Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 28

Thread: Proposed Rule Change

  1. #19
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Quote Originally Posted by TomWright25 View Post
    I would hate to see the freestyle push-out rule be adopted in folkstyle. But, I agree that there is too much playing close to the edge of the mat. I think refs should be quicker to give stalling calls when wrestlers continue to back up and play the edge of the mat.
    I agree completely.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  2. #20
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Refs calling stalling is too subjective, especially when both wrestlers seem to want to go straight to the edge.
    The old freestyle rules had a warning zone at the edge of the mat and if you ended up there you had so many seconds to work your way out.
    At least that is my memory of the rules... Judo also used to have a similar rule

  3. #21

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    I acknowledge that sometimes both wrestlers prefer to be close to the edge, so they can get off, if they're in trouble. But, if you have a wrestler that really wants to wrestle in the center of the mat, once the other wrestler starts backing off--let the aggressive wrestler quickly go back to the center. If the other guy keeps backing off when the first wrestler is consistently going back to the center--hit him with stalling!

  4. #22
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    Refs calling stalling is too subjective, especially when both wrestlers seem to want to go straight to the edge.
    The old freestyle rules had a warning zone at the edge of the mat and if you ended up there you had so many seconds to work your way out.
    At least that is my memory of the rules... Judo also used to have a similar rule
    Referees, especially college ones, know what stalling is. It is often called too late, but rarely called too soon (except maybe in the Stephen Neal/Kerry McCoy 1997 NCAA final). Like the NRA says about gun laws, we don't need more rules about stalling, we need to enforce the ones we have.

    With the old freestyle rules (seems they change so often that all rules are old rules) if Blue backed into the warning zone, the ref would call"zone blue," indicating that Blue had to wrestle back onto the mat, but I don't remember what happened if Blue ignored the warning.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  5. #23

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Referees, especially college ones, know what stalling is. It is often called too late, but rarely called too soon (except maybe in the Stephen Neal/Kerry McCoy 1997 NCAA final). Like the NRA says about gun laws, we don't need more rules about stalling, we need to enforce the ones we have.

    With the old freestyle rules (seems they change so often that all rules are old rules) if Blue backed into the warning zone, the ref would call"zone blue," indicating that Blue had to wrestle back onto the mat, but I don't remember what happened if Blue ignored the warning.
    In the 80's you got cautioned (with a point against). At some point (early 90's maybe, not sure) they changed it to a passivity (get put into the down position). Under any set of freestyle rules that I'm aware of, repeatedly or deliberately going off the mat cost you a caution and a point.


    I believe the reason freestyle did away with penalties for stalling is because it can be pretty arbitrary. On the international stage there is enough mistrust and allegations of corruption gong on already, without given the officials any more power. Hence the push-out rule, which is more black and white. (Though even in modern freestyle you can be cautioned if you actively avoid wrestling by running away).

  6. #24

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    In the 80's you got cautioned (with a point against). At some point (early 90's maybe, not sure) they changed it to a passivity (get put into the down position). Under any set of freestyle rules that I'm aware of, repeatedly or deliberately going off the mat cost you a caution and a point.


    I believe the reason freestyle did away with penalties for stalling is because it can be pretty arbitrary. On the international stage there is enough mistrust and allegations of corruption gong on already, without given the officials any more power. Hence the push-out rule, which is more black and white. (Though even in modern freestyle you can be cautioned if you actively avoid wrestling by running away).
    International refs are bad enough without giving them more power
    Gold is an idiot.

  7. #25

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    I think my rule has the following advantages for improving folkstyle wrestling:
    a) by making it easier to score on an offensive move, you encourage wrestlers to attack more.
    b) encouraged throws, which everyone likes to see.

    Keep in mind, I'm not talking about full exposure points, but a situation where wrestler A holds wrestler B on his back, but B is grabbing onto a leg or something and no control points are awarded. It seems wrong that holding someone's ankles or putting them in a tripod (which is neither taking them "down" in the strict sense of the word not putting them in a pinning position) awards you a takedown, while holding someone on their back (in which they are "down" and in fact reasonably close to being pinned) does not (or sometimes does not) award you one.

  8. #26

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    Quote Originally Posted by LoSt View Post
    International refs are bad enough without giving them more power
    Exactly. Which is why, as a fan, I'm OK with the current (freestyle) rules. The occasional clinch-fest is work putting up with in exchange for giving more power to the wrestlers adn less power to the officials IMO. (Greco is brutal to watch, but that's another topic).

  9. #27

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Change

    I was listening to a 99% invisible podcast today and they were talking about how the 24-second shot clock literally saved basketball and made it one of the behemoths of the sports world today. None of us like to admit it, but wrestling, as a sport, is dying. I've always been a traditionalist when it comes to rule changes, etc., but I think we're at a cross-roads where we need to do some radical things to make this more palpitable for casual viewers.

    I'm sure this has been proposed before, but what if we were to institute a shot clock for wrestling? You either make an offensive move (i.e. attempt a throw or take a real, full shot) within 15 seconds or you are penalized one point. This still leaves some time to set up some moves and ties, certainly not a lot of time, but enough that it doesn't totally ruin the integrity of the sport. I realize that this is perhaps just another take on stalling calls, but stalling calls are too subjective in my mind. This would certainly drive the action; just imagine a heavyweight match with this rule in place.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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