sanders to the E-A-G-L-E-S...sorry @Ranger Dan
US Open
- Thread starter mrh1645
- Start date
The loss was on Nolf. Three TD's in first and no real attempts in the 2nd. With criteria how it is he couldn't afford to not score in the 2nd with Green having a 4 pointer.
Tough loss for Nolf, but honestly in the long run it’s not bad. Gets him another freestyle tournament which he should make it through and then with final x, the advantage of sitting out is lessened. He got a taste of Green and I think he lost on some freestyle/veteran stuff that he can work on. I still think he makes the team.
There are multiple layers. This was because Green had the bigger move (4 pointer), but yes last score is a common decider.
uncle fester wants to meet yiani's mommy. hehehehaha
I am tracking this on flo. I think Green had a four point throw. . That would win it in this case. Not sure.
That’s a good rule. It discourages stalling to sit on a lead. It is better, for example, then the hypothetical opposite rule of “he who scores last loses”.
Why would you reward somebody for doing something second? Answer that question if you want to convince me. Rewards should go to the most aggressive wrestler and that Wrestler knows if he gets the first points, he wins ties. Sitting on lead. That is what stalling is called for.
If there was "stalling" in freestyle. Just a passivity call that gives a 30 second shot clock. Tie breaker criteria is fair and good imo... you need to be aggressive the whole match, not just first.
Yes, that is what passivity is for. You’re not making any sense. It’s about promoting action before any points are scored. You must think getting second place is a great thing.
If we wrestler and tie 2-2 and I get first takedown, Why the heck with the award the match to you?
Last edited:
Well it makes more sense if someone has the higher move, too. I don't think it should be the stalling 'discourager', shouldn't passivity and shot clock do that?
I have no problem with the other criterion, Just that stupid he who scores last wins travesty.
Criteria has really grown on me. Giving it to the first scorer would encourage passivity. Many details of freestyle rules are designed to encourage action. I love folkstyle, but freestyle is awesome too--just keep watching it with an open mind it will grow on you.
Jason WILL get Green, learned a valuable lesson here--stay true to who he is.
Jason WILL get Green, learned a valuable lesson here--stay true to who he is.
If you are concerned about your opponent being passive after he gets the first take down on you, then you should get the first take down yourself and then you don’t have to worry about it. You’re in the drivers seat.
Nickal techs Mach 14-4
Enough with the rules arguing
Enough with the rules arguing
Maybe those who don't like freestyle rules could start a thread for that.
The most pointless thing on earth = trying to win an argument on the internet
You’re wrong.
#couldnotresist
Hey at least we all know the Russian Refs are about being consistent and fair!
I don't have a problem with discussing it, or even trying to win an argument, but the thread is for the U.S. Open, not freestyle rules grievances, particularly when this is the first freestyle tournament at least one of them has ever watched.
I'm in and didn't even realize it. I have had a gut for some time now.
Come on man this thread is full of nonsense. And you have no idea how many freestyle tournaments I’ve watched.
And Mr I will be collecting social security next month (Jared fayer) just beat Wick in cons
this is funny. the whole world uses freestyle rules except the united states. hahahaha. those not knowing freestyle rules are stupid americans. hehehe
I watched Joe overwhelm many opponents in high school with his athleticism and strength. Just bulled them over.
I apologize for the off-topic discussion. I’ll shut up.
