Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
powershouse

Rule change proposals

Recommended Posts

Pertaining to independent review, this is a bad idea for wrestling. We officials want to get every call correct and let the wrestlers decide the outcome. What people fail to realize/understand is that not every review is black and white. Most of the time we only have one camera showing us one angle. We do not get the multi-angle ESPN/BTN looks that you all are getting while watching from your couches. It's pretty easy to make all the right calls from your couch - I've never missed one! Furthermore, there has to be enough evidence to overturn/change a call.

 

Keep this in mind, especially at the National tournaments and conference tournaments - THE BEST REFS WILL BE ON THE MAT BLOWING THE WHISTLES. If that's the case, who will be conducting the independent reviews? It will be lesser qualified officials than those who are on the mat. This is not a good idea.

 

Think about it this way...if you're the VP of Sales for your company are you going to trust a Customer Service Rep to do your job for you?

Can you honestly say that when you go to a monitor to review that you aren't even slightly influenced by the fact that you already made one call in front of 20K fans?  If you can you are in the minority.  Too many refs show an unwillingness to change a call they made.  Thus the need for the independent review.  It's part of the same reason Freestyle uses 3 judges instead of just asking the guy on the mat with the best view 3 times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's part of the same reason Freestyle uses 3 judges instead of just asking the guy on the mat with the best view 3 times.  

 

Freestyle uses three judges to placate the people complaining about the political aspects of international wrestling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The NCAA tournament has several recently retired 'top tier' officials who serve as evaluators throughout the tourney to assess the jobs of acting officials, resulting in those chosen to do the finals. Let the evaluators serve as the 3rd party reviewer of protests. 

 Also, I hope the interpretation of 'stationary' means staying within the 90 degree position; as long as the wrestler stays within 90 for duration, whether he is rocking or not, the count and subsequent points should be given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pertaining to independent review, this is a bad idea for wrestling. We officials want to get every call correct and let the wrestlers decide the outcome. What people fail to realize/understand is that not every review is black and white. Most of the time we only have one camera showing us one angle. We do not get the multi-angle ESPN/BTN looks that you all are getting while watching from your couches. It's pretty easy to make all the right calls from your couch - I've never missed one! Furthermore, there has to be enough evidence to overturn/change a call.

 

Keep this in mind, especially at the National tournaments and conference tournaments - THE BEST REFS WILL BE ON THE MAT BLOWING THE WHISTLES. If that's the case, who will be conducting the independent reviews? It will be lesser qualified officials than those who are on the mat. This is not a good idea.

 

Think about it this way...if you're the VP of Sales for your company are you going to trust a Customer Service Rep to do your job for you?

I've been in favor of this approach.  I've been a part of it officiating FS/GR and it seems to be a good and usually unbiased system.  If I'm the mat chairman and a challenge is requested and accepted, a pre-determied video jury takes over.  The watch the video, make a determination and the result is final.  The three members of the officiating team on a given mat are not involved with the video review.  The NCAA could easily expand the number of officials from 20 to 24 and designate 4 as the jury.  These would likely be the senior 4 but that allows for some others to get a shot.  There are always some recently retired NCAA tournament officials that could also make up the jury.  I've been to tournaments where the best officials aren't on the mat, they are there for the jury purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't they already use a rotation system when running tournaments? Where Ref 1 is the main ref and ref 2 is the assistant ref and the rotate match by match. Ref 3 could be Matside observing the camera/monitor and part of the rotation

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pertaining to independent review, this is a bad idea for wrestling. We officials want to get every call correct and let the wrestlers decide the outcome. What people fail to realize/understand is that not every review is black and white. Most of the time we only have one camera showing us one angle. We do not get the multi-angle ESPN/BTN looks that you all are getting while watching from your couches. It's pretty easy to make all the right calls from your couch - I've never missed one! Furthermore, there has to be enough evidence to overturn/change a call.

 

Keep this in mind, especially at the National tournaments and conference tournaments - THE BEST REFS WILL BE ON THE MAT BLOWING THE WHISTLES. If that's the case, who will be conducting the independent reviews? It will be lesser qualified officials than those who are on the mat. This is not a good idea.

 

Think about it this way...if you're the VP of Sales for your company are you going to trust a Customer Service Rep to do your job for you?

 

This is a great rule! There should absolutely be an independent, unbiased official to do the review.

 

I would be willing to bet if you go back and look at every review over the last X number of years you would find that the amount of times a ref changes his initial call is pretty low. I just find it really difficult to believe that the refs are right as much as they are (I 100% understand that you only have the one camera angle, and realistically coaches should be aware of where the camera is at, and its' angle before challenging). As tough as officiating is made out to be, it's not that difficult- winning a tough match is considerably harder. 

 

I could go on about it, but the tournament should have a couple refs (4 for the whole tourney and 2 for the finals?) at the table who are "review officials."  The entire crew of officials should draw for the review official positions before the tournament. That way it's not lesser qualified officials doing the reviews.  When a challenge is made one of their computers should get randomely selected at the table, and that's the ref that reviews the call. That's tough to beat if you ask me

 

EDIT: oh ya, and there should be a time limit (45 seconds?). If the ruling can't be made in that time, it was probably too close and the call should stand

Edited by AZCO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought. Yes, the idea behind replacing the tech-fall with a superior decision was to not stop the match early if a wrestler is up 15 and wants to work to get that sixth team point (or fourth bonus half-point) for the full seven minutes.

One more point regarding the Optional tech. We may be overlooking the possibility of a psychological component to spur pinning rather than opting to quit and take the superior points. As it stands now, the dominant man is spared any humiliation from choosing to publicly quit since the tech gives you no choice in the matter. Wrestling is a very macho sport.  How would a dominant wrestler appear to everyone if he should choose to quit the bout rather continue for the pin, especially if his team needs it in a close meet.

 

The option to continue --provided enough time on the clock--will separate the men from the boys, that is, the ones trying to impress everyone with tilts/tds vs. the ones who really want the KO. Eventually the Men's Club would become the dominant style and the boy's club would fizzle out from embarrassment. Good all around, for the crowd and the sport.

 

IMO, wrestling took two steps backwards when the bout was shortened and the tech was introduced. Taken together, these two facts may be responsible for the decrease in pins as indicated by researcher patmilkovich. I don't think we'll ever go back to 8 minutes, but an option to continue might prove suspenseful and beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my memory, the tech was brought about because a number of wrestlers/teams were winning with almost obscene scores (40 and 50 points for the winner) and still only going for snag singles (Wisconsin did this a lot).

It was silly and pointless (so to speak).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my memory, the tech was brought about because a number of wrestlers/teams were winning with almost obscene scores (40 and 50 points for the winner) and still only going for snag singles (Wisconsin did this a lot).

It was silly and pointless (so to speak).

how would an "option to continue" effect the "pile it on" types ? 

a) pointlessly continue the pattern in vain=ho-hum boy's club

b) opt to quit=quitter's club 

c) opt to pin=men's club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it really difficult to believe that the refs are right as much as they are (I 100% understand that you only have the one camera angle, and realistically coaches should be aware of where the camera is at, and its' angle before challenging). As tough as officiating is made out to be, it's not that difficult- winning a tough match is considerably harder. 

 

Are you saying that refs are wrong more times than not?

Please recognize that when refs get calls right.. which imo is actually the MAJORITY of the time, no one says anything.

They only speak out when the incorrect call is made. Maybe the reason that so few calls get reversed is because the right call was made in the first place!

 

What I find really difficult to believe is how many people think they see better from their TV sets or out in the stands than a person who is a few feet away from the wrestlers themselves.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people define as "blatant" stalling is subjective. In college wrestlers are encouraged to ride. Seems contradictory to punish riders with more aggressive stalling calls for riding, yet reward them with riding time points.

 

I disagree there.  I think that the problem is that refs don't care if a guy is working for the pin or not.  There is risk when working for a pin that you might give up an escape or a reversal.  There is very little risk in a parallel ride. If you call stalling on guys who have settled in on top but aren't actively working for a pin then you'd see more exciting action on the mat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree there.  I think that the problem is that refs don't care if a guy is working for the pin or not.  There is risk when working for a pin that you might give up an escape or a reversal.  There is very little risk in a parallel ride. If you call stalling on guys who have settled in on top but aren't actively working for a pin then you'd see more exciting action on the mat.

 

I haven't looked at the rule book lately. Does it say that the top man must actively work for a fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooch1

The decrease in match length, the tech fall, and the T-B-N-Defer option has impacted the frequency of falls tremendously. We now have three periods with wrestlers starting on their feet.  Pretty hard to work for a fall that way.  Additionally, by removing riding time from high school, that has diminished the skills of top wrestling and, therefore, the ability to appropriately execute the necessary setups/traps for falls.  No wonder when athletes get to college, they are not properly trained to utilize those skills and strategies that coincide with control on top.  Largely, we have stopped cultivating it.  

 

When they reduced riding time from 2pts to 1pt, that influenced falls as well because of the potency that riding had on tiring/frustrating your opponent. Coaches who understood the sciences of top/bottom wrestling are either dead, dying, or if alive, are no longer valued for their knowledge and not involved in the sport.  Many of the coaches and wrestlers, post '85, have spent considerable time competing in freestyle.  Consequently more time is spent on promoting Olympic styles.  It's way easier for coaches/wrestlers to push to eliminate top/bottom because those positions are much harder to teach, learn, and they are very time consuming.  If all one has to do is teach takedowns, you pretty much have instant parity. Mat wrestling separates a lot of folks

 

Tilts are not pinning combinations, they are simply....tilts.  The implementation of tilts was to mimic freestyle "exposure." If the only two outcomes of a match were to win or pin, then you would see more falls and better wrestling, which is what we had pre '85.  As it stands now, there really isn't much incentive to pin if you can help your team with majors and techs.  Get rid of those options and make each wrestler start top/bottom in each period. If they want to wrestle on their feet, cut him loose or get your fanny off bottom and escape. And bring back riding time in high school.... I have way more to add, but I am in the process of formulating my suggestions for the product we have now.

Edited by patmilkovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooch1

The decrease in match length, the tech fall, and the T-B-N-Defer option has impacted the frequency of falls tremendously. We now have three periods with wrestlers starting on their feet.  Pretty hard to work for a fall that way.   Additionally, by removing riding time from high school, that has diminished the skills of top wrestling and, therefore, the ability to appropriately execute the necessary setups/traps for falls.  No wonder when athletes get to college, they are not properly trained to utilize those skills and strategies that coincide with control on top.  Largely, we have stopped cultivating it.  

 

When they reduced riding time from 2pts to 1pt, that influenced falls as well because of the potency that riding had on tiring/frustrating your opponent. Coaches who understood the sciences of top/bottom wrestling are either dead, dying, or if alive,  no longer valued for their knowledge and not involved in the sport.  Many of the coaches and wrestlers, post '85, have spent considerable time competing freestyle.  Consequently more time is spent on promoting Olympic styles.  It's way easier for coaches/wrestlers to push to eliminate top/bottom because those positions are much harder to teach, learn, and they are very time consuming.  If all one has to do is teach takedowns, you pretty much have instant parity. Mat wrestling separates a lot of folks

 

Tilts are not pinning combinations, they are simply....tilts.  The implementation of tilts was to mimic freestyle "exposure." If the only two outcomes of a match were to win or pin, then you would see more falls and better wrestling, which is what we had pre '85.  As it stands now, there really isn't much incentive to pin if you can help your team with majors and techs.  Get rid of those options and make each wrestler start top/bottom in each period. If they want to wrestle on their feet, cut him loose or get your fanny off bottom and escape. And bring back riding time in high school.... I have way more to add, but I am in the process of formulating my suggestions for the product we have now.

 

Rarely do I agree 100% with a post but this one I do for sure. I was an active competitor when they made the exact transitions being discussed and I watched it change the sport first-hand. Prior to this point you only got NF if the hold could actually lead to a pin, hence the term near-fall. If you get rid of tilts, tech-falls and make the choice top or bottom, you'll see positive shift in pinning, the ultimate goal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, our problem is having two captains of the amateur wrestling "ship"--the NCAA capt. and he International capt. The attempt to integrate the two has been led mostly by the International captain resulting in the NCAA captain being dragged reluctantly into a sea of changes that are for the most part O.K. as far as scoring points. But the Pin suffers in the process as stats show. I still feel the tech should be an "option to continue" to put the dominant man on-the-spot provided enough time remaining in the bout. This would separate the tougher pinner from the less tough winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that refs are wrong more times than not?

Please recognize that when refs get calls right.. which imo is actually the MAJORITY of the time, no one says anything.

They only speak out when the incorrect call is made. Maybe the reason that so few calls get reversed is because the right call was made in the first place!

 

What I find really difficult to believe is how many people think they see better from their TV sets or out in the stands than a person who is a few feet away from the wrestlers themselves.

I'll attempt to recognize that more, I'm new to sports. I do think they get it right most of the time...that's why there isn't a challenge every minute of the match- coaches don't have to make them.

 

What I am saying though is the people that are making the challenge are not watching from TV, or the stands. They are on the same mat as the guy reffing, just a different angle. I think the coaches know the sport pretty well, and it just seems like they lose a lot of challenges.  

Edited by AZCO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooch1

The decrease in match length, the tech fall, and the T-B-N-Defer option has impacted the frequency of falls tremendously. We now have three periods with wrestlers starting on their feet.  Pretty hard to work for a fall that way.  Additionally, by removing riding time from high school, that has diminished the skills of top wrestling and, therefore, the ability to appropriately execute the necessary setups/traps for falls.  No wonder when athletes get to college, they are not properly trained to utilize those skills and strategies that coincide with control on top.  Largely, we have stopped cultivating it.  

 

When they reduced riding time from 2pts to 1pt, that influenced falls as well because of the potency that riding had on tiring/frustrating your opponent. Coaches who understood the sciences of top/bottom wrestling are either dead, dying, or if alive, are no longer valued for their knowledge and not involved in the sport.  Many of the coaches and wrestlers, post '85, have spent considerable time competing in freestyle.  Consequently more time is spent on promoting Olympic styles.  It's way easier for coaches/wrestlers to push to eliminate top/bottom because those positions are much harder to teach, learn, and they are very time consuming.  If all one has to do is teach takedowns, you pretty much have instant parity. Mat wrestling separates a lot of folks

 

Tilts are not pinning combinations, they are simply....tilts.  The implementation of tilts was to mimic freestyle "exposure." If the only two outcomes of a match were to win or pin, then you would see more falls and better wrestling, which is what we had pre '85.  As it stands now, there really isn't much incentive to pin if you can help your team with majors and techs.  Get rid of those options and make each wrestler start top/bottom in each period. If they want to wrestle on their feet, cut him loose or get your fanny off bottom and escape. And bring back riding time in high school.... I have way more to add, but I am in the process of formulating my suggestions for the product we have now.

Just curious, Pat, and this isn't meant as a shot, but would there be a cost issue with adding riding time back at the high school level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirate,

We used to have little, round, red time clocks or Gra-lab clocks...probably a very minimal cost.  I think it's more an inconvenience, organizational, or laziness issue stemming from the fact that coaches would have to re-learn and teach those difficult to master techniques of escapes and riding/control.   How hard can it be to keep track of control?  It's the thought of moving away from the trend to teach mostly takedowns/defense, eliminating top/bottom, and having to really work to learn and teach the genuinely difficult aspects of TRUE folkstyle wrestling.  I'm guessing a parrot can keep time it he's taught the right commands.  Any coach who says they would rather teach top/bottom or it's easy to teach/learn is probably embellishing a bit ... As much as I love the value of those two facets of wrestling, I absolutely dreaded teaching them because it was labor intensive, time consuming, and mostly unnatural for kids, but I loved the outcome/difference it made in an athlete's success.  Ask Dake, Taylor, Gable, Schalles, etc., and all the guys who were the recipients of poor bottom techniques, like Molinaro perhaps.

Edited by patmilkovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirate,

We used to have little, round, red time clocks or Gra-lab clocks...probably a very minimal cost.  I think it's more an inconvenience, organizational, or laziness issue stemming from the fact that coaches would have to re-learn and teach those difficult to master techniques of escapes and riding/control.   How hard can it be to keep track of control?  It's the thought of moving away from the trend to teach mostly takedowns/defense, eliminating top/bottom, and having to really work to learn and teach the genuinely difficult aspects of TRUE folkstyle wrestling.  I'm guessing a parrot can keep time it he's taught the right commands.  Any coach who says they would rather teach top/bottom or it's easy to teach/learn is probably embellishing a bit ... As much as I loved the value of those two facets of wrestling, I absolutely dreaded teaching them because it was labor intensive, time consuming, and mostly unnatural for kids, but I loved the outcome/difference it made in an athlete's success.  Ask Dake, Taylor, Gable, Schalles, etc., and all the guys who were the recipients of poor bottom techniques, like Molinaro perhaps.

Good thinking. I wasn't even thinking of that, I was thinking of having to pay another person (per mat) needed to staff the meets.

 

Honestly, that's my only concern. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

One thing I ALWAYS mention at the coaches' convention (and I'll be there again this year) is the need to have more single dual meets. We have a product that fits perfectly into a fan's afternoon/evening, and we choose to squander it by having all-day duals.

 

This is probably better-suited for the HS forum, because the college guys all understand this, but having multi-duals and round-robin tournaments every single weekend is DESTROYING our sport. Only people it benefits are the tournament organizers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll attempt to recognize that more, I'm new to sports. I do think they get it right most of the time...that's why there isn't a challenge every minute of the match- coaches don't have to make them.

 

What I am saying though is the people that are making the challenge are not watching from TV, or the stands. They are on the same mat as the guy reffing, just a different angle. I think the coaches know the sport pretty well, and it just seems like they lose a lot of challenges.

 

Yes obviously the coaches know the sport well, but so do the refs. It's not like they just throw anyone out there to ref matches. Furthermore I'll state it again, maybe few calls get overturned because the right call was made in the first place. Here's an example. During the 165 NCAA finals between Joseph and Imar, Casey Cunningham challenged the first takedown by Imar due to it being so quickly called. After video review, the call on the mat was confirmed to be the correct one due to Joseph's hand touching the mat. I'm of the opinion that more times than not the refs get the call correct the first time which is the exact reason why so few calls get over turned. Just because a call gets challenged doesnt mean the call on the mat was incorrect. Furthermore fir a call the get overturned there much be irrefutable evidence that the call was completely wrong. It can't get over turned by something that looked "questionable", meaning it must be "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Freshman/JV preliminary is missed. It gave an opportunity for the crazy fans, like most of us, to enjoy competition for as long as a football game, and allowed the less dedicated fans the opportunity to enjoy an event only as long as a (once sided- without 15 timeouts in the last 6 minutes) basketball game. An occasional JV prelim would also give guys who don't start an occasional chance in front of the home crowd. (At Lehigh there often 1-2 seniors who have spent 4-5 years in the room, but never once competed in Grace or Stabler).

 

A women's team would also be a great prelim dual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirate,

 

Actually, I don't think college does get it.  Look at the collegiate season.  Tournament after tournament in November, December... after that...Virginia duals, Pitt duals, Franklin & Marshall Open, and others...then the National Duals... and it doesn't stop there...it's year round....Here's one thing that I have learned:  when there is an abundance of something, I generally don't appreciate it or I get bored with it and my excitement dwindles, because there is so much...when there is a limited amount of something, I look forward to it, I get excited, I miss it, savor it, appreciate it....That's why there is one Thanksgiving, one Christmas, one Father's Day, one Mother's day, etc...I think we wrestle way too much and the season is too long.  But that's just my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirate,

 

Actually, I don't think college does get it.  Look at the collegiate season.  Tournament after tournament in November, December... after that...Virginia duals, Pitt duals, Franklin & Marshall Open, and others...then the National Duals... and it doesn't stop there...it's year round....Here's one thing that I have learned:  when there is an abundance of something, I generally don't appreciate it or I get bored with it and my excitement dwindles, because there is so much...when there is a limited amount of something, I look forward to it, I get excited, I miss it, savor it, appreciate it....That's why there is one Thanksgiving, one Christmas, one Father's Day, one Mother's day, etc...I think we wrestle way too much and the season is too long.  But that's just my take on it.

This also is not meant to be a shot. I'm trying to square the circle. What is everyone's complaint? Make the sport more popular; getting it on tv and mainstreaming it would be ideal. Imagine a season of wrestling like basketball. Money would be pouring in! No more existential threat.

 

Can you keep it rare and mainstream it? Contradiction of terms?

Maybe I missed your point somewhere. I understand "abundance and boredom," but then there's "regional" selective tuning in and tuning out for any individual in order to satisfy one's level of demand. But the bottom line with mainstreaming is excitement.

 

We have to face the fact that (unless it's Penn State V. Iowa or the NCAA tournament) the vast majority of the NCAA schedule is not mainstream TV worthy. The rules changes we have been witnessing over the years (shorter bout, stalling, choice/strategy of position, extended out of bounds, 4 point NF, etc.) have all been an attempt to make wrestlers "open up", increase excitement and reduce boredom. Unless someone out there has a ground-breaking model we haven't seen yet, we may have to settle for gradual, tiny step changes and hope for the best. Lest we forget, we're also fighting Title IX and budget shrinkage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason falls are down is the smaller number of D1 programs 70, instead of 120. Think about it add 40 of the wrestlers currently in d2 to d1 and a lot of them would be getting pinned. Top end talent is now more concentrated.

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...