Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 24

Thread: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

  1. #10

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    Get Rid of the Tech Fall. If you can't pin the guy you wrestle the whole match even if it is 99-2 at the end. You work towards a pin. If not, you should bet called for stalling. Same with the guy on the bottom. Laying there instead of working for an escape or reversal should be stalling.

  2. #11
    NCAA Champ BlueBloodLion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The same planet as you
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    I 100% disagree with getting rid of the tech fall. I understand the concept, but we have to deal with reality. I love that the TF is worth one more point than a major, but still less than a fall. Every wrestler should want that extra point. Please, please don't make me watch a 15 or 20 takedown match. I love wrestling, but not that. When someone has proven himself technically superior and is up by 15, we have seen enough.

    It seems to me that with the rule change, scooping a leg near the edge will basically guarantee 2 points, since the defending wrestler has nowhere to go. I have seen some fantastic defensive scrambles from that position but they required hopping backwards. I'm worried this will go to the freestyle push out = 1 point. I respect it in FS, but don't want to see it in college.

    SAT makes an interesting point about stalling while grabbing a leg. Using a PSU example, Molinaro spent his entire RS freshman year shooting in on a leg and getting stuck underneath. As it is written, he might be stalling? I assumed it meant the top wrestler grabbing a leg, but it doesn't seem to be written that way. It can't be applied that way, can it?

  3. #12

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    I love wrestling, but not that. When someone has proven himself technically superior and is up by 15, we have seen enough.
    --------------------------------------------

    Rob Rohn

  4. #13

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    I have never understood the Tech Fall haters. I think it's great. More dominant than a pin in many cases. Some guys just know how to not get pinned and can turtle up with the best of them. I like the option of running up the score.
    To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

  5. #14
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    I'm not quite a tech fall hater, but I'd like to see it gone. I would also like to see intentionally letting the bottom man up called a stall. It is not improving your position (Some would argue that they can score better from neutral, so it does improve their position, but that's just a rationalization for allowing the strategy. On top is closer to a pin than neutral.). This would eliminate the take-em-down-let-em-up strategy, which I feel is simply a concession to freestyle and is contrary to the control, turn, pin philosophy of folkstyle.

    While I'm on a run here, I'd also like to see the dual meet tiebreaker criteria to be, after least penalty points, the team that lost the toss wins. Period. No most pins, most near falls, and all that crap. I know this will never happen, but when I rule the world . . .
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  6. #15

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    I'm not quite a tech fall hater, but I'd like to see it gone. I would also like to see intentionally letting the bottom man up called a stall. It is not improving your position (Some would argue that they can score better from neutral, so it does improve their position, but that's just a rationalization for allowing the strategy. On top is closer to a pin than neutral.). This would eliminate the take-em-down-let-em-up strategy, which I feel is simply a concession to freestyle and is contrary to the control, turn, pin philosophy of folkstyle.
    .
    Ok more logic I don't understand.

    Just because pins end a match, doesn't make them the only goal.

    YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! If you win best by wrestling on your feet then DO THAT. Silly to say an intentional release is stalling. Stalling is NOT wrestling so you DONT GIVE UP points. If you are intentionally giving points to the wrestler, I doubt you're stalling.

    Also, some guys get falls more often from the feet. Look at Andrew Alton, the dude is flat out sub par on top but was one of the countries most proficient pinners. Is he stalling when he lets guys up?

    Aren't the guys already being "penalized" by cutting the guy since they get a point? You have to get hit for stalling 2 times to even give up a point.
    To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

  7. #16

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    Good post VA.

    One think people forget when they bash the tech-fall is that it's also a mercy rule. No one wants to be embarassed- imagine having to wrestle Jordan Burroughs and losing by 40 points or something. Personally, I think pins are very exciting when they result in an upset, or in one great wrestler beating another one (ie Jenkins pinning Taylor). When a vastly superior wrestler beats up on an inferior one, I don't think taking him down and pinning him is necessarily more exciting than taking him down and letting him up a bunch of times.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    I don't like the tech fall just because I think it was started by someone who did get embarrassed. If a dude can beat you by 40 points and not pin you, that is probably because the only thing you've ever worked on was getting off your back. Learning to not get pinned, but saved by the mercy rule is not good IMO. I say, go ahead and get embarrassed, you will probably learn from it.

    The rule that you have to circle or move forward on the first whistle seemed a bit much for these changes, though. A fake shot may make me take a step back, but not sprawl. It read like if you took a step back without sprawling, then you would be penalized. I may have read that wrong and I hope I did.

  9. #18
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Proposed rules changes for 2011-2012

    Quote Originally Posted by vaisforlovers View Post
    Ok more logic I don't understand.

    Just because pins end a match, doesn't make them the only goal.

    YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! If you win best by wrestling on your feet then DO THAT. Silly to say an intentional release is stalling. Stalling is NOT wrestling so you DONT GIVE UP points. If you are intentionally giving points to the wrestler, I doubt you're stalling.

    Also, some guys get falls more often from the feet. Look at Andrew Alton, the dude is flat out sub par on top but was one of the countries most proficient pinners. Is he stalling when he lets guys up?

    Aren't the guys already being "penalized" by cutting the guy since they get a point? You have to get hit for stalling 2 times to even give up a point.
    Stalling is not making an attempt to improve your position. For 99% of wrestlers, letting a guy up does not improve their position with regard to getting a pin - only for scoring takedowns. The scoring system (which was created to determine a winner when there was no PIN) is structured so that you are awarded points for gettiing closer to a pin. In my not so humble opinion, anything you do that is not aimed at getting a pin is stalling. Rules and strategies have changed over the years, some in order to make the sport more like freestyle (the optional start, the starting lines), and we have gotten away from the main focus of what folkstyle wrestling is all about - pinning. Remember the cheap tilt? Was that good for wrestling? I think Anthony Robles is a great athlete, but I don't think that his tilting style is in the spirit of the sport. He wins according to the rules, and it is these rules with which I take issue, not the wrestlers who play by them.
    Last edited by Spider; 04-28-2011 at 05:45 AM. Reason: spelling
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

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
  •