Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. while I disagree with the NFHS ruling, I don't think it is unclear, as it asks if a forfeit counts on a wrestler's record and the answer given is "no"....SITUATION 16: Does a forfeit count as a loss on a wrestler’s record? RULING: No, it is a forfeit when for any reason the opponent fails to appear for a match. (5-13).
  2. NFHS statement this year about forfeits not counting as losses has caused an increase in semi-finalists forfeiting to kids they know they can't beat, coming back to take 3rd and leaving the day with an "undefeated"* record. needs to be addressed. see situation 16 https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/wrestling-rules-interpretations-2019-20/
  3. need to be careful if any state looks to say that those matches don't count toward a win/loss record, as have seen coaches attempt to nullify a kid's loss in a tournament final on his record because post-match flagrant DQ got them booted. in a semi-related matter, I still say that NFHS statement this year about forfeits not counting on an individual's loss record is counter-productive and encourages tournament ducking.
  4. as it appears not every state recognizes the NFHS 5-match rule, it is probably only a matter of time before the NFHS issues a medical advisory relating to total matches/competitions in a season. while some states have fairly strict weekly and season limits regarding the number of competitions and permissible amount of multi-team events, whereby it is extremely difficult to accumulate more than 40 matches in an entire season (excluding post-season), to hear of a wrestler missing 30 matches in a 2-3 week stretch will surely set off alarms at some level.
  5. 2 parts to this inquiry. 1. since HS does not recognize MFF like college, just checking to see how most HS state associations count forfeits in individually bracketed tournaments on a wrestler's won/loss record. 2019-20 is the first time I have seen NFHS address the topic, stating that forfeits do not count as losses on an individual's record (situation 16 at https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/wrestling-rules-interpretations-2019-20/), but this contradicts what some states go into great detail to ensure consistency in records (ie NY). Assuming that most states count tourney forfeits (not "byes") as wins on an individual's record, which leads to.. 2nd question is forfeits in regards to wins, as there are some folks at our state association who are seeking to not count dual meet forfeit wins on an individual wrestler's record (attempting consistency with other sports), but I am unaware of any other states that take this approach, as it rewards ducking and penalizes elite wrestlers who earn an inordinate number of forfeits. granted, there are wrestlers at the extreme weights whose records may be overly padded with forfeits, but hopefully other seeding criteria prevails. thanks.
  6. unfortunately, one major flaw with the NFHS rule book and case book is that items that were previously identified as "points of emphasis" are not expounded upon in subsequent editions. in this case, the 2015-16 NFHS points of emphasis does in fact make the particular biting description shown above...but in the more recent printed editions, I do not see such a detailed explanation. it would be beneficial to everyone if prior items that were worthy of a POE were at least included in future editions, either in the rule book or the case book. as such, there are many officials who still believe that FM/DQ biting MUST be called if upper and lower marks are present, even following a hard crossface to the mouth area. while the presence of both upper and lower should be a qualifier when found on any other body part, a forearm involved in a crossface should be interpreted according to the NFHS point of 2015-16 emphasis.
  7. ok, agree to split the place points (but no "pin" points) and award both 3rd (I always order extra medals and give them both 3rd place medals anyway)
  8. while it would be nice to conduct a 16-man bracket through 3rd and 5th, unfortunately by allowing a 6th match, there would be more schools looking to run marathon multi-team duals with 7 teams wrestling 6 RR matches, lasting 10 hours. however, my biggest issue with the 5-match rule is regarding the awarding of the team points via forfeit to the wrestler who has not had 5 matches (over the wrestler who has had 5, per 1.4.3 detailed in casebook). often, the same wrestler who earns those pin points was beaten in the round of 16 by the opponent he then earns a forfeit over, as that kid hits 5 matches by winning/losing/winning/winning/winning (whereas the kid who lost in the 1st round often does not hit 5, unless a full 16, as he goes loss/bye/win/win/win). no points should be awarded, with both taking 4th.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  • Create New...