Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gatorroll

We need nearfall from neutral

Recommended Posts

I think we need to add nearfall from the neutral position. Use the same criteria we already have in place, if your back is exposed the count starts immediately. 2 count = 2 points, 4 count = 4 points.

 

This will increase scoring and eliminate what I call bad scramble time, where two guys roll around with each other's ankles until a stalemate is called. Instead if you expose your back you risk giving up nearfall.

 

This will create more action as guys will not be willing to hangout on their backs waiting for a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer it to be a five count like the leg drop or side headlock. Once it's five it's two points and then perhaps more counts for extra near fall points. We shouldn't be allowing people to lay on their backs for extended periods to avoid takedowns

Edited by rhino184

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen both guys backs exposed at the same time. Anytime your backs exposed from neutral the count starts. Both guys could receive back points if both guys expose.

 

I think you will see techniques change and less stalemates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Disagree.  A relevant term involved with folkstyle wrestling is CONTROL. You do not score near fall if you don't establish Control.  Refs can stalemate a funk situation if it becomes boring..  

Edited by shorty1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Disagree. A relevant term involved with folkstyle wrestling is CONTROL. You do not score near fall if you don't establish Control. Refs can stalemate a funk situation if it becomes boring..

You can already pin a guy from neutral without control, why not receive back points?

 

As far as tilts, those come from the riding position in which one person is already in an established control position. So not exactly sure where you were going with that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impractical. In some of these 30-40 second scrambles, both wrestlers are often simultaneously exposed. How do you count for both wrestlers exposure? You would need 3 refs per match. Can you imagine the volume of coaches challenges for these situations? Matches would take 20 minutes each because every scramble would be challenged if back points were arbitrarily being awarded without control.

 

You are better off arguing for a complete switch to freestyle than to award back points with no control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

switching to freestyle is badly needed, but because too many people don't want positive change, it won't happen.

I agree with switching to Freestyle. You get rid of bad scrambling time, bad riding time, you protect the edge with push outs, we train for world and olympic medals, you do not expose your back, the list goes on and on. However, we still need to solve the issue of either a shot clock or refs calling stalling, both are not good solutions since it is subjective and different per ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tightwaist is on the right track with the F-S switchover. ​But rather than deal with near fall situations w/o control and the mess that would cause, why not just bring in the F-S touch fall. I understand the "tradition" argument, but this would make a wrestler think twice about diving, flopping around. It would also create more pinning motive and reduce wasted time burning up the clock with de facto stalling while also dovetailing with international rules.

 

I think the touch fall is the simplest, quickest way to create more meaningful "heads up" defensive wrestling (sprawling, whizzers, cross ankle pick, kick out, etc.)  rather than the heads down, time wasting entanglement we have now. But would fans go for it, i.e., good for the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three second count when one guy is exposed for him to prove that he can remove himself from his back.  No count for true scrambles when both guys are exposed.  If you go three seconds when you can't get off your back from neutral then award control and start counting backpoints. 

 

Or switch to freestyle

 

But there is no reason to let the best solution be the enemy of improvement on this, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearfall from neutral is actually more simple to call and understand, not less. It doesn't require the ref to award a takedown, which is the holdup on all of these "bad" situations. I saw at least 15 times this weekend where a guy was being held on his back in neutral for over 5 seconds and no points awarded. This is control by any definition but refs are afraid to award it.

 

If wrestlers have an objective rule and understand that they will give up points by being on their backs, we will see far less of these bad scramble positions and more scoring. It's a win-win for the sport.

 

No one I know said their favorite match this weekend was the low scoring, scramble fest with guys laying on their backs. It's always the high scoring affairs that bring excitement. We are screwing ourselves with rewarding voluntary back exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearfall from neutral is actually more simple to call and understand, not less. It doesn't require the ref to award a takedown, which is the holdup on all of these "bad" situations. I saw at least 15 times this weekend where a guy was being held on his back in neutral for over 5 seconds and no points awarded. This is control by any definition but refs are afraid to award it.

If wrestlers have an objective rule and understand that they will give up points by being on their backs, we will see far less of these bad scramble positions and more scoring. It's a win-win for the sport.

No one I know said their favorite match this weekend was the low scoring, scramble fest with guys laying on their backs. It's always the high scoring affairs that bring excitement. We are screwing ourselves with rewarding voluntary back exposure.

Agree it is easy to call and wrestlers will adapt very quickly. I think it was Palacio in his medal match that held his opponent on his back for like 30 secs and got no points. If you are holding someone on their back and they can't move, how is that not control?

 

I do think, though, that a good scramble with no points awarded can be fun to watch if there is continuous movement. The scrambles we want to eliminate from a fan perspective are the ones where someone just tries to latch on for a stalemate. I think neutral near fall would encourage smarter and more action filled scrambles because no one would want to get stuck in a position where they cant move off their back. Again the wrestlers will adjust immediately so it's a no brainier to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous poster nailed it. All these little changes to folkstyle to force action artificially (i.e. through rules) and remove "control" requirements for points are nothing more than slowly turning folkstyle into freestyle.

 

I for one would be all for it, but if that's what's going to be done, just make the change in one fell swoop and not through a hundred little changes.

 

The only two changes I'd borrow from freestyle right now without sacrificing the integrity of folkstyle are adding the pushout rule and the shot clock. Those two would reduce a lot of the subjectivity of stalling, which is a running joke in folkstyle, while maintaining the integrity of folkstyle (control and the need for alll three positions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem instituting a step out rule in college is that it doesn't really mix with college out of bounds. A step out is the first person to step out. In freestyle you are then out of bounds. In college you aren't out until both are completely out. You can argue that it's really the more in bounds person that causes the out of bounds because you keep going until he steps out. You might have to adjust the rules to consider the standing neutral without action (sheesh) to be the more restrictive one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem instituting a step out rule in college is that it doesn't really mix with college out of bounds. A step out is the first person to step out. In freestyle you are then out of bounds. In college you aren't out until both are completely out. You can argue that it's really the more in bounds person that causes the out of bounds because you keep going until he steps out. You might have to adjust the rules to consider the standing neutral without action (sheesh) to be the more restrictive one.

 

Change the out of bounds rule to be like freestyle's push-out rule:

 

You drive a guy out of bounds, 1 point. 

You initiate a TD in bounds but go out of bounds, TD counts.

 

Doesn't change the integrity of folkstyle at all but highly discourages stalling and wrestling around the edge of the mat, which is still rampant. Combined with a shot clock, it's about as much as you can do to systematize action and minimize stalling through rules. Anything more would be too artificial, and less, which is what we have now, is still a subjective disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the out of bounds rule to be like freestyle's push-out rule:

 

You drive a guy out of bounds, 1 point. 

You initiate a TD in bounds but go out of bounds, TD counts.

 

Doesn't change the integrity of folkstyle at all but highly discourages stalling and wrestling around the edge of the mat, which is still rampant. Combined with a shot clock, it's about as much as you can do to systematize action and minimize stalling through rules. Anything more would be too artificial, and less, which is what we have now, is still a subjective disaster.

There are just all sorts of things to consider with adding the push-out to folk, like its effect on bottom wrestling.  With our folk ruleset that demands actively attempting to escape, many wrestlers are near the edge when they actually do get the 1; this is just the nature of the action as predicated by the rules.  If a push-out rule was instituted without taking away the mandate for action from the bottom guy, I would think several things might happen.  Guys will start getting pushed out right after the top guy lets them go near the edge, thus "gaming" the rule and negating the point for the escape.  Secondly, of course bottom wrestling will evolve in reaction to this with bottom guys trying harder to stay in the center.  It's just a fact that standing up and trying to break a guys' grip with your hips/hands creates lateral motion on the mat that often ends up near the edge...I like the idea, but we need to think about the unintended consequences to other parts of the folk game.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...