Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 25

Thread: Is this a stupid rule!

  1. #10

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    165 pounds: Andrew Sorenson
    (ISU) vs. Marshall Peppelman
    (COR)
    1st
    Period:
    2:36: Takedown Sorenson, 2-0
    1:59: Escape Peppelman, 2-1
    1:05: Stal l warning Peppelman
    0:45: Penalty point Sorenson, 3-1

    2
    nd
    Period
    Sorenson chooses down
    1:35: Reversal Sorenson, 5-1
    0:17: Stal l ing point Sorenson, 6-1

    3
    rd
    Period:
    Peppelman chooses neutral
    1:45: Takedown Sorenson, 8-1
    1:44: Escape Peppelman, 8-2
    1:41: Stal l ing Point Sorenson, 9-2
    1:25: Takedown Sorenson, 11-2
    1:11: Escape Peppelman, 11-3
    0:56: Takedown Sorenson, 13-3
    0:48: Escape Peppelman, 13-4
    0:46: Stal l ing point Sorenson, 14-4
    0:35: Takedown Sorenson, 16-4
    0:31: Escape Peppelman 16-5
    0:19: Takedown Sorenson, 18-5
    0:12: Escape Peppelman, 18-6
    0:03: Takedown Sorenson, 20-6
    Riding Time: Sorenson (ISU), 2:30

  2. #11

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    I liked the old system better 4 for 8 point differential and 5 for a 12 point differential regardless of back points. DC

  3. #12

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    It looks like Peppelman got dinged 4 times for stalling (1 warning and 3 times for 1 point each). I thought it was warning then 1 pt then 1 pt then 2 pts then DSQ. It looks like it was 1 point on three successive calls. Would the next one have been DSQ?

  4. #13
    Super Moderator Zapp Brannigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    8,269

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    They have removed the DQ rule. You will just keep being hit for 1 point now.
    Jacob Schlottke---Gone too soon, and the world is a little less bright because of it. RIP, brother.

    One, two, Evans is coming for you...

  5. #14
    NCAA Champ WhippetGrappler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Moved to Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    1,281

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan View Post
    They have removed the DQ rule. You will just keep being hit for 1 point now.
    Another stupid rule. If the intent of a 4 point tech is to make you try for the fall. Then they should have the DQ to to make you wrestle. And a DQ should be worth 6.
    BRUTUS BUCKEYE WILL TAKE YOU DOWN...

  6. #15

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    I agree whippet, I don't have a problem with the no back points and tf for 4 team points, but to allow a guy to stall all the way to 15 and not penalize him is wrong. Just think if a match like this happened at the Oklahoma State and Iowa dual and gave the dual win to the team that had the guy stall it out and only lost 4 team points.

    Also, How is a 4 point TF scored at Nationals vs a 5 point TF?

  7. #16

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    As a major, same as it is in duals.
    RIP Jacob Schlottke - 1984-2011

    "If Cornell finishes ahead of Iowa with five all americans I'll jump into the Des Moines River after finals." -Herkey#1 8/16/12

  8. #17

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    While you are at it, if you can't PIN your opponent you wrestle the entire match. No going home early for catch & release or getting lucky with some exposure points. Make'em wrestle and let the losing guy go for the big move like Rob Rohn won NCAA's with.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Is this a stupid rule!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan View Post
    They have removed the DQ rule. You will just keep being hit for 1 point now.
    Matt Nagel would have excelled under these rules.
    Last edited by goferphan; 01-31-2012 at 07:11 AM.
    "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •