Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tirapell

Push-out rule in folkstyle?

Recommended Posts

so who's drafting the petition? tirapell?

 

i'll sign it larger than john hancock!

 

not that my vote counts for anything, haha.

 

but i say, get the ball rolling. or should i just write it myself? hmm

 

 

I have no idea how something like this gets done, but I'm all for you proposing it. As I've said a few times, ideally I'd just like people to get a look at it with a test-period in pre-season events. It surely couldn't hurt a takedown tournament to implement a push-out rule.

 

I think at the end of the day, it has far more pluses than minuses and addresses areas of our sport which have gotten worse (edge wrestling) and taken away from the excitement it could and should generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I saw at the trials more than convinced me that the push out is bad for the sport.

MANY times I saw guys with singles simply push the opponent oob, why would you do any finishes..more effort/risk- same point value. MANY other times I saw wrestlers doing NOTHING BUT trying to use the push out as their only weapon.

Yes the push out is an easy call......but so is stalling...if guys aren't advancing their position ...they are stalling......freakin call it.

In this day and age if you don't have action.... people (casual fans) will never come on board.

Yes the push out has good reasoning behind it..... it just has MAJOR flaws in implementation.

That said the Trials were OUTSTANDING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also am in favor of the rule but I think some of the rule should be slightly modified

 

1- it doesn't apply when one wrestler is in control. Internationally if both wrestlers are on their feet and they go out its a point no matter what. I've seen several situations where a guy gets taken down but wrestles through the position only to get taken out of bounds from his feet for another point. Just like you can't lock hands while you are in control you can't get a push out either

 

2- A wrestler that is driving someone out while attacking the legs will always get the point unless their direction is clearly changed by the defensive man. We all know there are going to be idiot refs out there, who think everybody is there to watch them, that give a point to a guy that gets doubled out because the offensive mans foot touched first. The only way a defensive wrestler should score a push out is if he does something along the lines of a whizzer that completely changes the direction of the offensive man. An example would be the first period exchange between Kyle Snider and J'Den Cox at Fargo this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is very important to keep a TD and a push out worth the same value. If you don't guys will abuse it and step out of bounds on purpose as to give up 1 instead of 2. Let's say a guy is up by two at the end of the match. First of all he will gravitate towards the out of bounds and if he gets in any trouble will simply step out of bounds. The beauty of a TD and a PO being worth the same is that it forces folks to wrestle the entire match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only way a defensive wrestler should score a push out is if he does something along the lines of a whizzer that completely changes the direction of the offensive man. An example would be the first period exchange between Kyle Snider and J'Den Cox at Fargo this year"

 

More judgement calls for the ref. The way that Harry Lester gave up his first point to the German on a push out is one reason I don't want to see it in high school matches. I hate the idea that the "defensive" wrestler can score such a point.

 

I would be in favor of "step outs" as opposed to "push outs", if there was a standard center circle (maybe 15 feet in diameter?). A wrestler would be dinged a point if he stepped on or past that center circle line after a neutral start and when NOT IN CONTACT with the opposing wrestler. Thus a wrestler could score THREE points if, while driving in, his opponent steps out of the center circle just before contact and is then taken down as action continues outside the center circle. Visualize it.

 

Stall calls would still be in effect for other action. A wrestler would always have the option to retreat to the center of the mat and his opponent then must follow him in, in which case nuetral start rules for step outs would apply. I'd favor the ref finding excuses to bring action back to the center.

 

While on the subject of rules changes, when a bottom wrestler gets to his feet (OR ONE FOOT, unsupported by hand or hands on the mat), standing for a second or two, regardless of what is considered "control", I'd favor an escape being awarded, and a neutral start. Either that or award an immediate escape if the "top" wrestler's control turns into control of one leg with both wrestlers upright. Either that or award an escape whenever action goes out of bounds.

 

In summary, I'm dead set against pushouts in high school folkstyle. It could be hazardous, could add more judgment calls for the referees, would not stop all wrestlers from playing the out of bounds, and there are better options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the other options then?

 

Apart from properly calling stalling, which is a better option, do you consider my idea, which I think is an even better option, unworkable?

 

Why? Because it would require all mats adding a standard center circle?

 

If we want continuous action , and we want it in the middle of the mat, then this should be considered.

 

I agree that we need to be wary of unintended consequences but that's true for any change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Determining what would be sufficient "contact" in order to evade the circle would be a tough call for a ref. The push-out rule is about the easiest rule to understand in international wrestling. If your whole foot goes out, your opponent gets a point. As with takedowns, escapes, reversals, nearfall, etc there will always be calls that can go either way so your beef about a close call for Lester is fruitless.

 

The added circle would also be very hard to accomplish at ALL levels of wrestling due to the cost of a new mat or paint job on the current mats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does it add more judgement calls? it doesn't at all.

 

the only time judgement would be in play would be if a wrestler is on his knees.

 

otherwise, first body part to hit out, is out. other guy gets the point.

 

pretty darn simple and objective.

 

it would be a great thing for the sport. add another dynamic. increase action. increase scoring. be more fan friendly, and help kids develop.

 

right now, among the elite kids, hs wrestling is getting to be a chess match and, frankly, boring.

 

the kids are doing less developing and more 'playing the game'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also am in favor of the rule but I think some of the rule should be slightly modified

 

1- it doesn't apply when one wrestler is in control. Internationally if both wrestlers are on their feet and they go out its a point no matter what. I've seen several situations where a guy gets taken down but wrestles through the position only to get taken out of bounds from his feet for another point. Just like you can't lock hands while you are in control you can't get a push out either

 

2- A wrestler that is driving someone out while attacking the legs will always get the point unless their direction is clearly changed by the defensive man. We all know there are going to be idiot refs out there, who think everybody is there to watch them, that give a point to a guy that gets doubled out because the offensive mans foot touched first. The only way a defensive wrestler should score a push out is if he does something along the lines of a whizzer that completely changes the direction of the offensive man. An example would be the first period exchange between Kyle Snider and J'Den Cox at Fargo this year

 

 

1. That's what I had in mind. Push-out can only occur from the neutral position. Once a takedown in scored, it's mat wrestling and thus no push-out.

 

2. I think I agree with you here in that if you are scoring a takedown you are going to get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is very important to keep a TD and a push out worth the same value. If you don't guys will abuse it and step out of bounds on purpose as to give up 1 instead of 2. Let's say a guy is up by two at the end of the match. First of all he will gravitate towards the out of bounds and if he gets in any trouble will simply step out of bounds. The beauty of a TD and a PO being worth the same is that it forces folks to wrestle the entire match.

 

 

AP, how is that any different than what happens now? At least with the push-out, you could score an easy point, waste very little time, and have another chance at now a push-out for the tie or a takedown for the win. In my last two NCAA trips, I have actually seen wrestlers shuffle untouched from the start line to standing behind the out-of-bounds in the last 20-30 seconds to avoid wrestling and giving the other guy a shot at the tying/winning takedown. With the push-out, you eliminate this behavior.

 

In my experience wrestling and knowing the difficulty in staying on the mat, I would guess that very few people are going to knowingly run to the edge as it's too easy and too quick to give up a push-out.

 

The whole idea here is NOT to create push-outs. It's to force wrestlers to stay on the mat which I believe it would do with more certainty than any other rule modification/interpretation. There would be times when "strategy" might come into play but that's no different than it is now. All you want is guys to have to scrap and battle IN the circle for the duration of the match.

 

Ugly push-out points are scored in freestyle (moreso with greco as they can't touch legs). But that's just one side of the coin. Look at how much more these guys battle to control the mat, get their opponent off balance by pushing & snapping, and generally get more action out of their 2 mins than we sometimes get out of 3 mins.

 

I'm not saying I like freestyle better (far from it). I just see this one area of the international style that I think they may have gotten right and we could benefit in multiple ways and levels with its implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is very important to keep a TD and a push out worth the same value. If you don't guys will abuse it and step out of bounds on purpose as to give up 1 instead of 2. Let's say a guy is up by two at the end of the match. First of all he will gravitate towards the out of bounds and if he gets in any trouble will simply step out of bounds. The beauty of a TD and a PO being worth the same is that it forces folks to wrestle the entire match.

 

 

Right, so just enforce the existing penalty against fleeing the mat. If the offensive wrestler gets in on a shot and drives his man out of bounds then it is one point. But if he is working to score and the defensive wrestler voluntarily heads out of bounds then the call is one for the pushout and one for the fleeing. This approach gets around the objection that a skillfully executed takedown should be worth more than a pushout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the rules as they are now. I think the edge of the mat wrestling is the some of the most exciting wrestling there is. Did he have a foot in? Did the ref see it? Is he going to award the points? I will be the first to admit that the system we have is not perfect, but it is what it is.

 

Wrestling is supposed to be about taking a guy down and pinning him. Not about shoving him out of bounds. Which is easier to do take someone down or shove them out of bounds? What do you think the emphasis will turn to? I’m going to expend 1/3 of the energy going the push out route, hmmmmm.

 

I’ve read all the reasons to go the push out root, I just don’t believe there is enough good reasons to change. Just my opinion.

 

silverback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call it exciting to play the edge and any time someone comes close to touching your legs to hop out of bounds to avoid a takedown?

 

I call that frustrating to see someone work hard for a score only to have their opponent jump to the edge and get away without getting any points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like the ball grab I surly don’t believe that pushing your opponent out of bounds is exciting or has anything to do with real wrestling. The rules are in place. We just have to have everyone, including referees, coaches, and fans get on board. He is fleeing the mat to avoid a takedown. That’s one point. Call it (first and foremost) and accept it.

 

silverback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silverback,

 

there's a lot of wrestling and wrestling technique that goes in to getting a push out.

 

it isn't "just pushing him out of bounds"

 

if it was so easy, winning the olympics would be a breeze.

 

 

the push out rule would keep kids in the center, increase action, and help develop young wrestlers ability to scrap in close quarters.

 

what we have now is slow-paced tempos, kids stepping back to avoid action, refs too scared to call stalling, and coaches too critical if they do.

 

 

also, im wholly against the notion of "1 for a push out, 2 for a push out with a flee" you're getting back into subjectivity.

 

the push out rule is simple and clearly defined and understood: a body part touches out, it's a point.

 

 

i think a lot of the issues you guys raise here in objection, while interesting and valid, is putting the cart before the horse. implement the rule first and then tweak it.

 

i don't think you'll have kids strategically stepping out to give up 1 and not 2. it would have to be under specific, late-match circumstances the way a leading wrestler can give up a stall call late in the match under our current rules. (a right they've earned throughout the bout.)

 

and by making the rule 2 for a TD, 1 for a Pushout, the incentive will be there to actually get the takedown instead of simply looking for the pushout. actually, if the new rule were to work like we hope, wrestling on the edge (and opportunities for pushouts) would be less frequent and wholly forced/not circumstantial. in other words, if you get you're opponent near the edge, it was because you controlled the positioning. something that should be taught, encouraged, and rewarded. the way it is now, there's no incentive (or opportunity) for dominated positioning.

 

in short, any fear of folk becoming a pushout-fest is a not a real concern and a poor prescience of how things will manifest (at least as i see it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silverback,

 

refs will never, ever, ever call fleeing consistently and appropriately. on one hand, i wish they would. on another hand, i see why they don't. wouldn't everyone prefer the match to be decided by a clearly defined rule and a preventable situation, and in the wrestlers own hands vs. 1 refs interpretation?

 

 

furthermore, increased flee calls wouldn't do anything for increasing action in the center of the mat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of the "push out." I've watched it for a number of years in FS/GR and I think there is a marked difference with the wrestler's attempts to stay inbounds.

For simplicity, as some have stated earlier, I'd consider the following:

1) Categorize it under fleeing the mat (High School) but drop fleeing from the penalty sequence for disqualification.

2) Make it only apply to the neutral position.

3) Make it absolute. From the neutral position, the first wrestler that steps out of bounds shall be called for fleeing the mat and penalized one match point. This is regardless of who is attacking or counterattacking. Not perfect but it does simplify the call and will likely work better at the high school level. Last year in regards to stalling at the college level they tried to simplify stalling on the out of bounds and create some automatic stall calls. There was then an interpretation that said his the wrestlers were engaged or in contact stalling should not be called. This helped to muddy the waters rather than simplify. I believe that if anyone steps out first is penalized, in two seasons you will hardly see any action on the boundary.

--As a note, a few years ago, the push out was proposed on a NCAA rules survey. D-1 through D-3 coaches and officials took the survey. A vast majority of the officials were in favor of this; however, the majority of the college coaches were not.

Tirapel:

As for the how to implement, there are two ways that I know to have a new rule considered:

High School: There is a rules change proposal form from the NFHS. Usually at the annual rules update meeting conducted by each state, there are instructions on how to do so at the end of the briefing. It is basically a form that cites the rule to be changed, the recommended wording and a rationale for the recommendation.

NCAA: Has an on-line form: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... posal+form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silverback,

 

there's a lot of wrestling and wrestling technique that goes in to getting a push out.

 

it isn't "just pushing him out of bounds"

 

if it was so easy, winning the olympics would be a breeze.

 

 

the push out rule would keep kids in the center, increase action, and help develop young wrestlers ability to scrap in close quarters.

 

what we have now is slow-paced tempos, kids stepping back to avoid action, refs too scared to call stalling, and coaches too critical if they do.

 

 

also, im wholly against the notion of "1 for a push out, 2 for a push out with a flee" you're getting back into subjectivity.

 

the push out rule is simple and clearly defined and understood: a body part touches out, it's a point.

 

 

i think a lot of the issues you guys raise here in objection, while interesting and valid, is putting the cart before the horse. implement the rule first and then tweak it.

 

i don't think you'll have kids strategically stepping out to give up 1 and not 2. it would have to be under specific, late-match circumstances the way a leading wrestler can give up a stall call late in the match under our current rules. (a right they've earned throughout the bout.)

 

and by making the rule 2 for a TD, 1 for a Pushout, the incentive will be there to actually get the takedown instead of simply looking for the pushout. actually, if the new rule were to work like we hope, wrestling on the edge (and opportunities for pushouts) would be less frequent and wholly forced/not circumstantial. in other words, if you get you're opponent near the edge, it was because you controlled the positioning. something that should be taught, encouraged, and rewarded. the way it is now, there's no incentive (or opportunity) for dominated positioning.

 

in short, any fear of folk becoming a pushout-fest is a not a real concern and a poor prescience of how things will manifest (at least as i see it).

 

Well stated Du. Exactly my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is perfect timing for this discussion. I wonder how many Greco matches were won by push out? Freestyle is coming up check it out and see. Here’s what I see, 1st period, push out for 1, do nothing the rest of the period. Win the period. Second period push out for 1, do nothing for the rest of the period. Win the match.

 

I have been around wrestling for 50 plus years. I used to enjoy freestyle wrestling. Now I find it exceedingly boring.

 

This would be a major rule change. There are many things that we don’t even know about or understand how this rule change will affect our sport. I agree with Tirapelli, try it out and see before you change the rule. At this point I am against it. You all are entitled to your opinion I just don’t agree with it.

 

silverback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be on the "call stalling/fleeing correctly" bandwagon, so I'm talking to myself here as well.

 

My question is this, at what point do you look in the mirror and realize a rule may not be a good rule if it cannot be enforced (a) properly and (b) consistently, no matter how many iterations of change. There have been more rule changes/interpretations with relation to "stalling" in the past 20 years than any other aspect of our sport. IMO, we aren't really any closer to addressing the issue of "inactivity".

 

Just continuing to say "if stalling/fleeing were called correctly we wouldn't have a problem" is like beating your head against a brick wall. First off, I don't think 2 people in the United States would define stalling in the same way. And you could have 10 referees mock officiate a match and each would have their own interpretation on what IS stalling and what is not.

 

I'm sort of at the conclusion that we may need to take a step back and realize that this is NOT the best way to address the issue. Maybe the problem is the rule? It's just not a good rule.

 

As much as I dispise FILA, this may be one area that they got right. For years they used to give passivity calls for inactivity and cautions (and a point) for "feeling the mat". The interpretation was a joke at best. You think folkstyle refs vary in their interpretation, now try taking referees from all over the globe and have them call it the same. You can watch it in the 1990's World Championship/Olympic videos.

 

Greco used to be awful as both wrestlers would 9 times out of 10 end up with 2 passivity calls but no ref wanted to make the 3rd call to disqualify an athlete, and the athletes knew that. So then they changed to passivity being "choice of position" rather than disqualification. So wrestling became more of a game of par terre, knowing you would get your shot on top eventually.

 

At some point, they must have realized that they just can't have a subjective rule with regards to "passivity" or "fleeing". It's got to be objective and simple. Thus the push out.

 

I feel like we're still inbetween realizations, still trying to tweak a bad rule into being good, still trying to throw good money after bad. Instead of forcing wrestling to take place on the mat, we went the opposite direction and actually encourage it to take place off the mat with the 1 foot in bounds rule.

 

These are just my thoughts but after 20 years of "just call stalling", I think it may be time to rethink what we're asking of referees and attempt to make the sport more objective for wrestlers and more simple and active for fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in favor of the "push out." I've watched it for a number of years in FS/GR and I think there is a marked difference with the wrestler's attempts to stay inbounds.

For simplicity, as some have stated earlier, I'd consider the following:

1) Categorize it under fleeing the mat (High School) but drop fleeing from the penalty sequence for disqualification.

2) Make it only apply to the neutral position.

3) Make it absolute. From the neutral position, the first wrestler that steps out of bounds shall be called for fleeing the mat and penalized one match point. This is regardless of who is attacking or counterattacking. Not perfect but it does simplify the call and will likely work better at the high school level. Last year in regards to stalling at the college level they tried to simplify stalling on the out of bounds and create some automatic stall calls. There was then an interpretation that said his the wrestlers were engaged or in contact stalling should not be called. This helped to muddy the waters rather than simplify. I believe that if anyone steps out first is penalized, in two seasons you will hardly see any action on the boundary.

--As a note, a few years ago, the push out was proposed on a NCAA rules survey. D-1 through D-3 coaches and officials took the survey. A vast majority of the officials were in favor of this; however, the majority of the college coaches were not.

Tirapel:

As for the how to implement, there are two ways that I know to have a new rule considered:

High School: There is a rules change proposal form from the NFHS. Usually at the annual rules update meeting conducted by each state, there are instructions on how to do so at the end of the briefing. It is basically a form that cites the rule to be changed, the recommended wording and a rationale for the recommendation.

NCAA: Has an on-line form: [/quote]

 

I agree with all you said -- no DQ (just successive points), neutral only, absolute. I think officials would find it a welcome change to their exceedingly difficult job of calling takedowns, stalling, and fleeing the mat on the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been around wrestling for 50 plus years. I used to enjoy freestyle wrestling. Now I find it exceedingly boring.

 

I respect what you're saying, and I agree with you when compared to the late 1970's or 1980's. But I don't think that what you find boring is due to the pushout, or at least I don't.

 

I don't like the clinch, individualized periods, forced par terre, appreciation point, ball grab, brick throw, referees in suits, instant replay, and probably a dozen other things I'm forgetting. But I DO like that wrestlers have to stay on the mat ;) 1 good one in the last 30+ years is about right for FILA.

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...