Passivity?

[headshuck 2,305]

I don’t get it. Seems like an arbitrary tool to slap on both guys. Do the wrestlers think it’s effective?

[dmm53 480]

There is a heavy subjective quality to it.  Sometimes it is absolutely clear who is being passive; often not.  The worst situation is where it is leveled against one guy in the first period and then the other guy in the second (simply to make things "equal") and those turn out to be the only points.  Whoever gets it last can lose 1-1.    

 

What is the alternative, though?  I like that they keep the action going now and don't stop it to give the point, if earned. 

[LJB 1,628]

one sure way to not get put on the clock?

 

get a takedown...

[Rakkasan91 75]

I don’t get it. Seems like an arbitrary tool to slap on both guys. Do the wrestlers think it’s effective?

I think it is effective.  Both wrestlers are given ample chance to score in the first period.  If a period goes into the activity period, scoring hasn't occurred or the score is very low.  Typically in the second period, the other wrestler goes on the clock if the score is 1-0 or low.  This may tie it up but there is still time remaining for both to score.  If it ends 1-1, that was a boring match in the eyes of the UWW and IMO who cares who wins?  There is no overtime so some method has to end the misery of a boring match.  I know the argument is you may have two closely skilled wrestlers but in most cases, freestyle bouts will have some points on the board.  Greco is a different animal.

[headshuck 2,305]

Nice summary.

[spladle08 749]

I don’t get it. Seems like an arbitrary tool to slap on both guys. Do the wrestlers think it’s effective?

I mean it really seems if one guy has been the aggressor but has already received a passivity/shot-clock against the opponent 

the next one is going to be against him 9 times out of 10. 

I think the rule is worded correctly but not executed correctly 

[headshuck 2,305]

It seems the ball grab has morphed into 2 balls in the pocket of the referee and both will be pulled until action improves.

[GranbyTroll 441]

Even if you don't like the subjectivity of how the officials determine the activity period, I think you have to admit that giving you a 30 second chance to redeem that point is better than nothing. Remember in 2015 when Lebedev "won" two straight matches on the officials calling fleeing the hold with no time left? That was stupid and UWW has actually done a good job structuring the passivity sequence so that you can't do that anymore. 

[denger 209]

It seems the ball grab has morphed into 2 balls in the pocket of the referee and both will be pulled until action improves.

 

It's so much better than the ball grab era though, isn't it?

Personally, I'd be happier with a clock-free overtime period. "You guys are committed to not scoring? Ok, let's see how that works for the next 25 minutes...and good luck next round if you win."

Wasn't there a US open a couple years ago, around the time of the rule changes when USA Wrestling played with OT? I thought there was Dake vs Burroughs match that went into multiple OTs, but maybe it involved Taylor.  

[spladle 179]

Since 1988, we have had double dq's, must score 3 points or ot, sudden victory ot, 2 out of 3 periods, ball grabs, clinch rules, forced par terre, and a slew that I may have forgot. One thing we can count on is 10 years from now we will have entirely different rule set.

[Eagle26 479]

Stalling in folkstyle is subjective as well. You will never being to punish stalling, passivity, or whatever you want to call it 100% objectively. Freestyle does a couple things better though...

1. the step out point is objective and prevents wrestlers from backing out of bounds to avoid a takedown

2. the penalty for passivity is not an automatic point... the wrestlers still have a chance to take matters into their own hands and score on the shot clock. I like that much better than a ref just awarding a point for stalling. Or being afraid to award the point because they don't want to "give" a point to someone in close match. 

[cjc007 702]

It's so much better than the ball grab era though, isn't it?

Personally, I'd be happier with a clock-free overtime period. "You guys are committed to not scoring? Ok, let's see how that works for the next 25 minutes...and good luck next round if you win."

Wasn't there a US open a couple years ago, around the time of the rule changes when USA Wrestling played with OT? I thought there was Dake vs Burroughs match that went into multiple OTs, but maybe it involved Taylor.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Paulson vs Hall

Edited May 1, 2018 by cjc007

[GranbyTroll 441]

 

Wasn't there a US open a couple years ago, around the time of the rule changes when USA Wrestling played with OT? I thought there was Dake vs Burroughs match that went into multiple OTs, but maybe it involved Taylor.  

 

Dake and Howe went like 12 minutes of overtime at the 2013 US Open when USAW experimented with unlimited overtime instead of  the (then) newly implemented tie-breaker criteria.