is a major point of emphasis.

As hands to the face has been frequently discussed on this board in past seasons, I have no doubt that you guys will be analyzing/discussing how effectively this point of emphasis is enforced this season.

Well, Scott Goodale may need a new game plan for the next PSU v RU dual.

 

[chalkstream1]

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Agree with Imar, well put.

Nico tweet mention subjectivity, and I must disagree, this rule has NO SUBJECTIVITY. The refs were cleared ORDERED to call this infraction, or be reprimanded, wheres the subjectivity.

 

[RoarLions1]

There's an exchange between Bryce Meredith and Bo Nickal (thought it was Twitter) that I wanted to post here...no time to find it, so if anyone else can...THANKS!!

Re. the rule emphasis, yes, it's been out there already as the main "rule topic" so far.

Frankly, I personally like it, but it has to be called as consistently as possible...which is the rub, right? If this "emphasis" creates confusion for coaches and wrestlers, it's a problem.

 

[nerfstate]

There's an exchange between Bryce Meredith and Bo Nickal (thought it was Twitter) that I wanted to post here...no time to find it, so if anyone else can...THANKS!!

Re. the rule emphasis, yes, it's been out there already as the main "rule topic" so far.

Frankly, I personally like it, but it has to be called as consistently as possible...which is the rub, right? If this "emphasis" creates confusion for coaches and wrestlers, it's a problem.

This one?

 

[Agoodnap]

This may help some.

 

[NoVa Lion]

This may help some.

View embedded media

The portion of the video that deals with hands to the face was pretty much worthless.

This is going to be tough for refs to call correctly. What happens when Wrestler A goes to tap Wrestler B on the forehead and Wrestler B moves his head backwards and ends up with a Wrestler A's hand in his face? The intent of the rule is great but this is going to cause a major change in tactics by many/most wrestlers where taps to the head/forehead just aren't done any more.

 

[jack66]

Well, Scott Goodale may need a new game plan for the next PSU v RU dual.

He still has the roundhouse to the left temple that Deluca used so effectively.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Next rule they make is “ No stomping on the crotch while in a cradle”

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Next rule they make is “ No stomping on the crotch while in a cradle”

I think the (NBS) Nolf Ball Smash as it is now commonly referred, should be an immediate additional 2 points. One for each smashed ball if executed properly.

 

[tikk10]

I'm good with the emphasis on getting hands to the face out of wrestling but I'm going to cringe when it decides a close match late, which seems inevitable. Maybe a warning followed by a point would've been a less abrupt way of handling this.

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

This is going to be tough for refs to call correctly. What happens when Wrestler A goes to tap Wrestler B on the forehead and Wrestler B moves his head backwards and ends up with a Wrestler A's hand in his face? The intent of the rule is great but this is going to cause a major change in tactics by many/most wrestlers where taps to the head/forehead just aren't done any more.

We'll see how it goes, but agree that the situation described above could be an unintended consequence and a downside. It's like the football rule against helmet-to-helmet contact - the intent is good, but the rule results in cheap penalties on the defender when the ballcarrier lowers his head in anticipation of contact.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

I think the (NBS) Nolf Ball Smash as it is now commonly referred, should be an immediate additional 2 points. One for each smashed ball if executed properly.

As long as its non-reviewable.

 

[RoarLions1]

This one?

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Yes, thank you.

 

[RoarLions1]

Still believe consistently calling this rule is a challenge. Sure, the rules, and the pictures and explanations make it a bit clearer, but still plenty of gray.

https://ncaawrestling.arbitersports...es/SRE-Rules-Reminder-V2Final-2-12-8-2017.pdf

 

[lobo lion]

Agree with Imar, well put.

Nico tweet mention subjectivity, and I must disagree, this rule has NO SUBJECTIVITY. The refs were cleared ORDERED to call this infraction, or be reprimanded, wheres the subjectivity.

What's the call when a hand goes to the forehead and the other wrestler jerks his head up so that the hand is briefly on the face?

What's the call when a hand is 70% (or 95%) on the forehead, but partially within this mystical triangle?

A point without warnings can be a huge deal in close, low-scoring matches. Nice concept, but enforcement will likely be a disaster.

 

[a_mshaffer]

should have a warning. NCAA is going to make this like other sports...letting it come down to a penalty flag which will be subjective based on intent and the consistency of how it will be called...

 

[RoarLions1]

Remember the inter-locking fingers rule, the one-second pause rule, the stall/non-stall call for standing wrestlers in control, and the stall call for going out-of-bounds? There's others...

 

[a_mshaffer]

Remember the inter-locking fingers rule, the one-second pause rule, the stall/non-stall call for standing wrestlers in control, and the stall call for going out-of-bounds? There's others...

yep, some of these, especially the last one, helps make my case.

 

[rmg78]

I have not kept up on the rule changes but are "fists to the back" still illegal?

 

[RoarLions1]

Interesting comments from the coaches over years re. rule changes...

-- Not every rule change is good for the sport
-- The wrestlers will adapt
-- They can't adapt when clarity/inconsistency is the norm

 

[El-Jefe]

The Brunson is still illegal, right?

 

[CropDuster507]

Isn't it funny how WE as wrestling fans piss and moan about something, they institute a rule to combat it, and we respond with "NO, KEEP IT IN THE WRESTLERS' HANDS!" I love heckling officials with that one. "LET THEM DECIDE!" Refs hate that.

I don't care either way about hands to the face. Wish they would warn, like in freestyle (stern finger wag like the wrestler was a poorly-behaved puppy), but guys need to know and adjust.

What I do hate is the way they are calling stalling on the edge. I was at a local open, and a lot of guys were getting dinged for stalling because their opponent wouldn't stay on the mat and they pushed. And I get it, pushing isn't offense and shouldn't be rewarded as such. However, it should be both wrestlers' job to stay on the mat. A push-out would be a-ok with me. I get that NCAA and folkstyle don't exist to help our world/olympic success, but teaching guys that it's OK to back out in order to get a stall call is stupid.

Story Time:
One of my old club guys was competing at an open, and if the roles were reversed, I'd be upset and understand. However, he won because of this, and it's comical.

So, my guy (Wrestler X) was down by 2, but had riding time locked with less than a minute or so left. His opponent (Wrestler Y) has a stall warning and is GASSED bro. He took like 2 min to get nose plugged because he wouldn't stand up. Wrestler Y was stalling, and I was yelling about it from stands. They come back from nose plug, and Y gets another takedown to go up by 4 with like :15 left (remember, X has RT locked, so it's effectively 3). But, Y doesn't really fully cover X because he's got no lungs. X gets away (1E) and scoots around for a takedown as the whistle blows (2TD), with RT +1, he ties it up. Wrestler Y lies on his back. And lies there... And lies there. Like, :30 goes by and the ref tells him to get up at least twice. It's an open, so it's dead, and I yell, "It's either injury time or he's stalling!" and sure enough, this ref has the cajones to pull his fist out, ding Wrestler Y with his 2nd stall, and he loses the match before they even start OT. Now, I'm not saying my yell had anything to do with it. I'm not THAT full of myself, but I love the fact that the ref had the stones to call it when it decided a match.

 

[Cletus11]

I have not kept up on the rule changes but are "fists to the back" still illegal?

Only in Nebraska.

 

[PSUbluTX]

What I do hate is the way they are calling stalling on the edge.

It seems to be hit and miss with stalling calls though. Some refs are willing to let things play out longer than others.

 

[billrag]

Hate it. I agree with Imar, it's the new roughing the passer. Obviously the slapping to the face has to go, but there are ways around that without discouraging a wrestler from ever laying a hand on the forehead or even snapping a guy's head. Obviously it will go both ways and I suspect that the PSU guys will benefit at least as much as they're hurt by the rule, but it won't take a few duals before everyone on the planet sees people getting dinged for penalty points that are ridiculous when the intention was clearly NOT to put a hand in anyone's face. It's wrestling for God's sake, sometimes your hands end up where you don't necessarily intend for them to be.

 

[Lyons212]

Hate it. I agree with Imar, it's the new roughing the passer. Obviously the slapping to the face has to go, but there are ways around that without discouraging a wrestler from ever laying a hand on the forehead or even snapping a guy's head. Obviously it will go both ways and I suspect that the PSU guys will benefit at least as much as they're hurt by the rule, but it won't take a few duals before everyone on the planet sees people getting dinged for penalty points that are ridiculous when then intention was clearly NOT to put a hand in anyone's face. It's wrestling for God's sake, sometimes your hands end up where you don't necessarily intend for them to be.

That's true, but sometimes you accidentally grab a finger, singlet or head gear and it is usually called for a penalty. Mark Hall basically won a national championship, certainly helped when Valencia accidentally grabbed his head gear and it cost him a point and possibly the semi-final match.

Not sure why this is different. It will stop the Rutgers boxing matches.

 

[billrag]

It will stop the Rutgers boxing matches but so would a proactive ref who was willing to call that crap what it is, unsportsmanlike conduct and lay down the law.

 

[RoarLions1]

It will stop the Rutgers boxing matches but so would a proactive ref who was willing to call that crap what it is, unsportsmanlike conduct and lay down the law.

Sorry, but I don't understand. I agree he could have done more, though it's a bit problematic because no one was making that call prior to this year. To me, the PSU/Rutgers match is the poster child for emphasis of this rule, and I believe it's great to have that emphasis. I believe we'll be back here discussing specific calls, consistency, and the confusion caused before the season ends.

 

[PSUer1989]

So if last year's rule change was known as the "Dean Heil rule", will the one be the "Rutgers Rule"?

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

That's true, but sometimes you accidentally grab a finger, singlet or head gear and it is usually called for a penalty. Mark Hall basically won a national championship, certainly helped when Valencia accidentally grabbed his head gear and it cost him a point and possibly the semi-final match.


Not sure why this is different. It will stop the Rutgers boxing matches.

Sure, Marky benefitted from this, and Zahid took the outcome out of the refs hands the next 2 meetings, but to call it “accidental”... Wreck talked about it afterwards and said they have wrestled “hundreds” of times and it was one of ZV’s bad habits. Casey and Cael were on that call instantly, as if they were expecting it to happen.

 

[lookleft goright]

Something had to be done. It was getting to the point where there was too much hanging on the head and too much pushing the face which only stops the other guy and stops action. They may not have the perfect answer, but I hate to watch a match where one guy is in the other guys face and pushing him away. Get a tie and wrestle. No one is scoring when someone is pushing the face.

 

[OkieSpladle]

Something had to be done. It was getting to the point where there was too much hanging on the head and too much pushing the face which only stops the other guy and stops action. They may not have the perfect answer, but I hate to watch a match where one guy is in the other guys face and pushing him away. Get a tie and wrestle. No one is scoring when someone is pushing the face.

Which is stalling. This is yet another case of a poor decision made by NCAA wrestling to try to get around the fact that the officials won't properly enforce stalling when it happens.

 

[RoarLions1]

Something had to be done. It was getting to the point where there was too much hanging on the head and too much pushing the face which only stops the other guy and stops action. They may not have the perfect answer, but I hate to watch a match where one guy is in the other guys face and pushing him away. Get a tie and wrestle. No one is scoring when someone is pushing the face.

Which is stalling. This is yet another case of a poor decision made by NCAA wrestling to try to get around the fact that the officials won't properly enforce stalling when it happens.

Coach Cael has mentioned it as a stalling tactic too, though the specific rule references are in the "Unnecessary Roughness" section under INFRACTIONS.


Section 3. Unnecessary Roughness


Unnecessary roughness involves physical acts that occur during a match. It includes any act that exceeds normal aggressiveness. It would include, but is not limited to, a forceful slap to the head or face, gouging or poking the eyes, a forceful application of a crossface, a forceful trip, or a forearm or elbow used in a punishing way, such as on the spine or the back of the head or neck. Unnecessary roughness penalties are assessed in conjunction with other technical violations as outlined in the Penalty Table. Points for unnecessary roughness shall be awarded in addition to points earned.

 

[a_mshaffer]

So if last year's rule change was known as the "Dean Heil rule", will the one be the "Rutgers Rule"?

ha! But with the Heil rule, the ref at least starts a count...

 

[nitlion6]

Which is stalling. This is yet another case of a poor decision made by NCAA wrestling to try to get around the fact that the officials won't properly enforce stalling when it happens.

Unless stalling is defined in an exact objective manner refs historically struggle to call it with any consistency.

Just an opinion, take the hands out of the face and make them wrestle.

 

[OkieSpladle]

Coach Cael has mentioned it as a stalling tactic too, though the specific rule references are in the "Unnecessary Roughness" section under INFRACTIONS.


Section 3. Unnecessary Roughness


Unnecessary roughness involves physical acts that occur during a match. It includes any act that exceeds normal aggressiveness. It would include, but is not limited to, a forceful slap to the head or face, gouging or poking the eyes, a forceful application of a crossface, a forceful trip, or a forearm or elbow used in a punishing way, such as on the spine or the back of the head or neck. Unnecessary roughness penalties are assessed in conjunction with other technical violations as outlined in the Penalty Table. Points for unnecessary roughness shall be awarded in addition to points earned.

Certainly you could call it that too. As I'm sure you know the very definition of stalling is:

Section 7. Stalling Art. 1. Description. One or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy.

Coach Cael has mentioned it as a stalling tactic too, though the specific rule references are in the "Unnecessary Roughness" section under INFRACTIONS.


Section 3. Unnecessary Roughness


Unnecessary roughness involves physical acts that occur during a match. It includes any act that exceeds normal aggressiveness. It would include, but is not limited to, a forceful slap to the head or face, gouging or poking the eyes, a forceful application of a crossface, a forceful trip, or a forearm or elbow used in a punishing way, such as on the spine or the back of the head or neck. Unnecessary roughness penalties are assessed in conjunction with other technical violations as outlined in the Penalty Table. Points for unnecessary roughness shall be awarded in addition to points earned.

It certainly qualifies there as well. To me, when it is forceful or seems intentional, it is unnecessary roughness. When it is continually used to create space which the wrestler does not use as a setup to generate offense, it is stalling. It is similar to a wrestler who backs up a lot. This can be used as an offensive tactic, but if you are going to do something like that, you have to attack off of it or you're stalling because the tactic otherwise precludes your opponent from attacking.

 

[OkieSpladle]

Unless stalling is defined in an exact objective manner refs historically struggle to call it with any consistency.

Just an opinion, take the hands out of the face and make them wrestle.

I think you'll find few people who want guys getting hit in the eyes. It is the accidental instances in a sport where both athletes are constantly in motion, many times violently changing directions at a moments notice, that make this point of emphasis such a bad idea, IMO.

To your point about stalling, the refs are constantly being judged and reviewed. If the NCAA wanted stalling called aggressively, it would be. The mechanism is in place. We've seen with the OOB stalling calls that the attempt to make it objective has not done much to help with consistency. This will yield the same result, I'd wager.