Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigTenFanboy

Midlands

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Zebra said:

Well the technical difference in how those two are awarded is quite a bit different.

I do not disagree that some tilts lead to a fall but not all tilts can do this. If the tilt CANNOT (important item here), then it should not be considered NF. If one of the defensive wrestlers scapula is laying on your chest you cannot physically get a pin and therefore should not be considered NF criteria. In fact the rule book even says (as of 2012) 45 degrees and within 4 inches of the mat so I do not see how that is possible when it is physically on top of someone else. We see lots of NF that is greater than 45 degrees as well and that too should be corrected. 

 

I was an active competitor when the TF was introduced (about the same time the starting position move in from the 10 foot circle) and I can tell you that initially tilts which could not result on a pin were not getting NF. Over time the adherence to the strictly written NF criteria waned and we have what we see today.     

You still havent given a difference. You claims there was a list that was too long, yet are unable to give 1.

As for tilts. If their back is close to and facing the mat, they are close to being pinned, regardless of hold as long as it's a legal hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

You still havent given a difference. You claims there was a list that was too long, yet are unable to give 1.

As for tilts. If their back is close to and facing the mat, they are close to being pinned, regardless of hold as long as it's a legal hold.

Except for the situation I described in the post you quoted saying I didn't list any. I even paraphrased the rules as of 2012, so you either did not read the post or are just being combative as a per the unwritten internet rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zebra said:

Except for the situation I described in the post you quoted saying I didn't list any. I even paraphrased the rules as of 2012, so you either did not read the post or are just being combative as a per the unwritten internet rules. 

Not being combative. You said there were plenty of reasons why back exposures in freestyle should count as points and tilts in folk should not. You haven't given any. If there was too many to list you would have many ready to go off the bat.

You sited the rule on tilts yet say holds that cannot end in a pin should not count for points. I'm saying if a wrestlers back is facing and close to the mat a pin is always possible regardless of the hold. It may be difficult to attain the fall but it's still possible therefore points should be awarded.

With that said nothing you said here explains my original question of why exposures should be valid in free while some tilts should not in folk when they're essentially the same thing.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Man, I don't care how good Teemer ends up becoming, but everybody is going to HATEE wrestling against him for his whole career.  Crazy funky and tons of heart!

If it were freestyle, Teemer would have won... but alas... it ain't... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

You still havent given a difference. You claims there was a list that was too long, yet are unable to give 1.

As for tilts. If their back is close to and facing the mat, they are close to being pinned, regardless of hold as long as it's a legal hold.

Just rolling some one around and around is stupid and no points should be awarded for that as it is extremely boring.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Not being combative. You said there were plenty of reasons why back exposures in freestyle should count as points and tilts in folk should not. You haven't given any. If there was too many to list you would have many ready to go off the bat.

You sited the rule on tilts yet say holds that cannot end in a pin should not count for points. I'm saying if a wrestlers back is facing and close to the mat a pin is always possible regardless of the hold. It may be difficult to attain the fall but it's still possible therefore points should be awarded.

With that said nothing you said here explains my original question of why exposures should be valid in free while some tilts should not in folk when they're essentially the same thing.

If you cannot understand from my example combined with my description of NF criteria as defined in the rules you never will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

You spoke of Holds that cannot result in a pin, not on criteria.

NF is all about criteria BTW not specific holds and is defined in the rule book. You can try to change the argument but it will not work. 

If the hold cannot meet criteria (and there are some) then I am technically correct; which we all know is the best kind of correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

 Dudes get forced to their back against their will for 4 seconds, have to actively fight not to get pinned and it's not NF.  Is that correct?

No, that is an over-simplification. There is a specific set of criteria which must be met.

For example a wrestler can have his back exposed for an entire period in a high arching bridge where his shoulders are greater than 4 inches from the mat and it is not NF. That's just 1 scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zebra said:

No, that is an over-simplification. There is a specific set of criteria which must be met.

For example a wrestler can have his back exposed for an entire period in a high arching bridge where his shoulders are greater than 4 inches from the mat and it is not NF. That's just 1 scenario.

This is very different from "holds from which you cannot be pinned."

Had you said if the bottom man is not held in criteria the offensive man should not be awarded nf points I would have agreed with you.

Very very different.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zebra said:

Well the technical difference in how those two are awarded is quite a bit different.

I do not disagree that some tilts lead to a fall but not all tilts can do this. If the tilt CANNOT (important item here), then it should not be considered NF. If one of the defensive wrestlers scapula is laying on your chest you cannot physically get a pin and therefore should not be considered NF criteria. In fact the rule book even says (as of 2012) 45 degrees and within 4 inches of the mat so I do not see how that is possible when it is physically on top of someone else. We see lots of NF that is greater than 45 degrees as well and that too should be corrected. 

 

I was an active competitor when the TF was introduced (about the same time the starting position move in from the 10 foot circle) and I can tell you that initially tilts which could not result on a pin were not getting NF. Over time the adherence to the strictly written NF criteria waned and we have what we see today.     

The 4 inch requirement is not needed if one shoulder/scapula is touching the mat.

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...