Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. where is this state of which you speak where forfeits are not so prevalent that the average dual meet state-wide currently consists of 13 or 14 bouts?
  2. so appears PA is petitioning NFHS for a national change to 12 weights for 2020-21, which if not approved by NFHS, will then be implemented by PA as a 3 year test.
  3. probably weighed in at 106 and went 113, either due to two teammates each weighing 106 and 1 having to bump up...or more likely, a 106 bumping up to wrestle at 113 rather than take the forfeit at 106 (causing a double-forfeit at 106, which might have been calculated as 2 forfeits for purposes of their statistical analysis). Or, as is often the case, all wrestlers on roster may weigh in (for purposes of JV matches or potential bumping), so 1 team may have had a handful of 106 pounders weighing in at every dual, while perhaps they only had one (or none) at 285 (or their 285 actually weighed in at under 220, increasing the number weighing in at that weight but not reflecting forfeits or actual matches wrestled).
  4. if refusing to raise the lowest weight, but not against increasing increments, then to address the fact that the 2 lowest weight classes account for such a high percentage of forfeits in duals (and reduced entries in tournaments), you would need to accept keeping 106 and then jumping to 118 or 120...and many folks would subsequently rally against such a difference in weights.
  5. how about you're both right? seems clear the data indicates the greatest vacancies are at both ends of the spectrum, with only about 60% of those spots being filled. in case anyone did not see the new proposed PA weight classes, they are 110, 118, 125, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215 and 285. Pretty much combined the lowest 4 into 3 (with a slight bump up at the bottom), combined the upper 4 into 3 and left the middle 6 alone. Sounds fairly reasonable (although most would prefer an odd number to eliminate the dreaded tie-breaker...but that could be achieved with scoring modifications debated in other threads).
  6. the 5-foot rule probably has not changed over time, while the rules regarding allowing action to continue out of bounds have changed dramatically. action on adjacent mats always presents the possibility of intrusion, while score tables and other items (scoreclock towers) are usually far too close. not only does it present a danger to the athletes, but these days, that equipment can be pretty expensive to replace. lastly, the closer to the mat that the score table is placed, the more restricted the view of any bleacher fans sitting behind that table. although not aesthetically pleasing, the placement off a scoretable slightly off-center would maximize the distance from the circle. while greater spacing is always preferred, sometimes the venue does not allow much room (as was stated in a prior post about hockey rink dimensions). if maintaining OOB rules, perhaps it is time to look at shrinking the circle a little...at least such that a person of average height who still has a foot in bounds can't be hitting their head on a table.
  7. if the traditionalists value the 3-4-5-6 dual scoring, and the progressives want to encourage more action and reward points scored and margin of victory, whereas a 9-2 win has more value to your team than a 1-0 match, I again offer...the decimal. No change to tech falls or pins, but all other decisions earn between 3 pts and 4.4 points, with a base win worth 3 points PLUS YOUR MARGIN OF VICTORY. Simply, 1-0 or 8-7 is 3.1 points. If you win by 5 points, you get 3.5. A margin of 12 would mean 4.2. (additional examples not provided for other margins, but available upon request). The max would be 4.4 for a 14 point difference. Every match point scored (or allowed) would therefore have value. Virtually all dual meet ties would be eliminated, as a current 17-17 tie would likely be 17.4 to 16.7 or so. As a final note, I would make any overtime win worth only the base of 3 points (no additional margin of victory points...and even an OT pin would still only net 3 team points, as OT implies virtual equality).
  8. this is brought up every few years, and while it probably won't happen, the following is an attempt to reward all points scored while maintaining the value of a pin and a tech fall. unfortunately, it loses some people with the implementation of decimals (but with scoring computerized, and tournaments already including 1/2 pts, it shouldn't be such a mental obstacle). it also converts tourney scoring to replicate duals (no advancement, but increased placement)... Implement “Margin of Victory” bonus. a. 3 pts remain for a win (including any OT win), plus 0.1 to 1.4 for MOV (for a “Margin of Victory from 1 pt to 14 pts), resulting in team pts of 3.0 to 4.4 for any decision, with TF still 5 (for MOV or match lead of 15 pts or more) and pin or default 6, but perhaps a forfeit at a weight class with a wrestler becomes 7 points (especially if accompanied by locked line-ups). Note: a 2nd option that encourages scoring also includes “action” points for # of points scored by the winner, with base wins now being worth 2 team points, the same MOV bonus and an additional “action bonus” for actual number of pts scored by winner, ranging from 0.1 (for 1 point) up to a max of 1.5 for a winner scoring 15 pts or more. Wins would then range from 2.2 (for a 1-0 win) to 4.9 pts (for a 15-1 win). b. For tournaments, eliminate advancement points and simply award team pts as shown above, with consi bracket points cut in half, maintaining placement points (slightly adjust along all placement point charts to ensure that 2nd place finisher who pins to finals does not exceed champion who has all decisions--difference between 1st and 2nd would need to be increased). Byes (when followed by a win) would be worth 3 points on championship side and 1.5 points in consi bracket. As an additional benefit, 99.7% of all dual meet ties would be eliminated.
  9. although a collegiate discussion, a similar issue impacts HS, especially since medical forfeits are not a recognized NFHS result, as each state interprets tournament forfeits in a different manner (if addressed at all). while it was a question this year on the NFHS survey, since it may not be resolved for HS in the near future, some states are trying to differentiate between a wrestler who actually becomes injured in a tourney, as opposed to the proverbial ducks. my proposal is that one "medical forfeit" should count as a loss on your record UNLESS YOUR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR MATCH ENDS VIA INJURY DEFAULT. This would allow a wrestler who was injured and unable to finish a match (and therefore took a loss on their record) to then take no additional losses on their record. It would also allow a wrestler who is injured via an illegal move and is unable to continue (and who wins by default) to avoid taking a loss in their subsequent match, if they are unable to return to action. As it relates to the recent situations, Rasheed would need to take a loss in the finals, while Micic would take 1 loss in the semis (but not for subsequent forfeits in consi semis and 5th place matches). Anyone who lost by injury default (couldn't find one in a quick search of brax) would not take an additional loss on record for subsequent forfeits.
  10. The following is an attempt to consistently interpret forfeits in terms of an individual’s won/loss record for my state, as those records count toward seeding (and folks like to celebrate milestone wins etc). As there is no NFHS policy, each state adopts their own guidelines. Some states (such as NY) count virtually every forfeit as a loss, while other states do not. In terms of defining win types, please note: 1. Medical forfeit is NOT an option in high school results. 2. If a match has started, and ends due to injury, it is a DEFAULT (not a medical forfeit or a forfeit). Seeking input before trying to implement...have seen too many situations where healthy wrestler forfeits in the finals, or where wrestlers forfeit in tourneys with no impact on their record. at the same time, not looking to unfairly penalize a wrestler who is actually injured and can't continue, especially via a win by DQ. thanks! Dual Meet: For any forfeit in a dual meet, the winner shall receive a win on their record, but there is no individual loser to be recorded. Please note that any wrestlers who are part of a “one-man team” may NOT accept forfeits in a dual meet situation (if the other team has no opponent, or chooses to not wrestle). In addition, any true “team” that allows a wrestler to compete in a “dual meet” match against a 1-man team MAY NOT claim forfeit victories for their other wrestlers against any 1-man teams. Forfeits: All of the following are acceptable reasons why a wrestler may not compete due to an injury/sickness: On site trainer does not let wrestler continue; On site trainer approves wrestler to continue but the coach does not let them continue; On site trainer and coach approves wrestler to continue but wrestler does not want to continue; no on-site trained available, coach does not let wrestler continue, and no on-site trainer available, coach approves wrestler to continue but wrestler does not want to continue. Summary: The forfeit procedure (to follow) basically attempts to make the number of losses that a wrestler must take for withdrawing from a tournament consistent for both Individual Bracketed tournaments and Individual Round Robin tournaments. Individually Bracketed Tournaments: Multiple Scenarios are detailed below 1. If a wrestler is entered into an individually bracketed tournament, he or she may not forfeit their first match and then proceed to continue to wrestle in the wrestlebacks (Rule 10-2-5). This is a federation rule designed to prevent teams from “ducking” a top seed in the first round. If they are injured or become ill after being entered (but before competing) they should be removed from the tournament and replaced with a bye, or the tournament director may opt to enter the result of the first match as a forfeit (counting as a win for that opponent) and the subsequent consolation match as a forfeit as well (counting as a win for that opponent). In this case, the withdrawn wrestler does not take any losses on their record. 2. If a wrestler in the winner’s bracket does not take the mat (and forfeits), a win shall be recorded by forfeit for the winner, and a loss shall be counted for the wrestler who is forfeiting. This includes the championship finals. This shall also be considered as a “win” in terms of head-to-head purposes for seeding points. There is ONLY one exception to this rule: If the wrestler who is forfeiting became injured in his immediately preceding match and was declared the winner by disqualification (ie illegal move resulting in injury), and the coach immediately withdraws the injured winner from the tournament at the head table, the winner of the forfeited match shall still take a forfeit win for record purposes, but the wrestler forfeiting shall not take a loss on record and shall not count as a head to head win for seeding purposes. If the wrestler who won his prior match by DQ waits until the next round to determine ability to continue, and then forfeits, a loss shall be taken on record. 3. In the consolation bracket, if a wrestler does not take the mat and forfeits to their opponent, the winner shall take a win and the wrestler forfeiting shall take a loss. However, there are 3 exceptions to this rule: A. If the wrestler who is forfeiting the match was injured in their immediately preceding match and lost by injury default and did not complete the match (counting as a loss), and the wrestler was then immediately withdrawn from the tournament by the coach, the subsequent forfeit (or forfeits, in the case of a tournament scoring to more than 4 places) shall NOT be counted as losses. However, the winner by forfeit shall claim a win on their record (the match will NOT count toward head-to-head criteria). B. As in situation #2 above, if the wrestler who is forfeiting became injured in his immediately prior match and was declared the winner by disqualification (ie illegal move resulting in injury), and the coach immediately withdraws the injured wrestler from the tournament at the head table, the winner of the forfeited match shall still take a forfeit win for record purposes, but the wrestler forfeiting shall not take a loss on record and shall not count as a head to head win for seeding purposes. C. In a tournament, an injured wrestler shall not be required to take a loss on their record by forfeit if they have a prior counted loss by injury default. For example, if a semi-finalist is injured by a legal move, resulting in a loss by injury default, and they are then withdrawn from the tournament and unable to continue, they would NOT take another loss in the consolation semi-finals (and not counted as head to head), and would NOT take another loss for 6th place. However, if a wrestler has not previously forfeited or lost by injury default, that forfeit loss would count on the record. Please note that any tournament disqualification for flagrant misconduct will result in losses on record for all forfeited matches, with no limit, and no placement earned. For example, a semi-finalist is DQed for flagrant misconduct. A 2nd loss is taken in the consi semis, and a 3rd loss is taken in the 5th place bout (with opponents all earning wins for record, AND these wins DO count for head-to-head). 4. Two-Day Tournaments: A wrestler who advanced on a bracket to a second day of a tournament does not make weight, becomes injured, or cannot compete and must forfeit on Day #2. Although they never take the mat: Record as follows: Winner: Earns a win by forfeit over the school and the name of the wrestler who forfeited. Loser: The wrestler who forfeited takes a loss on their record against the school and name of the opponent they forfeited to in each and every round of the second day. Note: If a wrestler had advanced to a semifinal (in a tournament that places the Top 6) the wrestler would receive 3 losses on their record: One for the semi, one for the consolation semi and a third for the consolation final for 5th/6th. 5. Federation 5-Match Limit: A wrestler is forced to forfeit because if they wrestled their next bout, it would be their 6th match of the day which would put them over the allotted 5 bouts per day. Record as follows: Winner: Earns a win by forfeit over the school (but not over any specific opponent) . Loser: The wrestler who forfeited does not take a loss on their record as they were denied the chance to wrestle based on the maximum matches per day rule. 6. Individually Bracketed Round Robin Tournaments: If a wrestler withdraws due to injury, a maximum of 2 losses by injury default or forfeit will be counted on their record (in addition to any other losses). All winners of these forfeits shall earn wins on record. Same exception as in #2 above.
  11. wyoming is not the outlier here. the number of forfeits in many states is excessive, reducing many dual meets to a small handful of actual matches, with many contested bouts being mismatches due to the fact that teams are having to insert JV/brand new kids into their varsity line-up because they have no other bodies for those weights. A roster of 15-20 can't adequately fill 14 (or in most cases, even 12 or 13) weight classes. look at box scores from almost any state...not only will you see plenty of forfeits, but you will notice that far too many team scores add up to a number pretty close to 84, with very few 34-29 matches. 11 weight classes would be plenty, allowing a limited number of 2nd entries at tournaments and in post-season. or we could increase to 28, so everyone gets a varsity letter and medal at all tournaments.
  12. just as some divisions within some states with predominantly smaller enrollments are opting for 7 on 7 (or 8-man) football, it might be beneficial for a reduced number of weight classes (such as 11) to be offered in certain states (or within small-school enrollments, in states that separate based on enrollment). While it could improve dual-meet competition and reduce forfeits, unsynchronized weights could cause issues when individual state tourneys roll around (or at in-season invites). Have advocated fewer weight classes before (11, but allowing a 12th scorer at tournaments), but saw limited support (108, 116, 124, 132, 140, 148, 158, 170, 188, 212 and 285). http://board.themat.com/index.php?/topic/16457-weight-classes-growth-allowances-2018-rule-proposals-jan-10-week-2/
  13. Not much other than clarifying out of bounds...http://www.nfhs.org/articles/clarity-provided-to-out-of-bounds-calls-in-high-school-wrestling/ New definitions for inbounds and out of bounds highlight high school wrestling rules changes for the 2018-19 season. Beginning next year, a wrestler will be inbounds if two supporting points of either wrestler are inside or on the boundary line. This could be two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point of each wrestler that is inside or on the boundary line. Changes related to out-of-bounds and inbounds calls, along with rules dealing with uniforms and sportsmanship, were among the rules revisions recommended by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Wrestling Rules Committee at its April 2-4 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors. The revised definitions for out of bounds and inbounds eliminate subjectivity with the out-of-bounds call without increasing the out-of-bounds area. The removal of “majority of weight” from the definition will allow officials to focus on inbounds and out of bounds rather than having to make a judgment on where the majority of the wrestler’s weight is being supported. “The majority of rules changes for the 2018-19 high school wrestling season deal with revised definitions of escape, reversal, out of bounds and takedown,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and student services and liaison to the Wrestling Rules Committee. “These changes were needed to reinforce our new position with increasing scoring opportunities by addressing the supporting point issue, but not creating additional risk to the sport. We have defined what the usual supporting points are while down on the mat and how near-fall points or a fall shall be earned.” Several articles in Rule 5 are affected by the elimination of subjectivity in the out-of-bounds call. Rule 5-10 now provides language stipulating that any combination of two supporting points allows an official to make an inbounds call. Similarly, Rules 5-15-1 and 5-15-3 introduce the same clarity while Rule 5-15-2 alters language from “knees” to “knee(s),” making it consistent with Rule 5-15-2a(4) and its use of “hand(s).” The revision to the definition of an out-of-bounds call is clearly stated in Rule 5-18, which outlines that it occurs when there are no longer two total supporting points inside or on the boundary line (two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point of each wrestler). Rules 5-22, 5-25-1 and 5-25-3 will have similar language to establish inbounds and out-of-bounds calls for reversals and takedowns. Revisions to Rule 5-24-3 will assist officials with making a stalling call. The new criteria establish that stalling in the neutral position also takes place when a wrestler is backing off the mat and out of bounds, as well as when the wrestler is pushing or pulling out of bounds. In addition to the numerous changes related to inbounds and out-of-bounds calls, Hopkins noted sportsmanship issues, a new illegal hold and uniform promotional references as other rules changes made by the committee. Among those are the following: Rule 4-1-2: New language will state that no additional manufacturer’s logo, trademark or promotional references shall be allowed on the wrestling uniforms. Rule 7-1-5y (NEW): The Nelson-Cradle is a new illegal hold/maneuver that is a combination made up of a Half-Nelson on one side with a locked cradle from around the neck with the far side knee. The back of the knee acts as the other arm (arm pit) to complete the Full-Nelson pressure on the neck and throat. Rule 7-4-2: New language states that repeatedly dropping to one knee, as well as one hand, to break locked hands is considered unsportsmanlike conduct. Wrestling ranks seventh in popularity among boys at the high school level with 244,804 participants, according to the 2016-17 NFHS Athletics Participation Survey. In addition, 14,587 girls participate in the sport throughout the nation. “Overall, the sport is stable,” Hopkins said. “We are excited to have the influx of young women wrestlers who want to challenge themselves and represent their local high schools.”
  14. Just a couple of thoughts on current dual meet scores that would produce a different outcome with Margin of Victory and Action points... Team A wins 7 matches by identical scores of 2-1, while Team B wins 7 matches by identical scores of 12-5. Instead of a 21 to 21 score, with 8 levels of tie-breakers perhaps earning a win for Team A, Team B would win 27.3 to 16.1, rewarding the match dominance that fell just short of 7 major decisions. Team A wins 7 matches by pin. Team B wins 6 matches by pin and 1 by forfeit (Team A had a 285 pound wrestler but forfeited, strategically/duckingly). Each winner scores the first takedown, so Team A wins on criteria of most first points scored (since no TD in forfeit), thereby being rewarded for forfeiting to avoid giving up any first points scored. In new method, Team B wins 43-42 (forfeit is worth 7). **In this instance, if nothing else, the NFHS tie-breaker should be changed such that a win by forfeit earns 2 "first points scored" so that a team is not rewarded for forfeiting (and might need an addendum about making sure match points are within the action, such that a coach who might be aware of the situation, score and subsequent tie-break criteria does not have his wrestler intentionally report with shoelaces unsecured). Additionally, if Team A wins 9 matches by decision, while team B wins 5 matches by pin or forfeit, Team B wins 30-27. With modified scoring, Team A could win if those current 3-point decisions were all near-majors (such as the prior mentioned 12-5), but would still lose if all were 2-1 victories. As a final aside, if the Penn St/Ohio State dual had been scored with the above noted method of MOV and Action Pts, instead of PSU winning 19-18, tOSU would have won 18.8 to 18.6. 125: OSU 21-12 gets 4.4 (2.0 base + 0.9 MOV + 1.5 action) OSU 4.4 PSU 0 133: OSU 5-4 gets 2.6 (2 + 0.1 + 0.5) OSU leads 7-0 141: OSU 7-6 gets 2.8 and leads 9.8-0 149 PSU TF 20-4 gets 5 now OSU 9.8-5 157: OSU TF 24-9 for 5, now 14.8-5 165: PSU 12-3 PSU gets 4.1, now 14.8 to 9.1 174: PSU 6-4 gets 2.8, now 14.8 to 11.9 184: PSU 10-2 gets 3.8, now PSU up 15.7 to 14.8 197: PSU 6-3 gets 2.9, now up 18.6 to 14.8 285: OSU 15-10 gets 4, and wins 18.8 to 18.6
  15. similar to faulting a coach for not knowing the intricacies of a rule regarding weigh-ins never granting more than a plus 2 for consecutive days, which will now probably result in a new specific example in the case book that currently addresses consecutive days and weather related allowances, but not a combination thereof (which, if it was not repeatedly stated to coaches, wrestlers and fans in attendance, should have been announced clearly), one could chastise others posting here for not being familiar with 10.2.7, which states that a wrestler must make weight each day of a tournament in order to "place" and earn a medal (even if he had already "earned" that spot). No actual placement is given. Deduct placement points earned. Keep advancement and bonus points. Once had our state tourney postponed to Sat/Sun and a kid who advanced to semis could not attend and compete on Sunday due to his beliefs. Suffice it to say we over-ruled the NFHS rulebook and awarded him the 6th place medal (but did follow the team scoring rules...just in case it was a factor).
  • Create New...