Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NJDan

WHAT IS DANGER?

Recommended Posts

Question for the knowing: How does the danger rule work? If the wrestlers are in neutral and one has his back exposed for a three count, does the other wrestler get a two-point takedown (or that riding time starts and an escape is possible) or does he get two back points (but no takedown)?

The announcers seem to be calling it a 2-point takedown. But it's not a takedown in the normal sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutral Danger is defined as this:

If a wrestler exposes his back at 90 degrees or less (in nearfall criteria - shoulder down, within 4 inches of the mat, etc...) beyond reaction time, then the referee shall announce "Danger" AND corresponding color of the wrestler, then it's Danger 1, Danger 2, Danger 3. If the referee gets to the third count and the wrestler hasn't improved his position, then a 2 point takedown is awarded.

Share this post


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

Question for the knowing: How does the danger rule work? If the wrestlers are in neutral and one has his back exposed for a three count, does the other wrestler get a two-point takedown (or that riding time starts and an escape is possible) or does he get two back points (but no takedown)?

The announcers seem to be calling it a 2-point takedown. But it's not a takedown in the normal sense.

 

Here are the relevant passages if you want to educate yourself:

Rule

Art. 3. Neutral Danger Zone Takedown. When in the neutral position, the referee shall announce a neutral danger signal (NDS) anytime a wrestler exposes their shoulders to the mat at any angle less than 90 degrees (neutral danger zone). The danger zone utilizes near fall criteria outlined in Rule 4.5.1, but replaces 45 degrees with any angle less than 90 degrees. The NDS announcement shall occur anytime a wrestler is voluntarily or involuntarily in the neutral danger zone, beyond reaction time, and will continue until the wrestler is out of the danger zone or a takedown is awarded.

Art. 4. Neutral Danger Signal. The NDS is a verbal announcement of the word "danger," followed by a verbal three count. If the referee reaches the third count and the wrestler is still in the danger zone, the opposing wrestler is awarded a takedown.

Applications

A.R. 4-1. If a wrestler is in the neutral danger zone and the referee begins issuing the neutral danger signal (NDS), and the wrestler in the danger zone immediately rolls out of the danger zone and then back into the danger zone, would a new danger signal be issued?

RULING: Yes, anytime a wrestler moves out of the neutral danger zone (NDZ), the danger signal stops and should be restarted, if the wrestler re-enters the danger zone. If, however, the referee has started the NDS and the wrestler is flopping around within the danger zone, the signal should continue. (Rule 4.2.3)

A.R. 4-2. Is a wrestler able to score near fall points while holding his opponent in the neutral danger zone?

RULING: No, near fall may only be scored once a takedown is awarded. By rule, the NDZ and the NDS are only applicable when in the neutral position. (Rules 4.2.3 and 4.2.4)

A.R. 4-3. If two wrestlers are tangled up in the neutral position and unable to progress, and one of those wrestlers is in the NDZ, would a stalemate be called?

RULING: No, regardless of whether a wrestler is unwilling or unable to get out of the NDZ, a takedown will be awarded to the other wrestler if the opponent is still in the NDZ at the completion of the danger signal. (Rule 4.2.3)

A.R. 4-4. Is the referee required to do a verbal and visual count when executing the neutral danger signal?

RULING: No, the referee is only required to issue a verbal announcement; they are not prohibited from executing a visual count but it is not required by the rule. (Rule 4.2.4)

A.R. 4-12. Wrestler A and Wrestler B are scrambling in the neutral position with ankle locks on each other. Wrestler A comes up slightly and puts Wrestler B in the neutral danger zone (NDZ). After the three count, Wrestler A is awarded a takedown. After the takedown, Wrestler B scrambles and puts Wrestler A in the same situation. Since it is the same situation, would Wrestler B be awarded a reversal?

RULING: The rules currently only prescribe what takedown control is in two instances: The hand touch takedown and the neutral danger zone takedown. In all other scoring situations, the referee is charged with determining whether control has been established, lost or changed. In this example, the initial takedown was awarded utilizing one of the two prescribed methods (NDZ rule). After the takedown was awarded and Wrestler B put his opponent into the same situation, it would be up to the referee to determine if an escape or a reversal should be awarded. Since escapes, reversals, and traditional takedowns do not have a prescribed method for determining control (or loss or change of control), the awarding of points in the situation is not automatic and not situationally dependent but rather up to the judgment of the referee. (Rule 4.2.3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is roughly half the refs follow it.  You will see refs not even count for it (see Yianni - McKenna end of 2nd among a ton of other matches).  It's not hard to figure <90*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. 

But it's perplexing. A "takedown" can be awarded even though it's not a takedown as the term is normally understood. And because a wrestler can be exposed, but not controlled, a quick "escape" (that is a "loss" of control which never existed)  seems likely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, fiore50 said:

the problem is roughly half the refs follow it.  You will see refs not even count for it (see Yianni - McKenna end of 2nd among a ton of other matches).  It's not hard to figure <90*.

They don't have to hand signal the count--they're only required to say "danger red" or "danger green" and then can count verbally. 

Not sure if the ref in that match signaled verbally, but McKenna wasn't on his back for a full 3 seconds anyway so a takedown wouldn't have been awarded under neutral zone danger criteria.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NJDan said:

Thanks for the responses. 

But it's perplexing. A "takedown" can be awarded even though it's not a takedown as the term is normally understood. And because a wrestler can be exposed, but not controlled, a quick "escape" (that is a "loss" of control which never existed)  seems likely.

 

That's the whole idea - guys were putting themselves in bad situations and then holding on hoping for a stalemate.  The danger rule is to force them to make a decision to bail out rather than hang on. I'm actually surprised that it ends up getting awarded more than once in a blue moon and I bet it'll decrease in the coming seasons as guys adjust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NJDan said:

Thanks for the responses. 

But it's perplexing. A "takedown" can be awarded even though it's not a takedown as the term is normally understood. And because a wrestler can be exposed, but not controlled, a quick "escape" (that is a "loss" of control which never existed)  seems likely.

 

That’d still be 1 additional point they wouldn’t have had in the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reaction time part is what causes a lot of the controversy (outside of officials just forgetting about it, which happens too often). I remember when it first was announced it was described as being applicable when guys were frozen on their back in neutral. Some officials delay the count while guys are still working to pass an ankle or roll through, and then start it once they've been in the position for a second or two which brings it to a 5 count instead of a 3 count. Sometimes, I think refs catch themselves starting late and will swipe 3 times fast or even give the third swipe when the wrestler is completely out of danger (Yianni-Eierman). The problem here is that Eierman immediately improved once the verbal count started and I think he could have done that if the count started at the correct time. He was essentially punished by the referee's own incompetence.

How, after 2 years, officials have not learned to be ready to count is beyond me. I know, as a spectator, it's the first thing I think about when a scramble starts and often find myself saying out loud "ready to count here." It amazes me how many officials just aren't ready to get into position to count when they should know that the situation could begin. To me, that speaks to a lack of wrestling awareness. I know officiating is harder than it looks, but you should be able to anticipate these positions better than they are right now.

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...