Rule Changes, 2017-18 through 2018-19

[RoarLions1]

Plenty to discuss here...

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...8_2018-19_Wrestling_Rules_Change_20170713.pdf

For everyone's information...prior to the 2009-10 season, the NCAA Wrestling Rules book was published every year. Since then, it's an every-two-year cycle. Better, imo, it gives the rules committee more time to evaluate the changes. Doesn't mean rules can't change at the in-between years when warranted...

 

[LemonPie]

PSU has some influence in these rules.

Heil-Gulibon
Zain-Collica
Cael's brick throwing fun at World Team Trials

 

[slushhead]

Yeah, but when it comes time to throw the brick onto the mat, what is the penalty for not doing so "away from the wrestling action"?

I'm betting that brick ends up in the "action" (or pelting the ref) a number of times.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Still no penalty for "frivolous" challenges, ones that have no hope of reversal.

 

[diggerpup]

Still no penalty for "frivolous" challenges, ones that have no hope of reversal.

Mark Perry's "Free Lungers"

 

[Lyons212]

Still no penalty for "frivolous" challenges, ones that have no hope of reversal.

The rule should be, if you challenge and lose the other wrestler gets choice, treat it the same as injury time.

 

[RoarLions1]

Still no penalty for "frivolous" challenges, ones that have no hope of reversal.

The rule should be, if you challenge and lose the other wrestler gets choice, treat it the same as injury time.

No problem with that at all...just adding that there is a consequence to a frivolous challenge.

In duals, only one challenge is allowed per team, and it's not retained if that one challenge is taken and lost. Seems to me, that's a valuable tool for a coach, and unless it's the last guy wrestling in the dual, he'll not want to burn it for a careless challenge.

NCAA wrestling could go the route of freestyle, I suppose, and allow more challenges, with greater consequence for failed challenges...though I personally don't like the trade-off.

For me, the rule is fine as is. Worse (imo) is having a ref review his own calls, which they're attempting to address too.

 

[a_mshaffer]

No problem with that at all...just adding that there is a consequence to a frivolous challenge.

In duals, only one challenge is allowed per team, and it's not retained if that one challenge is taken and lost. Seems to me, that's a valuable tool for a coach, and unless it's the last guy wrestling in the dual, he'll not want to burn it for a careless challenge.

NCAA wrestling could go the route of freestyle, I suppose, and allow more challenges, with greater consequence for failed challenges...though I personally don't like the trade-off.

For me, the rule is fine as is. Worse (imo) is having a ref review his own calls, which they're attempting to address too.

for some reason I am bothered by the successful challenge that starts the wrestlers at the point of time of where the challenge was. I think this eliminates continual action - Hall's final match is a good example. I can see both sides though....

 

[RoarLions1]

for some reason I am bothered by the successful challenge that starts the wrestlers at the point of time of where the challenge was. I think this eliminates continual action - Hall's final match is a good example. I can see both sides though....

Was thinking the same thing. It's only one bout, and I struggle justifying a position for a rule on so little. A successful challenge would have put Bo on top and Hall in the defensive position, while continuous action ended with a Hall takedown. And while Ryan was out of line tweeting what he did after the fact, the call was indeed a close one.

 

[Lyons212]

Was thinking the same thing. It's only one bout, and I struggle justifying a position for a rule on so little. A successful challenge would have put Bo on top and Hall in the defensive position, while continuous action ended with a Hall takedown. And while Ryan was out of line tweeting what he did after the fact, the call was indeed a close one.

It was a close call, but it was the right call (TD for Hall). I was watching ESPN's "off the mat" coverage, all three hosts including Kevin Dresser, Lee Kemp and one of the B1G broadcasters all agreed TD for Hall.

 

[tikk10]

 

[tikk10]

NY Ranger Sean Avery once faced NJ Devil goalie Martin Brodeur and simply waved his stick in Brodeur's face to screen him. There was no rule against it that night, but there sure enough was a day later, and it's become known as the Sean Avery Rule.

The Neutral Danger Zone rule sure seems like a response to complaints about Dean Heil. Difference is that no had had ever thought to do what Avery did until the night he was struck by inspiration, whereas Heil dives over, grabs ankles, and stalls out pretty much every match, even against guys he's talented enough to major. I enjoy scrambles but only the ones that go somewhere.

Tough to know, though, how this will be enforced, because it's more than a cosmetic shift. I would hate to see it disincentivize risk-taking of the sort that Nolf takes, though I think Nolf himself is probably immune to the rule as he doesn't mind giving up points because he's just going to get more himself.

Here's the language:

4.2.3
4.2.4
Creates a neutral danger zone takedown:
When in the neutral position, the referee shall announce a neutral danger signal (NDS) anytime a wrestler exposes their shoulders to the mat at any angle less than 90 degrees (neutral danger zone). The danger zone utilizes near fall criteria outlined in Rule 4.5.1, but replaces 45 degrees with any angle less than 90 degrees. The NDS announcement shall occur anytime a wrestler is voluntarily or involuntarily in the neutral danger zone, beyond reaction time, and will continue until the wrestler is out of the danger zone or a takedown is awarded.

The NDS is a verbal announcement of the word "danger," followed by a verbal three count. If the referee reaches the third count and the wrestler is still in the danger zone, the opposing wrestler is awarded a takedown.

Rationale: Provides wrestlers a mechanism for which they can demonstrate control in these scramble situations. The implementation of a NDS will minimize stalemates and increase scoring opportunities. The NDS will also provide the referees rules backing for making difficult takedown control calls when wrestlers are on their back and traditional control concepts are not applicable.​

 

[slushhead]

While Heil certainly deserves credit (can I call it that?) for the rule, I'm surprised more people haven't noted that Palacio should be equally responsible. His neutral "offense"'was downright offensive during Nationals.

 

[RoarLions1]

Here's another (read below) that struck me. I'm 91.346% sure that this language clarification is the result of Retherford v Collica. Appears not to matter anymore when the legs go in. Wonder how this will be called? A five-count, followed by a warning, next 5-count followed by a stall call, etc. would be my guess.

Clarifies the offensive wrestler is always responsible for making an effort to return the defensive wrestler to the mat in all rear-standing situations.


Rationale: This ensures that the defensive wrestler, whose obligation is to work up to attempt an escape or reversal, is not penalized for coming to their feet.

 

[NoVa Lion]

While Heil certainly deserves credit (can I call it that?) for the rule, I'm surprised more people haven't noted that Palacio should be equally responsible. His neutral "offense"'was downright offensive during Nationals.

Everyone seems to be forgetting Delgado. This was his main "defense" from neutral.

 

[slushhead]

Everyone seems to be forgetting Delgado. This was his main "defense" from neutral.

I view him as the guy that caught everyone's attention . . . then action had to be taken when Heil & Palacio perpetuated the practice.

 

[dunkej01]

dont forget perry vs the stache was a very big deal at the time too.

 

[jammenz]

Here's another (read below) that struck me. I'm 91.346% sure that this language clarification is the result of Retherford v Collica. Appears not to matter anymore when the legs go in. Wonder how this will be called? A five-count, followed by a warning, next 5-count followed by a stall call, etc. would be my guess.

Clarifies the offensive wrestler is always responsible for making an effort to return the defensive wrestler to the mat in all rear-standing situations.


Rationale: This ensures that the defensive wrestler, whose obligation is to work up to attempt an escape or reversal, is not penalized for coming to their feet.

Actually Iowa-Minny meet https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/leg-wrestling-sucks.180081/#post-4083449

 

[SetonHallPirate]

for some reason I am bothered by the successful challenge that starts the wrestlers at the point of time of where the challenge was. I think this eliminates continual action - Hall's final match is a good example. I can see both sides though....

That was actually already the interpretation, but this codified it as a rule.