Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, gromit said:

I was talking to an old teammate recently about the new emphasis on Hands_to_the_Face and was reminded of this Three Stooges level war from back in the day.  Under today's rules these two would've been DQ'd before they got outta the first period! 

Dustin Kilgore vs Logan Brown

 

Flo would have a gold mine if they brought these guys, the official, and coaches back years later to watch the match and get their reactions to what was happening.  I'd call it, "Sorry, not sorry!"  Make it a whole series and get Caldwell/Metcalf, Bubba/Taylor, and more recently Fix/Suriano... 

Edited by Chrissn2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Morgan said:

Correct.  As would Zane R, Cael S, and tons of other wrestlers.  After having wrestled and coached most of my life...I keep trying to recall the emergency room visit resulting from H2F.

Well, I've been to the ER twice for a scratched cornea from "H2F", and it is undoubtedly one of the most painful injuries I had during my career.  Maybe that's why I'm a big fan of the new rule, but those two guys from the video have the option of MMA now if they want to stupidly slug eachother rather than wrestling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  No need to be anywhere near the eyes.  Plus, international rules prohibit it.  We are getting better at freestyle.  Might as well start learning about hands to face in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think there should be ongoing verbal reminders throughout the match "stay out of the face", a caution with match stoppage and another verbal warning, and then a point.  The problem is, one cannot reliably measure intent as in, "he was intending to poke in the eye" and decipher that from just an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JBluegill133 said:

I still think there should be ongoing verbal reminders throughout the match "stay out of the face", a caution with match stoppage and another verbal warning, and then a point.  The problem is, one cannot reliably measure intent as in, "he was intending to poke in the eye" and decipher that from just an accident.

So do you feel the same regarding targeting and hands to helmet etc. in football?  The refs should just be warning the players, perhaps till all 11 have been warned and then actually call a penalty.

The way I understand the rule one doesn't need to consider intent (same as face mask, hands to the helmet and targeting in football), hands to the face is well defined and should be easy to see.  Just like with helmet to helmet contact the athletes will learn and adjust/change/eliminate the contact.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ionel said:

So do you feel the same regarding targeting and hands to helmet etc. in football?  The refs should just be warning the players, perhaps till all 11 have been warned and then actually call a penalty.

The way I understand the rule one doesn't need to consider intent (same as face mask, hands to the helmet and targeting in football), hands to the face is well defined and should be easy to see.  Just like with helmet to helmet contact the athletes will learn and adjust/change/eliminate the contact.  

I was under the impression that the reason why this was a point of emphasis was because hands to the face was being used as a tactic to disrupt the opponents vision in order to gain an advantage prior to takedown or defending a takedown....that's why when it is viewed as an obvious accident people get really upset about it....and that's where the warnings come in...first time, yea..it may or may not be an accident...2nd time eh we will still give you the benefit of the doubt...3+ now we can reasonably assume this was done on purpose.

 

I cannot hit on the football stuff because I am really not familiar with the rules.  Sorry! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JBluegill133 said:

I was under the impression that the reason why this was a point of emphasis was because hands to the face was being used as a tactic to disrupt the opponents vision in order to gain an advantage prior to takedown or defending a takedown....that's why when it is viewed as an obvious accident people get really upset about it....and that's where the warnings come in...first time, yea..it may or may not be an accident...2nd time eh we will still give you the benefit of the doubt...3+ now we can reasonably assume this was done on purpose.

 

I cannot hit on the football stuff because I am really not familiar with the rules.  Sorry! 

You aren't familiar with the concusion issues in soorts?

Edited by ionel

Share this post


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

You aren't familiar with the concusion issues in soorts?

Sorry re-read your post yes the helmet to helmet contact/concussion and the facemask part of your post totally makes sense regarding intent....I am unfamiliar with the hands to the face you mentioned.  Is that with linemen?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JBluegill133 said:

Sorry re-read your post yes the helmet to helmet contact/concussion and the facemask part of your post totally makes sense regarding intent....I am unfamiliar with the hands to the face you mentioned.  Is that with linemen?  

I'm not sure all specifics, believe running with the ball can still stiff arm, but pretty sure any other hands to the facemask/helmet is penalized.  May not have all been same reason but seems to me the new wrestling rule is consistent with other sports.

Edited by ionel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 10:03 PM, GoNotQuietly said:

Well, I've been to the ER twice for a scratched cornea from "H2F", and it is undoubtedly one of the most painful injuries I had during my career.  Maybe that's why I'm a big fan of the new rule, but those two guys from the video have the option of MMA now if they want to stupidly slug eachother rather than wrestling...

Yes, clarification in order...the Kilgore/Brown video demonstrates unnecessary roughness (initiated by brown) and should have been called as such.  The ref let that match get out of hand.  However, those were not examples of a "head post" but more of a jabs.  Of course, eye pokes have always been illegal and should be called.  I think posting on the forehead (palm to eyebrows or above so fingers are above the eyes) should be ok.  Also, a quick pop to the face with an open hand, level change and double is ok too.  The unnecessary roughness rule applies here as well.  

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...