Shane Sparks Hates the New 3 Point Takedown Rule, Debate Gets Heated
- Thread starter NittanyLion84
- Start date
so these guys always whine about stalling on top how about this rule after 1 minute of riding the 1 point is locked for the top guy and they both go back on their feet same thing applies to both guys after 1 minute of riding time that way no stalling on top or bottom and the bottom guys gets to try for a TD after 1 minutes seems fair to both guys and if one get 4 minutes of riding time then he also get the 4 points by the way I think bottom guys stall way more!sweet and simple
On balance the 3 point TD is a good thing but it will change the strategy and style of folk, pushing it more towards freestyle. Lots more catch and release, less mat wrestling is in our future, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.
As for the stalling on top, this is going to be the thing that really pisses people off, and will have unintended consequences.
How will you like a tied match going into the 3rd, and the top guy losing because it proves too hard to turn the bottom guy. 2 minutes of fighting for wrists and breaking him down. Originally the 1 PT of riding time can win the match, now the bottom guy can essentially work towards getting the top guy called for stalling or gaining a free release and the point in order to avoid the penalty. In either case the top guy is now actually at a disadvantage being on top in the 3rd in a close or tied match. Case in point RBY vs Fix. Like it or not what RBY did for 2 minutes was exceptionally difficult assist the second best wrestler in the country, and for the folk officianado, a thing of beauty.
Riding is a skill that most can't master. It should remain rightly so rewarded. Turning is yet another skill that is even more difficult. It makes zero sense to me whatsoever to penalize a top guy for stalling before he has earned 1 min of riding time advantage, since to ride effectively is not the same skill as turning. Now to avoid stalling the top guy may have to earn the three points (RT + NF) to justify taking the chance to avoid a stall call.
The potential for a stall call coupled with no more ankle trap, you have to ask, why in the hell should a wrestler choose top any longer? Short of being a Zain like unicorn on top, the only two reasonable choices are bottom and neutral. If your opponent chooses bottom, I say give him the free release, riding on top just isn't worth it any longer.
Mark my words, 'hopefully' in two years they will roll back the stalling point penalty and simply stop the action and restart if not working for a turn or hold off on calling stalling until after 1 min advantage has been acheived. We stand a real chance of penalizing the better wrestler frequently since turning is yet one level of difficulty beyond riding which is also difficult, while the guy on bottom can stall his ass off looking to expose the rider to a penalty.
PS - do we all really want to hear the chorus from Carver Hawkeye calling heeees staaaalling everytime our guy is on top. It's already insufferable, just wait.
As for the stalling on top, this is going to be the thing that really pisses people off, and will have unintended consequences.
How will you like a tied match going into the 3rd, and the top guy losing because it proves too hard to turn the bottom guy. 2 minutes of fighting for wrists and breaking him down. Originally the 1 PT of riding time can win the match, now the bottom guy can essentially work towards getting the top guy called for stalling or gaining a free release and the point in order to avoid the penalty. In either case the top guy is now actually at a disadvantage being on top in the 3rd in a close or tied match. Case in point RBY vs Fix. Like it or not what RBY did for 2 minutes was exceptionally difficult assist the second best wrestler in the country, and for the folk officianado, a thing of beauty.
Riding is a skill that most can't master. It should remain rightly so rewarded. Turning is yet another skill that is even more difficult. It makes zero sense to me whatsoever to penalize a top guy for stalling before he has earned 1 min of riding time advantage, since to ride effectively is not the same skill as turning. Now to avoid stalling the top guy may have to earn the three points (RT + NF) to justify taking the chance to avoid a stall call.
The potential for a stall call coupled with no more ankle trap, you have to ask, why in the hell should a wrestler choose top any longer? Short of being a Zain like unicorn on top, the only two reasonable choices are bottom and neutral. If your opponent chooses bottom, I say give him the free release, riding on top just isn't worth it any longer.
Mark my words, 'hopefully' in two years they will roll back the stalling point penalty and simply stop the action and restart if not working for a turn or hold off on calling stalling until after 1 min advantage has been acheived. We stand a real chance of penalizing the better wrestler frequently since turning is yet one level of difficulty beyond riding which is also difficult, while the guy on bottom can stall his ass off looking to expose the rider to a penalty.
PS - do we all really want to hear the chorus from Carver Hawkeye calling heeees staaaalling everytime our guy is on top. It's already insufferable, just wait.
The “catch and release” matches won’t be any different…, other than maybe the guys looking for tech falls. So great…. We will see tech falls in 5 minutes instead of 6.
What the 3 point takedown will do is, I. 1 takedown matches, allow the guy up 3-1 (instead of 2-1 in old rules) to absorb 2 stall calls instead of just 1.
In evenly contested matches, the 3 point TD is going to make it far harder for there to be a comeback after the 1st takedown.
What the 3 point takedown will do is, I. 1 takedown matches, allow the guy up 3-1 (instead of 2-1 in old rules) to absorb 2 stall calls instead of just 1.
In evenly contested matches, the 3 point TD is going to make it far harder for there to be a comeback after the 1st takedown.
Agree mostly.
But to your last point, sans a stepout or calling stalling strictly and consistently, the match is basically over. I think if guys were evading action up 3-2, they’ll really evade it up 4-2. More stall equity to work with, can take the warning and an actual stall point and still be fine.
I think it's a move to make folk closer to free.
I like the rule for what some may think is a simplistic reason; I have always most enjoyed watching skilled takedown artists, who are aggressive offensively and dominant on their feet like Nolf and RBY. The 3 point TD rewards these types of wrestlers and penalizes the Nelson Brands types. That’s it. Simple, but there it is.
Overall, I like the college wrestling rules.
However, the rule that I'd like to see changed in college wrestling is when the match is tied at the end of regulation. I like the freestyle rules where no additional wrestling takes place. For instance, if one wrestler had a 4-point move, and the other wrestler only had a 3-point move, the guy with the 4-point move wins. Or if they each only have 2-point moves and the score is tied, the guy who scored last wins.
However, the rule that I'd like to see changed in college wrestling is when the match is tied at the end of regulation. I like the freestyle rules where no additional wrestling takes place. For instance, if one wrestler had a 4-point move, and the other wrestler only had a 3-point move, the guy with the 4-point move wins. Or if they each only have 2-point moves and the score is tied, the guy who scored last wins.
Last edited:
I prefer WWE rules being adopted with points being averaged at the conclusion of the match with figure skating like judges. The winner would be the choreographer for wrestler 1 or 2. Or, in the case of tag teams the winner would the choreographer for team 1 or 2.
Joking aside, I like any rule that keeps the wrestling going and the 😴 ing off the mat. Notice the yellow and black sleeping emoji.
Joking aside, I like any rule that keeps the wrestling going and the 😴 ing off the mat. Notice the yellow and black sleeping emoji.
I think a penalty point against a wrestler whose coaches challenges a call or non call and loses the challenge should be implemented. I don't see much if any downside to this. It will speed up matches and eliminate many (not all) lunger bricks. It seems to work like a dream in FS. I really can't believe this is something most fans can't get behind. Then again, I am often wrong. What say you all?
This would have been a great change. A three point takedown is a silly rule change. My guess is it doesn't last exceptionally long. This is wrestling. When mistakes are made it takes5 years to acknowledge and 4 or 5 more to talk about what to do to fix it before any action is taken. So not exceptionally long means more than 9 years, but less than 20.
Yeah I’m all for change if it makes sense to me that it increases something we’d hope could be increased, and vice versa.
I just don’t see how a 3 point takedown really changes any match I can recall where say the wrong person won.
I think it helps in team scoring, for sure, we’ll see teams with higher takedown rates creep into more bonus wins. But at the same time, I can see incidents where a guy is up 9 or 10 with say 30 seconds left just shutting down now because the 3 point takedown works against them substantially bigger than than the 2 would.
Unfortunately , I also think it will lead to less actual wrestling involved in PSU duals. Will be a lot more first/2nd period techs. In fact, I think that will become a marker for dominance among the elite guys, an actual stat cited moving forward.
but you get to see significantly fewer takedowns when you use the 3 point takedown though. it becomes a tech fall at 21-6 (7 td) rather than 28-13 (14 td) assuming only takedowns and escapes.
ha! current TD records are safe as it doesn't seem more competition dates are increasing.
So what? We also saw significantly fewer takedowns from Nolf because he's the PSU career leader in pins.
Faster tech might have saved the Buffalo kid from himself before he decided to poke the bear.
I don't think there's anything that was going to change the result of that match. But KT sure made it more fun to watch! Kyle Todrank. Follow him on the tweeters: @flawles_victory
I am all for this if there is an independent review. The ref often doesn’t overrule himself.
i'm not sure what you're getting at here? i think pins would stay the same under both scoring systems.
i was just pointing out that if he likes seeing takedown artists then the new rule leads to fewer takedowns.
One of my favorite Nolf matches. Todrank got the fans and Byers really into it. And then we got to see Nolf in full African lion mode in his last home match. Todrank clearly had a blast himself fooling around with a legend, until suddenly…
The matches with two handfighters trying to win a 1-exchange bout will be even tighter and more boring.
The matches with a large mismatch (or aggressive athletes on their feet) will end quicker or rack up more points.
Criteria is a much better system because someone is ALWAYS winning (unless 0-0) and it therefore incentivizes risk/action from the losing party. There's no "handfight the last 1:30 to get to OT or rideouts" with criteria.
Call stalling on top. A lot of top guys are stalling. If you aren't leaving the hips/ankle to work for a turn, you're stalling.
All of these "counts" in referee's (whether nearfall, ankle ride, rear standing, etc) are gonna make officials' lives hell and that sucks. Literally just call stalling and alleviate everything.
The matches with a large mismatch (or aggressive athletes on their feet) will end quicker or rack up more points.
Criteria is a much better system because someone is ALWAYS winning (unless 0-0) and it therefore incentivizes risk/action from the losing party. There's no "handfight the last 1:30 to get to OT or rideouts" with criteria.
Call stalling on top. A lot of top guys are stalling. If you aren't leaving the hips/ankle to work for a turn, you're stalling.
All of these "counts" in referee's (whether nearfall, ankle ride, rear standing, etc) are gonna make officials' lives hell and that sucks. Literally just call stalling and alleviate everything.
Calling stalling would fix a lot. If you want to get the referees to call stalling make it part of the post match eval, and from there to a major piece of the evaluation for post-season assignments.
The Nebraska announcers thought that was the case 10 years ago.
I guess I should also add that they should call fleeing for leaving the cylinder in a straight line. Call more fleeing, too.
Stop rewarding negative actions with “warnings” (or lack of penalty) and restarts.
start evaluating 'action' at the beginning of the match vs the last minute.
Start tasing any ref who calls "action."
“Make it stop!”
I think the most disappointing thing from me is that we continue to just ask officials to do 50 things, and add about 5 to it every year.
I don’t know why stalling doesn’t get called more, and I also am puzzled about why officials don’t want to call it and give a point for it unless it’s absolutely egregious, or it’s meaningless to the match (save of course for the RBY/Fix semi where suddenly everything, by the book, stalling is now stalling).
So, you, as a fan of skilled takedown artists, will get to see fewer takedowns in a match. Makes perfect sense.
Fix the problem by making it a rule that if a ref doesn't call stalling the way it was called the way it used to be, they get sidelined until they get their mind right.
Yes! This turns all seven minutes into overtime and provides a sense of urgency to the guy who is down, instead of the lack of sense of urgency for the last minute of regulation, followed by the lack of sense of urgency for two minutes in a pushing and pulling standoff, followed by a chess match for two thirty second periods.
Sometimes you don’t even know who won at the end, a real bonus whodunit for the fans!
I'll take the number of times that happens against the number of times we get the enthralling excitement of pushing and pulling for two minutes of OT, knowing full well that the vast majority of shots taken are non-committed shots to ward off a ref's nonexistent stall calls.
