For all you folks wanting to have 30 sec for this or 20 sec for that , who will be running all these clocks?
1/2 points? Where will.that go on the score board?
1/2 points? Where will.that go on the score board?
Rule Changes Coming?
- Thread starter RoarLions1
- Start date
The Law of Unintended Consequences is going to make a lot of these really bad.
Yep, I'm one of the guys that thinks the current rules are mostly OK if just properly enforced. I don't wish to see folkstyle wrestling morph into freestyle. Aside from just expecting the refs to enforce the rules (look, anyone who's been around wrestling for longer than a few weeks can recognize stalling when he/she sees it), the only real change that I might be OK with is doing something to make a takedown and release exchange worth more than one point. It is frustrating to see a match go into OT when only one of the participants even tried to engage or force some offense.
We always talk about the pushout rule creating action. It will create the action of an underhook and push. Freestyle rewards exposure which keeps the pusher from getting too isolated on just pushing due to the chance of getting tossed when he over pushes. I think you would need to bring exposure points into play at the same time as a pushout rule if you really want it to work. I love the 3 point takedown.
It seems that the thought behind the 3 point takedown is to create greater distance from the one point escape. It takes way too many takedowns just to accomplish a MD because the wrestler being dominated is awarded 1 point for being released - allowed to escape. Perhaps an alternative would be to eliminate the escape point if unearned. One way to accomplish this is if the top wrestler flattens out the bottom wrestler (belly to the mat for some count) and announces his intent to release. He could ride for a minute+ to get that point, then release without penalty to pursue 2 more points. It's simply another way to reward an offensive-minded wrestler versus penalizing them a point for allowing the bottom wrestler to escape. Escape points are still awarded for those working to get out. Just a way to encourage more action in pursuit of bonus decisions and perhaps even keep wrestlers in the lead off their bellies in the third period.
I’d like to see video reviews have a clock—2 min maybe? After which, with no overturn, the original call is upheld.
There are ALWAYS going to be bad or controversial calls, but video review impacts the action way too much, IMO. I’m nutty enough over this issue I’d also support a removal of video review entirely, but I’m a realist.
There are ALWAYS going to be bad or controversial calls, but video review impacts the action way too much, IMO. I’m nutty enough over this issue I’d also support a removal of video review entirely, but I’m a realist.
In theory this sound great, but the more you rely on the refs to make judgements the worse things will get. This seems like we are straying into territory where it will be argued that someone is trying to escape and has earned the point opposed to a top guy letting him go. I am not sure I see this working.
Referees position: if bottom man is taken out of bounds while on his feet, that is stalling on top man. This happened too many times this year where bottom man would stand and top man would push or pull the bottom wrestler out of bounds. That is preventing wrestling action in my book, which is stalling.
One point for lost challenge. Changes risk of yolo challenges.
After one minute riding time is achieved, at each additional 30 second interval where no back points are scored, return to neutral with no escape.
stalling calls give opponent right to choose position. No points awarded. If stalling on top, bottom can choose neutral a(no escape point) and restart. May make referees less reluctant to call stalling since won’t be awarding points directly.
After one minute riding time is achieved, at each additional 30 second interval where no back points are scored, return to neutral with no escape.
stalling calls give opponent right to choose position. No points awarded. If stalling on top, bottom can choose neutral a(no escape point) and restart. May make referees less reluctant to call stalling since won’t be awarding points directly.
I am not. The primary goal is to pin your opponent. Takedown is not superior to back exposure.
This isn't difficult. Use the existing RT clock. If top goes 30 sec without a turn and they reset to feet, that's a stoppage where the official scorer can reset the RT clock.
That might be the initial result, but life isn't static. Over time, guys who don't want to be pushed out of bounds will work harder to stay in the center.
Agreed, but then there is no bad idea when groups are brainstorming. Folks have done a good job with countering ideas in this thread, which is what I was hoping for -- some serious discussion. 54 posts in, and we're not in the gutter or the middle of a dumpster fire. All is good
.
Oh, come one -- the Angry Dad Section is intentionally really bad.
It isn't a point of argument. The 4NF absolutely increased the value of controlled back exposure relative to a takedown. Since putting your opponent on his back is a primary wrestling goal that seems logical.
Increasing a TD value by 50% which places a higher value on the TD relative to a 2 or 3 swipe back exposure, to me would be a move lacking logic.
Respectfully disagree. Goal is to win the match, if a pin happens that’s great. Not a lot of back points coming in those finals matches but lots of exciting takedowns which is good for all viewers. I don’t want to see more matches won on rideout.
When we consider the theme "growing the sport", which rule changes would (or could) create more action?
Already mentioned are;
-- Takedowns = 3 points
-- Max 30 second ride before a reset is called
There were variations of these two, and both were met with a little opposition. Plus there were other suggestions (pushout, for example), but it does not increase the action. There may have been others.
Already mentioned are;
-- Takedowns = 3 points
-- Max 30 second ride before a reset is called
There were variations of these two, and both were met with a little opposition. Plus there were other suggestions (pushout, for example), but it does not increase the action. There may have been others.
...I don’t like the push out award because it encourages Iowa to continue undertook and push out with no real TD attempt...
... my only change would be an immediate stall call if a wrestler retreats out of the inner circle without any contact...
...I have seen a ref call a stall call on a wrestler who stayed inside the circle and motioned a fleeing wrestler to come and wrestle ... it made no sense to me!...
...but thas jes my opinion...
... my only change would be an immediate stall call if a wrestler retreats out of the inner circle without any contact...
...I have seen a ref call a stall call on a wrestler who stayed inside the circle and motioned a fleeing wrestler to come and wrestle ... it made no sense to me!...
...but thas jes my opinion...
The primary goal of any wrestling match is to pin your opponent. If we are arguing that point then we can simply agree to disagree on the entire subject.
Disagree. Right now a TD is really only worth 1 point unless you ride your opponent out. I like the 3 point TD and would give 3 for a reversal also. And just get rid of riding time entirely, as IMHO it encourages stalling on top.
However, the most important thing IMHO is to get the refs to enforce the rules already in place. Quite a few of the proposed changes in this thread are already in the rules, just not being enforced and or not being forced consistently.
Imo, a 3-point takedown could lead to more action, which would make the sport more exciting. Instead of trading 2-for-1, it'll be 3-for-1, and there would likely be more majors and tech falls.
I get the whole back exposure thing, I'm not convinced it will be impacted.
Let’s say you have to flatten the bottom man out for 4 consecutive seconds. The ref simply has to to perform a count similar to the one they already do for Near Falls. The top man then must immediately indicate a release is intended. It is far less objective IMO than the judgements already being made with huge discrepancies between refs that we currently see in the stall call warnings and points. There are numerous judgement calls being made. For all the upside of encouraging offense by removing penalties for releasing the bottom man, it just seems to me adding one more that would rarely even be worthy of coaches throwing a brick for a video review is a small price to pay.
If someone wanted to change riding and points and what have you.
Get a takedown. Ride as long as you can, hopefully gaining a back exposure or two. At any particular point after you have controlled your opponent for longer than 30 seconds the top guy could be allowed to grant the bottom wrestler a neutral position start without an escape point.
To do this the top stall rule would have to be a very strict working for a back exposure. Double boots working to keep bottom guy belly flat is a stall. Bottom guy not moving would still be a stall. The idea would be if you are holding him down the top guy would to encouraged work for a turn. The bottom guy loses an opportunity to score is he does not escape.
Every match begins with explaining where the Hidlay boys are from 😉.
I would like to see something done with the value of take downs and reversals in relationship to escapes. I would favor a reversal being 3 points over a takedown being 3.. I feel like a reversal is an escape and takedown combined.
I don't like the pushout because in folk that seems to be used instead of technique and if you begin to reward it, the use will grow.
I would hate any rule change that puts more subjective decisions in the referee's hands.
I would like to see something done with the value of take downs and reversals in relationship to escapes. I would favor a reversal being 3 points over a takedown being 3.. I feel like a reversal is an escape and takedown combined.
I don't like the pushout because in folk that seems to be used instead of technique and if you begin to reward it, the use will grow.
I would hate any rule change that puts more subjective decisions in the referee's hands.
Ha...just a brief interruption. What are the chances of a NC State vs PSU dual next season? Seems like a natural.
It is really hard for me to believe that all of that would be implemented in a way that actually improves the matches.
It seems I might be in the minority that collegiate wrestling doesn't need all that many rule changes.
I hope you are correct. I have visions of Sam Stoll grabbing an underhook and marching guys from center to out of bounds 8 times for the MD. The guys being pushed will try and adjust, but the pushers just seem to have a built in advantage when they don't risk the quick exposure.
Re. top rides and resets or stall calls, the current rules don't have to be changed. An emphasis program that results in quicker resets or earlier stall calls could be done within the current framework.
Or, as some have suggested, force the reset by having a 30-second clock, though my opinion is that it would get screwed up too often to make it a workable rule.
We all like folkstyle, and top game is a far bigger part of the action than freestyle. I, for one, never want that distinction to go away. However, I also think folkstyle has gone too far, allowing the top guy to hang out (very few rides ever see an attempt to turn an opponent) for too long.
Or, as some have suggested, force the reset by having a 30-second clock, though my opinion is that it would get screwed up too often to make it a workable rule.
We all like folkstyle, and top game is a far bigger part of the action than freestyle. I, for one, never want that distinction to go away. However, I also think folkstyle has gone too far, allowing the top guy to hang out (very few rides ever see an attempt to turn an opponent) for too long.
1. Additional point awarded for keeping your opponent scoreless so you could get a major or tech at end of match for a shutout.
2. First person to score takedown or if no takedown than any point gets to choose in 2nd rather than flipping disc. If no points scored then flip the disc. This can also be used for overtime periods so first person to score would get choice throughout.
2. First person to score takedown or if no takedown than any point gets to choose in 2nd rather than flipping disc. If no points scored then flip the disc. This can also be used for overtime periods so first person to score would get choice throughout.
I agree that the biggest issue is refs not enforcing the current rules. Fix, yes I said Fix , that and you have a way better product. I’m against the push out rule because it’ll turn in to a sumo match. If a guy hugs the out of bounds to avoid being scored on, Hidlay, hit him for stalling. It’s not that difficult.
If the 1st period ends with a 0-0 score, unless it was filled with world class scrambles ala Yanni/Zain, the ref did something wrong.
If I changed anything, it would be each stall call increases in penalty. Start at 1, not a warning. Guys don’t care about a warning because they know refs almost never get to the 3rd stall call. Losing 1 point for 2 stall calls encourages these low scoring matches. Losing a total of 3 points for 2 calls would hurt. But then the issue will become refs being afraid to give a 2nd call because it’s so many points. Maybe awarding the other wrestler with a point and choice of position after each stalling call is the way to go. Im all for anything that creates action and punishes inaction.
, that and you have a way better product. I’m against the push out rule because it’ll turn in to a sumo match. If a guy hugs the out of bounds to avoid being scored on, Hidlay, hit him for stalling. It’s not that difficult.If the 1st period ends with a 0-0 score, unless it was filled with world class scrambles ala Yanni/Zain, the ref did something wrong.
If I changed anything, it would be each stall call increases in penalty. Start at 1, not a warning. Guys don’t care about a warning because they know refs almost never get to the 3rd stall call. Losing 1 point for 2 stall calls encourages these low scoring matches. Losing a total of 3 points for 2 calls would hurt. But then the issue will become refs being afraid to give a 2nd call because it’s so many points. Maybe awarding the other wrestler with a point and choice of position after each stalling call is the way to go. Im all for anything that creates action and punishes inaction.
yea but that still calls for coordination and additional 'upkeep'. I take someone down and ride for 15 seconds, let them up, take them back down, now someone has to start the 30 seconds from the original 15.
I wouldn't like that. Stalling is too subjective. Look at the RBY finals match. He loses that match going away. Refereeing is very hard in all sports. Rules should be made to limit subjective calls as much as possible. I like black and white rules to take pressure off of officials.
gotta make it simple and less subjective. Start from the basics, agree, and then build upon it. 1st q - do we want to have wrestling from 3 positions (top, bottom, neutral)? If so we can't take away the ability for a person on bottom to wrestle - meaning no points for an escape. Reversals are important shouldn't be discounted from a TD and auto let up... Doesn't solve the problem but is a perspective.
Bottom/top wrestling these days is such a cat/mouse scenario where both are careful and waiting for the other to move. I think this was brought on by the proficiency of 'tilts'.
I hate the underhook and push off the mat which makes me not like the push out. Maybe any intentional step out - regardless if someone is shooting or if you're trying to slip you leg out of a grasp... Also hate the pick up and carry out when on top. I think legs are OK but call a stalemate if no improvement within a short duration... ok back to work..
Bottom/top wrestling these days is such a cat/mouse scenario where both are careful and waiting for the other to move. I think this was brought on by the proficiency of 'tilts'.
I hate the underhook and push off the mat which makes me not like the push out. Maybe any intentional step out - regardless if someone is shooting or if you're trying to slip you leg out of a grasp... Also hate the pick up and carry out when on top. I think legs are OK but call a stalemate if no improvement within a short duration... ok back to work..
But stalling is a subjective call highly dependent on the situation. Sometimes backing straight OOB is stalling. Sometimes it is just a continuation of the action. Wrestlers have shown they are smart enough to play the game with these "objective" changes to stall calls.
The biggest thing I want is just consistency within a match. If a ref isn't going to call a guy for backing up to the edge and not looking for attacks for the first 6:30 of a match, his opponent shouldn't be called because he does the same thing for the last 30 seconds when he has the lead.
Last edited:
I actually like your take. I like college wrestling also. As always I wish they could figure out a way to correctly and consistently enforce stalling, but overall I like college wrestling.
The gist of my post was if you wanted, this is something that could be done. You want to see someone work their ass off to get off bottom, give them 30 seconds to do so before the top guy can let him up without a point scored. If the top guy isn't allowed to hook a leg and hang out, he will wrestled his rear off to control the bottom guy. The action alone should allow for scoring opportunities.
They tried to make stalling calls less subjective a few years back and in my opinion, their attempt had the opposite effect. It's kind of like the Supreme Court justice who said that he can't define pornography, but that he'll know it when he sees it. I insist that any ref worth anything recognizes stalling when he sees it and trying to give them a list of the "prohibited actions" just muddies the water. If you see stalling, call it, it's really as simple as that.
Not a fan of this one. The top man has to feel out the weakness of the bottom wrestler to determine which turn will work. Think of Zain, Nick Lee or Spencer Lee who are constantly moving on top of a bellyed out opponent. Once they find that crack in the bottom man's defense, the swipes begin. I just feel 4 seconds is way too short.
If you challenge and lose, your opponent gets one point. This eliminates using the challenge as a timeout.
