Rule Changes

[RoarLions1]

I had this discussion with a few people and only found out a few months back that this is the way it is. I like the fact that major changes are done every 2 years for the simple fact that if major changes were done every year, it would be really hard for everyone to keep up and adjust their wrestling and coaching. However, I think there should definitely be exceptions to the rule. If wrestlers have figured out a loophole or away around a rule, then that rule needs to be looked at and maybe a major change should be able to come without waiting the 2 years.

I think what everyone would like to see is a way for subjectivity to be taken out. The action/stalling calls going out of bounds are extremely inconsistent do to it being referee discretion. A 1 pt push out rule would resolve this, but for some reason I'm not in favor of it. Yes, it would help force wrestlers to stay in the center more. However, I have seen numerous scrambles go across the mat and end up out of bounds with a guy getting height and standing up. If he does this out of bounds, by rule, it would be a point for his opponent. I don't think we should start penalizing wrestlers for continuing action and trying to score but they step out. Yes, this may be the only exception to the rule. However, with todays wrestlers, a lot of them are/can scramble well, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Calling balls and strikes in baseball.
Calling fouls in basketball.
Calling holding in football.
...and on and on.

There will always be subjectivity in sports. Yes, I agree that as much as possible should be removed. Some want it perfect, with all subjectivity removed, and that's not possible. No one could pay me enough money to be a referee/umpire in today's environment.

I'm not a pushout fan either, at least not yet.

 

[donboy6499]

So I am not a good top guy and I can go ahead and save a point by just admitting that and letting you go?

Exactly what I was thinking.
Guys like Riddler and O’Toole would never get to go underneath people, a legit scoring position for both.

 

[seeyajohn]

The step out rule in freestyle has greatly increased continuous action and made for a more marketable product.

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

Folkstyle ISN'T free. Control is rewarded from top and neutral, not position. Escape or reversal from control is rewarded as well. People talk about boring top riding and want to put guys back up on their feet, smh. By far the position with the most time wasted with boring wrestling is in neutral.

It's hard to keep a guy from escaping. That's why a lot of guys aren't good at it. It's also hard to get out from a guy that's good on top.

We see first periods go by all the time with 3 minutes of no scoring. Most of them are extremely boring. Riding a guy for 2 minutes is seldom boring. Count me way out on any more rule changes that bring guys back to their feet without effort. We have already given guys the option to choose neutral in a period. That is enough.

We have rules against stalling on top. You keep running a guy off the mat, you're going to get dinged. AB got dinged - as he should have. Most of the bitchin' was because he got dinged one go too late. That's a ref problem in a specific bout - I've seen plenty of matches where he would have got dinged a go before.

I like folkstyle. Tons of exciting matches this weekend.

I'd agree that the OT rules in the tiebreak need tweaking. Get rid of the option to go neutral as it was before.

I'll see that and raise it.

I actually much prefer folkstyle.

I hate the freestyle shove out. If you want that as an objective; there is a brand of that where the combatants wear a mawashie instead of a singlet. I can't imagine it would improve 285. Imagine a match between Adam Coon and Kyle Snyder (or another light heavy weight). Snyder gets a TD, and Coon escapes. Coon resorts to using his 55-60 pound advantage and shoves out the opponent. Wrestling was improved with Snyder, Cassar and Steveson- guys with high attack rates.

Freestyle isn't without its deficiencies either. The ability to simply expose an opponents back results in guys splaying out at times to prevent a gut wrench (borring). And while we're always told it's superior, because of things like David Taylor rag-dolling Bo Nickal, but for all practical purposes Taylor has years of experience on Bo and I think Bo wasn't quite as laser focused on wrestling there with visions of MMA paydays as Taylor was-and proved it with that shiny gold medal.

I note that a 25 year old Bronze medalist got beat for the NCAA championship, and Micic vastly underperformed preseason expectations, although he might have been screwed by going to 141 after wrestling 57Kg (125) internationally.

The one scoring rule I never understood is the two point reversal. In terms of outcome, it's the same as an escape and a takedown, so why isn't it three points? If you think an escape is easy shouldn't be rewarded, I disagree. The whole point of wrestling is to acquire, maintain and increase control. Making a guy reestablish control should be rewarded. Why you give an extra point for a two step process of changing control, as opposed to a single maneuver? That is an academic question, I can live with the two pointer, because constancy increases comparability over time.

As for stalling, unfortunately, no matter how tight you write the rules, you have no idea whether or not the wrestler on top is showing activity only to avoid a call, trying a myriad of things to confuse the man on the bottom, or just unable to advance his position. Full disclosure, I never had a problem (even when I was the guy giving up a lot of pounds) with the man on top spending time doing everything he can to fatigue the bottom guy in hoping for the pin. Who knows if the guy on the bottom is being pounded by a hammer or just catching his breath?

 

[PAgeologist]

The one scoring rule I never understood is the two point reversal. In terms of outcome, it's the same as an escape and a takedown, so why isn't it three points? If you think an escape is easy shouldn't be rewarded, I disagree. The whole point of wrestling is to acquire, maintain and increase control. Making a guy reestablish control should be rewarded. Why you give an extra point for a two step process of changing control, as opposed to a single maneuver? That is an academic question, I can live with the two pointer, because constancy increases comparability over time.

You actually answered your own question if you think of the definitions and actions required for scoring.

A reversal is exactly as it sounds, a reversal of control. Not an escape from control to neutral then gaining control. So the 2 actions (takedown and reversal) that result in control are rewarded the same with 2 points.

An escape is a loss of control and generally easier than a takedown (in theory). Therefore rewarded less than gaining control.

A takes down B. 2-0 A
1 action

B escapes to neutral and then takes down A. 3-2 B
2 actions

A reverses B. 4-3 A.
1 action

 

[El-Jefe]

Some thoughts from former NCAA champ Adam Tirapelle.

It's free (not paywalled) and worth the 15 minutes.

https://rokfin.com/post/79394

 

[johnstownsteel]

Some thoughts from former NCAA champ Adam Tirapelle.

It's free (not paywalled) and worth the 15 minutes.

https://rokfin.com/post/79394

Halfway through this vid. Great stuff. I’ll say this about Adam, his brain is ALWAYS vested in making our sport better. You hear alot of coaches saying that that’s their goal but with Adam he certainly means it. My first thought, with him talking about guys just hanging onto leg after opponent shoots was how about if the ref feels neither will be able to advance their position, he stops action, gives the wrestler that took the shot one point and puts them back on their feet.

 

[PSU Mike]

At each point of rethinking rules you have to consider what problem you’re trying to solve. Re: TD3, I’ve been thinking about it in a slightly different way. If the issue is many wrestlers don’t wish to risk failing at a shot followed by a successful reshot, then the boost to 3 points may not stimulate action from those guys. Why? The risk of a TD3 on a reshot goes up proportionally to the reward of a successful lead shot. What I think it would do is shift some attempts at scoring from top to scoring on the feet, much from the Nick Lee(?) types who do score from top, but not as reliably as they do from their feet.

Oh yeah, and you’d have to reevaluate the 15 point TF criterion.

 

[RoarLions1]

At each point of rethinking rules you have to consider what problem you’re trying to solve. Re: TD3, I’ve been thinking about it in a slightly different way. If the issue is many wrestlers don’t wish to risk failing at a shot followed by a successful reshot, then the boost to 3 points may not stimulate action from those guys. Why? The risk of a TD3 on a reshot goes up proportionally to the reward of a successful lead shot. What I think it would do is shift some attempts at scoring from top to scoring on the feet, much from the Nick Lee(?) types who do score from top, but not as reliably as they do from their feet.

That's an interesting thought. Not sure if I totally agree or not, but this is the stuff that unintended consequences are made from.

 

[johnstownsteel]

I put another circle 2 feet inside of the out of bounds circle and paint it red. If action eventually goes out of bounds, the wrestler that first went into the red area gives his opponent one point and they are placed back to center of the mat.

Thoughts?

 

[PSU Mike]

I put another circle 2 feet inside of the out of bounds circle and paint it red. If action eventually goes out of bounds, the wrestler that first went into the red area gives his opponent one point and they are placed back to center of the mat.

Thoughts?

Yeah. I don’t like red.

 

[johnstownsteel]

Yeah. I don’t like red.

I’m trying to figure out how to fix the edge wrestling. This annoys me most.

 

[johnstownsteel]

Folkstyle ISN'T free. Control is rewarded from top and neutral, not position. Escape or reversal from control is rewarded as well. People talk about boring top riding and want to put guys back up on their feet, smh. By far the position with the most time wasted with boring wrestling is in neutral.

It's hard to keep a guy from escaping. That's why a lot of guys aren't good at it. It's also hard to get out from a guy that's good on top.

We see first periods go by all the time with 3 minutes of no scoring. Most of them are extremely boring. Riding a guy for 2 minutes is seldom boring. Count me way out on any more rule changes that bring guys back to their feet without effort. We have already given guys the option to choose neutral in a period. That is enough.

We have rules against stalling on top. You keep running a guy off the mat, you're going to get dinged. AB got dinged - as he should have. Most of the bitchin' was because he got dinged one go too late. That's a ref problem in a specific bout - I've seen plenty of matches where he would have got dinged a go before.

I like folkstyle. Tons of exciting matches this weekend.

I'd agree that the OT rules in the tiebreak need tweaking. Get rid of the option to go neutral as it was before.

Great post. Agree with all of this.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

1) no neutral choice during tie breakers (too many run for your life wins)
2) allow continuation after every challenge ( poster child remains if Ryan had a brick Bo's finals pin may not have counted)

 

[nerfstate]

Adam Tirapelle had a nice vlog on his Rokfin page about some sensible rule changes:

https://rokfin.com/post/79394/NCAA-Rules-and-the-RiskReward-Relationship

 

[impalanut]

I like the idea of a second circle. Make it a dotted line three feet inside the outer circle. If the wrestler A backs into that area and stays more than five seconds without a shot, then wrestler B can go back to the center for a restart, without the risk that A can go for a takedown on the reset. If A backs into the circle a second time for 5 seconds without a shot, it's a point for B. With a three foot circle, if B goes for the shot, it will likely stay inbounds, thereby negating playing on the line.

 

[PSU Mike]

Another random thought. I’m not huge fan of the RT tiebreaker in OT. And of course there is a disdain for stalling (maybe less than the disdain for inconsistent enforcement). There’s no reason you can’t put a tie-breaker of fewer stall warnings above OT-RT in the TB criteria. And it wouldn’t require any extra effort on the part of the score keepers, clock operators, or timing devices. The coaches and wrestlers might lose track of where they stand but the whole purpose is to get guys to wrestle so maybe they’d err on the side of (no) caution as they make decisions to engage all along the way.

 

[PAgeologist]

I put another circle 2 feet inside of the out of bounds circle and paint it red. If action eventually goes out of bounds, the wrestler that first went into the red area gives his opponent one point and they are placed back to center of the mat.

Thoughts?

Or the refs can just call stalling for avoiding action or not holding center on edge wrestlers. I know they typically don't but they should.

Reading through many of these suggestions on this thread are fixed with more frequent and consistent stalling.

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

You actually answered your own question if you think of the definitions and actions required for scoring.

A reversal is exactly as it sounds, a reversal of control. Not an escape from control to neutral then gaining control. So the 2 actions (takedown and reversal) that result in control are rewarded the same with 2 points.

An escape is a loss of control and generally easier than a takedown (in theory). Therefore rewarded less than gaining control.

A takes down B. 2-0 A
1 action

B escapes to neutral and then takes down A. 3-2 B
2 actions

A reverses B. 4-3 A.
1 action

You missed my point:

A takes down B. Score 2-0 A A in control.
1 action

B Reverses A Score 2-2 B in control (End Result)
1 action

Or:

A takes down B. Score 2-0 A A in control.
1 action

B escapes Score 2-1 No Control
1 action

B takes down A Score 3-2 B in control (Same End Result Different Score-WHY)
1 action

As for Tirapelle's thoughts, he's certainly a better wrestling expert than me. However, I have an MBA/CPA and manage my own portfolio, so I understand investing risk/reward. That's in large part why I think a three point reversal would be helpful. There's a lot more risk in getting a reversal, than standing up and waiting to take a shot. Reward it.

In investing, you often times have no idea what the risk is. I once wrote 10 puts (each one obligates you to buy 100 shares at a predetermined "strike price") on a stock. It closed 50 cents below the strike price, so I bought 1000 shares of a stock worth 86.50 for 87.00. They settle on Saturday so the next trading day was Monday.

No big deal, stocks bounce around-and this one especially that's why it pays to write options. Well that Monday, it droppped 5 bucks per share in 20 minutes. You haven't lived until you've lost five thousand bucks in twenty minutes., even in your "play money" account. In a couple weeks it came back, and in the meantime I made money writing a different option. It ended up going past 160, it's now 115.

In wrestling the prices are known. They are points. In wrestling the risk can also seductive, especially if you get sloppy like I did. Ask Cassioppi after his pin.

In my professional experience, you can't fix a problem by just changing the rules-if people can't follow or enforce them, and all actions have second order effects. Always ask "and then what".

In every sport, instant replay was treated as a panacea and I absolutely think he's dead on about IR. Refs are human and don't want to be overturned, so they are slower on the call, knowing the risk of expedience is error. Nobody remembers a fast call, they remember a whiff.

I think the refs need better clarity on applying the rules that exist now, rather than leaving these holes and hoping the new rules will fix the problem.

As for the idea that scoring (a lot) is required to have interest in a sport, I have a one word response: soccer.

A single goal in soccer means something, unlike a single basket in hoops.

I am fully aware I am talking to hear my head roar, contra the great philosopher Foghorn Leghorn

Go to 0:28

 

[nitlion6]

And how many more years of evidence do we need that the refs won't call that?

Actually it up to the NCAA wrestling committee. Make it a point of emphasis at the beginning of the year and it would be called. One of the biggest problems we have right now is the vast majority of refs only call it if it is written or addressed as a point of emphasis.
Now, how do we get that done no idea.
What I know is I saw three examples of what becomes of folkstyle neutral wrestling in this season's conference championships if we add a reward for a pushout.
1. Marinelli and Amine
2. Gellar and McDougall
3. Schultz and Traub

Neither impressed upon me, wow look at that action.

 

[donboy6499]

You missed my point:

A takes down B. Score 2-0 A A in control.
1 action

B Reverses A Score 2-2 B in control (End Result)
1 action

Or:

A takes down B. Score 2-0 A A in control.
1 action

B escapes Score 2-1 No Control
1 action

B takes down A Score 3-2 B in control (Same End Result Different Score-WHY)
1 action

As for Tirapelle's thoughts, he's certainly a better wrestling expert than me. However, I have an MBA/CPA and manage my own portfolio, so I understand investing risk/reward. That's in large part why I think a three point reversal would be helpful. There's a lot more risk in getting a reversal, than standing up and waiting to take a shot. Reward it.

In investing, you often times have no idea what the risk is. I once wrote 10 puts (each one obligates you to buy 100 shares at a predetermined "strike price") on a stock. It closed 50 cents below the strike price, so I bought 1000 shares of a stock worth 86.50 for 87.00. They settle on Saturday so the next trading day was Monday.

No big deal, stocks bounce around-and this one especially that's why it pays to write options. Well that Monday, it droppped 5 bucks per share in 20 minutes. You haven't lived until you've lost five thousand bucks in twenty minutes., even in your "play money" account. In a couple weeks it came back, and in the meantime I made money writing a different option. It ended up going past 160, it's now 115.

In wrestling the prices are known. They are points. In wrestling the risk can also seductive, especially if you get sloppy like I did. Ask Cassioppi after his pin.

In my professional experience, you can't fix a problem by just changing the rules-if people can't follow or enforce them, and all actions have second order effects. Always ask "and then what".

In every sport, instant replay was treated as a panacea and I absolutely think he's dead on about IR. Refs are human and don't want to be overturned, so they are slower on the call, knowing the risk of expedience is error. Nobody remembers a fast call, they remember a whiff.

I think the refs need better clarity on applying the rules that exist now, rather than leaving these holes and hoping the new rules will fix the problem.

As for the idea that scoring (a lot) is required to have interest in a sport, I have a one word response: soccer.

A single goal in soccer means something, unlike a single basket in hoops.

I am fully aware I am talking to hear my head roar, contra the great philosopher Foghorn Leghorn

Go to 0:28

View embedded media

Good post.
To take your analogy one step further, how does changing scoring lead to changing behaviors in unintended ways?
In other words, how will any of these rule changes get “priced in”?

If we go reversals are 3, will guys suddenly be less likely to get risky on turns? Will they stop trying to turn at all, or staying aggressive in rides, in a 2/3 point match? Will cut and flee be the no brainer if on top in a 2/3 point match?

 

[PSUer1989]

Another random thought. I’m not huge fan of the RT tiebreaker in OT. And of course there is a disdain for stalling (maybe less than the disdain for inconsistent enforcement). There’s no reason you can’t put a tie-breaker of fewer stall warnings above OT-RT in the TB criteria. And it wouldn’t require any extra effort on the part of the score keepers, clock operators, or timing devices. The coaches and wrestlers might lose track of where they stand but the whole purpose is to get guys to wrestle so maybe they’d err on the side of (no) caution as they make decisions to engage all along the way.

I think that one is too subjective and puts too much in the ref’s hands. RBY would have lost to Fix in this scenario in last year’s final.

 

[Cstroke]

If they would consistently and be a bit more aggressive with stall calling most of this would go away..
wrestling the edge is stalling, pushing forward with no shot is stalling, heavy clubs no shot is stalling.
our guys as many others will wrestle to the rules.
‘Brooks rode Amine like a rented donkey because he was allowed to.

 

[El-Jefe]

I put another circle 2 feet inside of the out of bounds circle and paint it red. If action eventually goes out of bounds, the wrestler that first went into the red area gives his opponent one point and they are placed back to center of the mat.

Thoughts?

JTS advocating for Inner Circle? LOL.

Seriously: Yes to the new line -- wrestlers need a visual cue. (Maybe it should be painted OKST orange or Lehigh brown?)

Also there would need to be some buffer line, so that escapes close to the edge don't give up cheapies.

No to this version of the step-out -- this incentivizes the more inside guy to bull rush the other guy out. What does he have to lose? If he misses and steps out, he still gets a point. Simpler to go with the exisitng step-out.

 

[El-Jefe]

1) no neutral choice during tie breakers (too many run for your life wins)
2) allow continuation after every challenge ( poster child remains if Ryan had a brick Bo's finals pin may not have counted)

1) Make tie-breakers 1:00 and the run away for your life issue goes away. It's hard to stall that long without getting nailed for it.

2) Yes! Also: failed challenge = 1 pt penalty + choice of position. Cut back on the lunger challenges.

 

[El-Jefe]

I like the idea of a second circle. Make it a dotted line three feet inside the outer circle. If the wrestler A backs into that area and stays more than five seconds without a shot, then wrestler B can go back to the center for a restart, without the risk that A can go for a takedown on the reset. If A backs into the circle a second time for 5 seconds without a shot, it's a point for B. With a three foot circle, if B goes for the shot, it will likely stay inbounds, thereby negating playing on the line.

The 2nd circle is a necessary cue if we go to a step-out, but I think the rest of this is unnecessary and just one more thing for the refs to have to track.

The evidence in freestyle shows that, once guys get inside that cue area near the edge, they work to get out of it. The pushout point is enough incentive to meet the goal.

The other issue with the 5-count with restart is the restart. We need more continuous action and fewer stoppages.

 

[El-Jefe]

Another random thought. I’m not huge fan of the RT tiebreaker in OT. And of course there is a disdain for stalling (maybe less than the disdain for inconsistent enforcement). There’s no reason you can’t put a tie-breaker of fewer stall warnings above OT-RT in the TB criteria. And it wouldn’t require any extra effort on the part of the score keepers, clock operators, or timing devices. The coaches and wrestlers might lose track of where they stand but the whole purpose is to get guys to wrestle so maybe they’d err on the side of (no) caution as they make decisions to engage all along the way.

How about just get rid of the RT clock in tiebreakers? (Or better yet, get rid of RT altogether?)

Friday night a national finalist enrolled in a top 25 law school told a national TV audience that he didn't know the rule which put him into the finals. That's unacceptable and embarassing. Complicating the rules will only make that situation worse, and lead to guys losing high-profile matches because they didn't know the rules.

 

[PSU Mike]

I think that one is too subjective and puts too much in the ref’s hands. RBY would have lost to Fix in this scenario in last year’s final.

Not true. RBY won in SV so it never got to OT (“rideouts”).

 

[vhsalum]

Simplify, simplify, simplify

3 pt takedown
2 pt reversal
1 point escape
1 point pushout

Leave OT as is. Matches have to end.

 

[LongJakk]

Simplify, simplify, simplify

3 pt takedown
2 pt reversal
1 point escape
1 point pushout

Leave OT as is. Matches have to end.

I like this, but back points should be worth the same or more than a TD so either 3&4 or 3&5. I would add RT only after TD or reversal to this. Also, there should be a 5 second stall count on neutral when wrestler has a foot OOB similar to 3 seconds in lane for hoops.

 

[El-Jefe]

I like this, but back points should be worth the same or more than a TD so either 3&4 or 3&5. I would add RT only after TD or reversal to this. Also, there should be a 5 second stall count on neutral when wrestler has a foot OOB similar to 3 seconds in lane for hoops.

Do you like the "Simplify, simplify, simplify" part of vhsalum's post too?

 

[NoVaLion2]

1. We need the pushout rule. Stop fearing nonstop sumo matches, and accept that these guys will adjust to new rules as they adjusted to the Heil Rule, in this case by working to stay away from the edge. It will force matches toward the center, generate more action, and reduce the number of stoppages -- which also gives an advantage to better conditioned wrestlers.

Actually that's not quite right -- these guys years ago adjusted to it for the other 6 months of the year.

Or, as @Johnbrooks put it:

View embedded media

2. Eliminate riding time. Keep riding -- but ditch the incentive to waste time in order to be on the correct side of 1:00.

I like the idea of only counting RT when NF is scored -- but see that as a logistical nightmare for refs and scorekeepers. Keep it simple.

3. Make the OT stall-out periods 1:00 each and eliminate RT from them. That gives top time to score, or for either to score after an escape. Plus ditching RT gives top an incentive to score instead of clinging for dear life.

4. Any ref who calls "action" instead of stalling, gets tasered. OK, that will never actually happen, still.

I like #4. Agree 110% on #1.

 

[donboy6499]

I like #4. Agree 110% on #1.

Yeah I think just changing #1 changes a lot of things.
Will officials get it wrong sometimes, sure. They do that now.

 

[Lionfan44]

The biggest changes I think need to be made are:

-Stall calls for wrestlers who stand at the edge (or even out of bounds completely), negating any offensive opportunity for the other wrestler.

-Eliminate riding time on OT rideouts. If the score is still tied after the 2 30 second starts, put them back on their feet.

-Call stalling on top wrestlers who repeatedly drop/hook the leg and get a 4 count, only to come up for a second or 2, and repeat. This is typically followed by the stand up/run out of bounds that others described. These wrestlers are obviously gaming the system, but objectively are still stalling and should be called.

I agree that something needs to be done about the repeated 4 count “hold the leg” abuse. Second time in the same period call a stall with no count.

 

[El-Jefe]

Follow-up from Tirapelle (also free).

 

[a_mshaffer]

Follow-up from Tirapelle (also free).

View embedded media

so following someone/riding - keeping up - is stalling? Tough one to call when there is a lot of motion happening. Example - assume every time Amine stood up Brooks tripped him back to the mat and stayed in bounds - and repeat...

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

so following someone/riding - keeping up - is stalling? Tough one to call when there is a lot of motion happening. Example - assume every time Amine stood up Brooks tripped him back to the mat and stayed in bounds - and repeat...

Situations where the top-wrestler's ride has devolved into a scramble that further devolves into a stalemated position where the top wrestler is doing nothing but hanging onto a leg or is hanging onto a crotch lock or etc....., to the point where the Referee declares the action "stalemated", this should work to the benefit of the bottom wrestler, not the top wrestler imho. The bottom wrestler by definition has improved his position to the point where the top wrestler is "stalling" by definition (doing absolutely nothing except hanging on looking for Ref to call a Stalemate). When this situation develops, the Ref should initiate a 5 count and at the end of count stalling should be called on top-wrestler. In addition, all top-stalling calls such as hanging on ankle or doing nothing but looking for a Stalemate from Ref, should put both wrestlers back on their feet (no ESC, but both back on feet). The top-wrestler should not be "rewarded" with a restart to accumulate more top-stalling riding time - which is what they are looking for with these things. It is the bottom-wrestler who should be rewarded who has improved their position to the point where the top-wrestler is so desperate they are resorting to these tactics (which exhibit the opposite of top control) and are looking for a bailout "restart".

 

[El-Jefe]

so following someone/riding - keeping up - is stalling? Tough one to call when there is a lot of motion happening. Example - assume every time Amine stood up Brooks tripped him back to the mat and stayed in bounds - and repeat...

When there's a clear pattern of it, absolutely yes. Tony Nelson made no attempt to initiate top offense vs Gwiz, purely followed him around until the ref finally caught on.

 

[LongJakk]

Situations where the top-wrestler's ride has devolved into a scramble that further devolves into a stalemated position where the top wrestler is doing nothing but hanging onto a leg or is hanging onto a crotch lock or etc....., to the point where the Referee declares the action "stalemated", this should work to the benefit of the bottom wrestler, not the top wrestler imho. The bottom wrestler by definition has improved his position to the point where the top wrestler is "stalling" by definition (doing absolutely nothing except hanging on looking for Ref to call a Stalemate). When this situation develops, the Ref should initiate a 5 count and at the end of count stalling should be called on top-wrestler. In addition, all top-stalling calls such as hanging on ankle or doing nothing but looking for a Stalemate from Ref, should put both wrestlers back on their feet (no ESC, but both back on feet). The top-wrestler should not be "rewarded" with a restart to accumulate more top-stalling riding time - which is what they are looking for with these things. It is the bottom-wrestler who should be rewarded who has improved their position to the point where the top-wrestler is so desperate they are resorting to these tactics (which exhibit the opposite of top control) and are looking for a bailout "restart".

The problem is that your suggestion will do the opposite of what you want. If top can't control you intentionally put yourself into stalemate position so that you don't give up the escape point.

 

[dunkej01]

It's rumored this is a video of a new training technique in IC.

TnT are always at the forefront of innovation when it comes to unique training styles.