Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Husker_Du

  1. Lots of rules are subjective. Remember the Jordon Oliver no takedown call.

    We have all witnessed it called the other way many times. Ask football officials about holding calls. They pick and choose which to call.


    Last year they talked about fleeing the mat being a “point of emphasis.” I don’t believe by NCAA Tournament time there was much difference in the interpretation than the preceding years.


    You all have good arguments you just don’t have me convinced it’s good for wrestling.





    certainly remember both instances/issues.


    i was hoping to see more flee calls, but actually saw less.


    doesn't mean the initial statement and intention wasn't right. it means it wasn't carried out.


    a push out rule for folk would not only be a better product for fans, it would do something far more import: develop wrestlers and put the emphasis on wrestling and situation wrestling vs it becoming a strategic (and boring) game

  2. This is perfect timing for this discussion. I wonder how many Greco matches were won by push out? Freestyle is coming up check it out and see. Here’s what I see, 1st period, push out for 1, do nothing the rest of the period. Win the period. Second period push out for 1, do nothing for the rest of the period. Win the match.





    that would have absolutely no application in folk where there is a cumulative score.

  3. silverback,


    refs will never, ever, ever call fleeing consistently and appropriately. on one hand, i wish they would. on another hand, i see why they don't. wouldn't everyone prefer the match to be decided by a clearly defined rule and a preventable situation, and in the wrestlers own hands vs. 1 refs interpretation?



    furthermore, increased flee calls wouldn't do anything for increasing action in the center of the mat.

  4. silverback,


    there's a lot of wrestling and wrestling technique that goes in to getting a push out.


    it isn't "just pushing him out of bounds"


    if it was so easy, winning the olympics would be a breeze.



    the push out rule would keep kids in the center, increase action, and help develop young wrestlers ability to scrap in close quarters.


    what we have now is slow-paced tempos, kids stepping back to avoid action, refs too scared to call stalling, and coaches too critical if they do.



    also, im wholly against the notion of "1 for a push out, 2 for a push out with a flee" you're getting back into subjectivity.


    the push out rule is simple and clearly defined and understood: a body part touches out, it's a point.



    i think a lot of the issues you guys raise here in objection, while interesting and valid, is putting the cart before the horse. implement the rule first and then tweak it.


    i don't think you'll have kids strategically stepping out to give up 1 and not 2. it would have to be under specific, late-match circumstances the way a leading wrestler can give up a stall call late in the match under our current rules. (a right they've earned throughout the bout.)


    and by making the rule 2 for a TD, 1 for a Pushout, the incentive will be there to actually get the takedown instead of simply looking for the pushout. actually, if the new rule were to work like we hope, wrestling on the edge (and opportunities for pushouts) would be less frequent and wholly forced/not circumstantial. in other words, if you get you're opponent near the edge, it was because you controlled the positioning. something that should be taught, encouraged, and rewarded. the way it is now, there's no incentive (or opportunity) for dominated positioning.


    in short, any fear of folk becoming a pushout-fest is a not a real concern and a poor prescience of how things will manifest (at least as i see it).

  5. how does it add more judgement calls? it doesn't at all.


    the only time judgement would be in play would be if a wrestler is on his knees.


    otherwise, first body part to hit out, is out. other guy gets the point.


    pretty darn simple and objective.


    it would be a great thing for the sport. add another dynamic. increase action. increase scoring. be more fan friendly, and help kids develop.


    right now, among the elite kids, hs wrestling is getting to be a chess match and, frankly, boring.


    the kids are doing less developing and more 'playing the game'

  6. yeah, thats the thing. step outs are pretty darn simple.


    there are the occasions where a bit of subjectivity comes into play when guys go out on their knees, but it's still way less subjective than stall calls (or worse yet, non stall calls).


    as much as i love hs wrestling, i love kids developing more.


    and the push out rule would do more for kids development than any other measure.

  7. yeah, idk OM.


    them changing the weights is one reason i don't put any hope in them doing something that makes sense.


    that being said, one potential angle you could take in pitching this rule change to them is this:


    high school will not adopt the college oob rule b/c there isn't adequate room around the mats in hs events.


    if you pitch the idea that a push out rule would keep the action in bounds it might be a safer alternative.

  8. Hell yes!


    pushout in folk would be awesome. for so many reasons i can't even list them all.


    greenmt. has a pt about 'if refs called stalling the way they should'


    but that is never, ever going to happen. plus, it's subjective.


    going oob isn't. i love the idea.


    i also think it would take a miracle to get the nfhs to change the rules in hs.


    1) those guys are bunch of pop tarts


    2) they really don't know anything about wrestling and the benefits of this dynamic


    3) i'd guess they're scared to death of rocking the boat.


    i'd love to write an article on it. it's about time they move to this. if there's one thing wrestling lacks in the eyes of mainstream and novice viewers its action. this would, at minimum, encourage it.

  9. If Metcalf would have skipped college to train at OTC full time would he be on the Olympic team this year? .



    actually, im going to go "Yes" on that one.


    as i said, i appreciate kids chasing their goals perhaps even more than i appreciate the outcome.


    however, imo, Metcalf learned a recipe for being successful in college. if he would have dedicated those years to FS, i think there's a good chance he would have made previous world teams.

  10. i fully understand why you guys are discussing what you're discussing.


    but in the grand scheme of things, does it matter how close one is to making the oly/world team right now?


    i mean let's forget about the individual. let's just say that Wrestler X's goal is to make world teams and compete internationally in the future, and that he really preferred free to folk, does it matter how good Wrestler X is? the kid is doing what he wants to do.


    not saying my answer is the right one. just posing the question.


    the way you guys are debating, it's like one group will look back in 4-8 years and say 'i told you so'.


    either Destin has success or he doesn't.


    but isn't the real issue whether one should pursue their goals?


    i applaud Destin for making the decision he has. it's not the popular decision, and he knew that. and he didn't look at the OLY ladder and say he can't beat those guys.


    whether he does or not in the future is academic to me.


    just my pov.

  11. In the article it said something to the fact about his freestyle career going so well.


    If his freestyle career was going so well he'd be on the Olympic team.


    All 7 members of the 2012 Olympic freestyle team wrestled in college and had success in college. It's obvious there is no advantage to staying at the OTC if your goal is to become an Olympic wrestler. IMO he will regret this decision and its a poor move.



    he just made the JR World Team and is like 18/19 years old.


    know what you're talking about before being so critical and judgmental. now...back to trackwrestling practice!

  12. Penn State football was only a perennial power in Happy Valley and mostly in the eyes of PSU grads. You would think with 400+ wins they would have far more National titles...



    i disagree bob. of course im a diehard PSU football fan.


    but PSU very well could have had far more than the 3 titles they do.


    they had something like 3 or 4 undefeated (and untied) teams that didn't even get a share of a title.


    and though there are a milion scenarios like the recent years psu was on the verge of entering bowl season undefeated like...the year penn state (with LaVar Arrington) lost in the last minute to someone (MSU, maybe), the year the refs completely hosed an undefeated PSU team in the big house, the undefeated team that lost a goofy game with their backup qb at Kinnick, etc, etc.


    and all these were in the last decade or so.


    point is, they may not have been world beaters, but there were several times when they were on the verge of a title game.


    anyway, i know i just went of topic, but, well, ya know, i like penn state

  13. when i read the title of the thread, i knew where you were going with this JT.


    and the first thing that popped in my head was


    1) AppSt. is seriously on the up-and-up. they had a fantastic recruiting class. they nabbed some

    great kids that other colleges either overlooked, undervalued, or identified late. with the performances and peaking of blevins and trotman, you gotta think that they have the coaching. now they have taletn, too.


    2) Clarion. that was the answer to what i assumed you were getting at. i was happy to see Stovie elucidate.

  14. VT is David Hoffman.


    which leaves a position open at Bucknell.


    Henson to Mizzou is probably the worst kept secret.


    i assume Borshoff is the replacement for Beasley, unless you meant another Asst.


    ive heard chatter on the Davidson and Campbell positions, but nothing definitive.


    also heard Tyler Nauman to Drexel. not sure how solid that is though.

  15. i wouldn't say it's a 'loose ship' at all.


    certainly not as loose as the fritz era, and undoubtedly tighter than the sunderland reign.


    you and i have no idea what any of the team rules are or how or what cael says to his athletes.



    if kids do stupid things and get in trouble its a 'loose ship'. if they don't, everything is a-ok.


    look at it this way: how many parents do you know that do everything in their power to make a good environment for their children only to see them make mistakes?


    it's on the individuals.

  • Create New...