Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A few different posters have mentioned that they believe freestyle offers a much more impressive product that folkstyle. I belong to that camp, too. The constant action, dynamic scoring, generally fan friendly and objective rules all keep freestyle wrestling exciting to watch. However, there are some foibles with the current rule set that FILA can iron out before Rio 2016:

 

1) Cautions as criteria- Several matches over the weekend left the crowd scratching it's collective head because, apparently, number of cautions takes precedent over last point scored. This one simple criteria blew a few matches, most notably the Bonne vs Lebedev fiasco. At 57kg, Lebedev scored twice via the 30-second shot lock, and Bonne scored once on the shot clock and once on a pushout. The match ended 2-2 and Lebedev despite the fact that Bonne was the only wrestler who scored offensively. The referee gave Lebedev both of his points via subjective judgement to win, while Bonne attacked and scored to lose. How cautions and criteria interact active discourages wrestlers to attempt to score. Bottom line: cautions should not be a tie-breaker criteria. 

 

2) 30 Shot clock timer- Currently, if you get put on the shot clock and get into a scoring position as the 0:30 clock expires, the referee allows you an undefined amount of time to finish the attack before hitting you for passivity. This doesn't follow the same logic as the match clock, puts unnecessary subjectivity into the ref's hands and should be changed. When the match clocks ticks down (up, I guess?) to 6:00, the match ends no matter what- the ref cannot give you more time to finish an imminent attack. The most exciting moments in any sport come when a score just beats out the buzzer to win (see the 57kg finals), not when the attacker is given the benefit of the doubt, just because. That's how the shot clock should work. The idea of the shot clock is to take subjectivity out of stall calls by allowing the wrestler to objectively demonstrate that he is active. Bottom line: allowing the ref to fudge the 0:30 seconds is subjective and leads to less tense and exciting moments. 

 

3) Repechage- Repechage currently makes no sense. Beating a dead horse much? Yes, but this is ridiculous. Looking at the same Bonne vs Lebedev match at 57kg again, how much sense does it make that Bonne had to pack up his shoes and go home because Lebedev lost a squeaker in the semis and eventually won the Bronze freaking Medal? The process of random draws and unbalanced brackets that FILA set up (to purposfully randomize the brackets and allow more fringe countries a chance to medal) forced Bonne into wrestling a Top 5 opponent in the second round. How fair is it to him that he doesn't get to wrestle just because he lost to the freaking Bronze Medalist? A similar thing happened to Herbert, albeit he didn't deserve to win his first match, but he lost to the man who eventually won a medal. Herbert deserved another chance to wrestle. Bottom Line: If we have to have repechage, at least the semi-finalists should pull their opponents back in.

 

TLDR: Freestyle is in great shape. Two point take downs, neutral restarts, slightly more time in par terre, and the benefit of the doubt going to the attacking wrestler make for the most exciting matches I've ever seen. But, that it's still not 100% there yet.

 

Sorry for the rant. I apparently had too much coffee today, and don't have anyone IRL to talk to wrestling about right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few different posters have mentioned that they believe freestyle offers a much more impressive product that folkstyle. I belong to that camp, too. The constant action, dynamic scoring, generally fan friendly and objective rules all keep freestyle wrestling exciting to watch. However, there are some foibles with the current rule set that FILA can iron out before Rio 2016:

 

1) Cautions as criteria- Several matches over the weekend left the crowd scratching it's collective head because, apparently, number of cautions takes precedent over last point scored. This one simple criteria blew a few matches, most notably the Bonne vs Lebedev fiasco. At 57kg, Lebedev scored twice via the 30-second shot lock, and Bonne scored once on the shot clock and once on a pushout. The match ended 2-2 and Lebedev despite the fact that Bonne was the only wrestler who scored offensively. The referee gave Lebedev both of his points via subjective judgement to win, while Bonne attacked and scored to lose. How cautions and criteria interact active discourages wrestlers to attempt to score. Bottom line: cautions should not be a tie-breaker criteria. 

 

2) 30 Shot clock timer- Currently, if you get put on the shot clock and get into a scoring position as the 0:30 clock expires, the referee allows you an undefined amount of time to finish the attack before hitting you for passivity. This doesn't follow the same logic as the match clock, puts unnecessary subjectivity into the ref's hands and should be changed. When the match clocks ticks down (up, I guess?) to 6:00, the match ends no matter what- the ref cannot give you more time to finish an imminent attack. The most exciting moments in any sport come when a score just beats out the buzzer to win (see the 57kg finals), not when the attacker is given the benefit of the doubt, just because. That's how the shot clock should work. The idea of the shot clock is to take subjectivity out of stall calls by allowing the wrestler to objectively demonstrate that he is active. Bottom line: allowing the ref to fudge the 0:30 seconds is subjective and leads to less tense and exciting moments. 

 

3) Repechage- Repechage currently makes no sense. Beating a dead horse much? Yes, but this is ridiculous. Looking at the same Bonne vs Lebedev match at 57kg again, how much sense does it make that Bonne had to pack up his shoes and go home because Lebedev lost a squeaker in the semis and eventually won the Bronze freaking Medal? The process of random draws and unbalanced brackets that FILA set up (to purposfully randomize the brackets and allow more fringe countries a chance to medal) forced Bonne into wrestling a Top 5 opponent in the second round. How fair is it to him that he doesn't get to wrestle just because he lost to the freaking Bronze Medalist? A similar thing happened to Herbert, albeit he didn't deserve to win his first match, but he lost to the man who eventually won a medal. Herbert deserved another chance to wrestle. Bottom Line: If we have to have repechage, at least the semi-finalists should pull their opponents back in.

 

TLDR: Freestyle is in great shape. Two point take downs, neutral restarts, slightly more time in par terre, and the benefit of the doubt going to the attacking wrestler make for the most exciting matches I've ever seen. But, that it's still not 100% there yet.

 

Sorry for the rant. I apparently had too much coffee today, and don't have anyone IRL to talk to wrestling about right now. 

I'll offer an opinion to your # 2.  Last year, the officials would blow the whistle as soon as the clock hit :30.  It didn't mater what was going on.  A lot of wrestlers lost points becasue of that.  The :30 second clock is used to stimulate action.  If good action is occuring at :31 why stop it?  That is the intent of the rule.  They want action and scoring.  I beleive it is a good thing to let them continue.  Remember, passive is not stalling.  Passive is not scoring.  They want scoring so why stop something when scoring is possible?  If the action doesn't produce, then the caution + 1 will be ordered.  If scoring occurs, then that is what they intended.

Edited by Rakkasan91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not a huge fan of criteria and think things would be much simpler with OT, and without the anticlimax of someone WBC say, 3-3. The thought of weighting "bigger" and more recent scoring moves is well-intended, but with the current 20-minute break between matches and ruleset, wrestlers are already highly motivated to put their opponents away as soon as possible rather than score small and drag it out.

 

The criteria indicator on the scoreboard was a nice improvement, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of repechage, they could have two or four regional qualifiers, and limit brackets at worlds to 16 or 32. Then the seeding could be based on placements in the qualifiers. Much like soccer's world cup. That way if you lose early in the tournament, you at least had the chance to have had a better placement in the bracket by performing better at the regional qualifier. 

 

The regional qualifiers would probably have to be randomized or only loosely based on geographic location because most of the talent is located in a small band from Turkey to Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll offer an opinion to your # 2. Last year, the officials would blow the whistle as soon as the clock hit :30. It didn't mater what was going on. A lot of wrestlers lost points becasue of that. The :30 second clock is used to stimulate action. If good action is occuring at :31 why stop it? That is the intent of the rule. They want action and scoring. I beleive it is a good thing to let them continue. Remember, passive is not stalling. Passive is not scoring. They want scoring so why stop something when scoring is possible? If the action doesn't produce, then the caution + 1 will be ordered. If scoring occurs, then that is what they intended.

Thanks for the dissenting opinion. I understand the rational behind the clock being a "soft" 30, I just don't like it. Wrestlers will lose (or win I guess) matches because of the rules, regardless of the specific nuances in any sport. I would just prefer wrestlers to lose because they couldn't get it done in 30 rather than lose because they defended for 30, but couldn't hang on for 36.

 

Also, what's the limit on the soft 30? Five seconds, right seconds, ten seconds? A hard fast 30 is less subjective and more exciting.

 

PS, I'm not just mad about Ramos. Obviously I'm upset that he lost on a ~36 second clock, but the matches illustrated a giant flaw in the rules IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramos lost because the one time he tried to do an actual freestyle move instead stall out was at the absolute worst time... if he had continued with his stalling tactics he would have been fine... his mistake... obli di obli da

 

Bonne was just flat out screwed... that had little to do with freestyle rules...

 

criteria is easy to understand and keep track of if you understand it... the only times cautions are used if all the other tie breakers are even... it is not that complicated, but, casual fans don't know the rules...

 

i understand why some do not like repchage, but, it really doesn't bother me... every match is critical... wrestle like it... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

criteria is easy to understand and keep track of if you understand it... the only times cautions are used if all the other tie breakers are even... it is not that complicated, but, casual fans don't know the rules...

 

Criteria is not easy to understand.  

 

1st criteria: Whoever had the highest value to their score.  4s beat 2s, 2s beat 1s.  

2nd criteria: If 1st criteria is tied, whoever has the most of the highest value.  Two 2s and a 1 beats one 2 and three 1s, etc.

3rd criteria: Whoever has the fewest number of cautions.

4th criteria: Whoever scored last wins.

 

Not only do "casual fans" not know the rules, but neither do the athletes or coaches.  Bonne thought he won on a pushout.  He didn't, because he didn't know the criteria.  Bill Zadick was about to throw in the cube in Snyder's match because he thought he was losing on the final pushout.  Etcetera, etcetera.

 

The criteria are unnecessarily complicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they changed criteria to a simple "whoever has 4 point move, or last point scored" it would work a lot better. It's easy to keep track of 4s and last point. I saw three matches won on confusing criteria on Friday and Saturday. Georgia's coaches almost lost their hwt a match in repechage trying to challenge when he was winning. It took the Georgian fans screaming from the stands to keep the coaches from losing their own athlete the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lke the new rules with one exception. Cautions sholuld not be called with less than 10 seconds on the clock. A wrestler needs to be allowed some time to score to overcome the penalty point. A few matches were decided by a caution point within the last 5 seconds.

The underlining of the score of the wrestler with criteria is great, everyone knows whose behind.

 

I wish college would adopt the stepout rule and the shot clock.

Don't limit the number of wrestlers, it is a major marketing point for wrestling with the IOC on how many countries get represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you said, but I have to disagree with the hard 30 second shot clock. I do agree that a subjective amount of time isn't ideal, but I think the best solution would be to allow the referee to award a hard extension if action has been initiated (say 10-15 seconds). If they get in on a shot at 27 seconds, the referee would signal at the 30-second mark to add, say, 15 seconds. Any shot that can't be finished in 15 seconds would likely be stalemated in normal action, so this seems like a reasonable addition to the shot clock. 

 

As for the repechage, I actually like the way it is now because it reduces the amount of matches needed to determine medalists. But yes, with the unseeded brackets there are matches that occur way earlier than they should (Bonne-Lebedev is a perfect example). If the matches were seeded, I think the current wrestle-back system works perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criteria is not easy to understand.  

 

1st criteria: Whoever had the highest value to their score.  4s beat 2s, 2s beat 1s.  

2nd criteria: If 1st criteria is tied, whoever has the most of the highest value.  Two 2s and a 1 beats one 2 and three 1s, etc.

3rd criteria: Whoever has the fewest number of cautions.

4th criteria: Whoever scored last wins.

 

Not only do "casual fans" not know the rules, but neither do the athletes or coaches.  Bonne thought he won on a pushout.  He didn't, because he didn't know the criteria.  Bill Zadick was about to throw in the cube in Snyder's match because he thought he was losing on the final pushout.  Etcetera, etcetera.

 

The criteria are unnecessarily complicated. 

4 levels... amazing what some think is too complicated...

 

I like last point scored as the only criteria.  

 

Keep it simple.

as much as i am unfazed with the current criteria, i would not be opposed to this either... under this scenario my youngest would have been greco national champ this year, but, as it was, not so much... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not a huge fan of criteria and think things would be much simpler with OT, and without the anticlimax of someone WBC say, 3-3. The thought of weighting "bigger" and more recent scoring moves is well-intended, but with the current 20-minute break between matches and ruleset, wrestlers are already highly motivated to put their opponents away as soon as possible rather than score small and drag it out.

 

The criteria indicator on the scoreboard was a nice improvement, though. 

I can't argue with your opinion but I think that no OT makes sense to get all matches in, and keep the wrestlers a smidge fresher.  In the Semis, and finals, though, I could see favoring an OT deal. 

 

I also think there should be an OT when there has been no move above 2 by either wrestler, but that kinda kills my first point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lke the new rules with one exception. Cautions sholuld not be called with less than 10 seconds on the clock. A wrestler needs to be allowed some time to score to overcome the penalty point. A few matches were decided by a caution point within the last 5 seconds.

The underlining of the score of the wrestler with criteria is great, everyone knows whose behind.

 

I wish college would adopt the stepout rule and the shot clock.

Don't limit the number of wrestlers, it is a major marketing point for wrestling with the IOC on how many countries get represented.

I agree. i also wish college would just drop stalling and go the same way as freestyle: all about positioning.  Playing the edge should get you killed unless you stay in position. Too many guys don't take risks in modern wrestling. Losing and taking risks is in many ways cooler than winning super tight snore fests. Show your stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone think that Metcalf should've been put on the shot clock any more than the Iranian?  I didn't and that was the difference of the match.  

I honestly don't understand why someone gets put on the clock half the time. Obviously, they have to put someone on before the 2:00 mark, but other than that a lot of the calls seemed random to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could do without the shot clock, but it is far better than any clinch rule. Overtime is preferable to criteria. Push out/step out isn't very exciting but is tolerable. Repechage is a joke hence my play on words. I'd love to see any kind of legitimate double elimination, or better yet a return to an A and B pool where a single loss doesn't necessarily knock you out of gold contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad to see so much blasting of UWW on this forum when the real criticism should be leveled at the NCAA who have rendered college wrestling unwatchable.  UWW and Nenad Lalovic deserve a lot of credit for making freestyle more exciting than ever before, though the rules could still benefit from a few changes. 


 


1) Cautions as criteria-  This needs to get scrapped fast.  Offensive scores should always trump passivity warnings.


 


2) 30 Shot clock timer-  The "action extension" to the shot clock is an excellent addition which creates more flurries and scoring opportunities.  If you don't want the shot clock extended don't let your opponent penetrate your defenses.  Often times it is the person who is not on the shot clock who benefits from this rule as well.  Bottom line, UWW wants to encourage action and this modification certainly promotes this objective. 


 


3) Repechage- I agree on the semi-final extension but I bet UWW has IOC-imposed limitations on the number of matches, etc.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×