Jump to content
treep2000

Criteria vs. Overtime - what's better?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Appears to be a mistake but I didn't watch it. The transcript gives no reason for the point. I see Latona chose neutral going into the last period. Was that from an injury?

You would only get 1 for riding time (1 minute not a second) which is possible if you were on top both tb periods. Likely from Injury time. I would think the livescorer would still show riding time rather than an unsub point (watching Criminal Minds now)

Latona and Treaster were tied after the first three periods and went into the first round of overtime.  Advantage time from regulation did not carry forward to overtime, rather it started over.  There was no score in the first sudden victory period.  There was no score in the subsequent two 30-second tiebreaker periods.  Because both Latona and Treaster rode each other out for 30 seconds, neither wrestler accumulated one minute of riding time to earn a point.  They went into the second round of overtime.  There was no score in the second sudden victory period.  Latona rode out Treaster for 30 seconds in the first tie-breaker period.  Latona then chose neutral for the next tie-breaker period because he knew the rules that if he ended the round with 1 or more advantage time seconds, he would win the match.  Neither Latona or Treaster could secure the takedown.  Latona was given 1 pt and won the match.  

See http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WR20.pdf for the overtime rules.  The rules do not specify that 1 point should be given when advantage time is less than one minute in the second round of overtime.  Latona had 30 seconds of time advantage and won the match regardless of the 1 point given.

Latona came super close (video replay required) to scoring a takedown in OT but no points were awarded due to the time running out.  I was rooting for Treaster.  He is from Kansas and his 4-time HS state champ, college AA) dad helped coach me some nights when I was a young kid. (like 30 years back)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jross said:

Latona and Treaster were tied after the first three periods and went into the first round of overtime.  Advantage time from regulation did not carry forward to overtime, rather it started over.  There was no score in the first sudden victory period.  There was no score in the subsequent two 30-second tiebreaker periods.  Because both Latona and Treaster rode each other out for 30 seconds, neither wrestler accumulated one minute of riding time to earn a point.  They went into the second round of overtime.  There was no score in the second sudden victory period.  Latona rode out Treaster for 30 seconds in the first tie-breaker period.  Latona then chose neutral for the next tie-breaker period because he knew the rules that if he ended the round with 1 or more advantage time seconds, he would win the match.  Neither Latona or Treaster could secure the takedown.  Latona was given 1 pt and won the match.  

See http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WR20.pdf for the overtime rules.  The rules do not specify that 1 point should be given when advantage time is less than one minute in the second round of overtime.  Latona had 30 seconds of time advantage and won the match regardless of the 1 point given.

Latona came super close (video replay required) to scoring a takedown in OT but no points were awarded due to the time running out.  I was rooting for Treaster.  He is from Kansas and his 4-time HS state champ, college AA) dad helped coach me some nights when I was a young kid. (like 30 years back)

So it was a scoring mistake as I suggested. A lot of people think it's a point but you get it only if a minute or more (and only after 7 minutes for those that want to give riding to a tf less than 7 minutes). I was just wondering if something else came into play there but sounds like it didn't.

Share this post


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

Thanks for the clarification.  How was the match outcome determined if a period resulted in a tie?

Mostly the same as the criteria we have today. Highest value, least cautions, last point scored. The order did get tweaked from year to year, not sure exactly what it was off the top of my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 6:05 AM, Plasmodium said:

This situation always plays out with plenty of time on the clock.   Sure, the one who gets put on the clock last is at a disadvantage - but in a match where he or she didn't score a point.  A reasonable person can't cry foul if they didn't score a point in 6 minutes of wrestling.  At any rate, I can't recall a match being decided like that.

You dont recall it because it puts unreasonable pressure to risk on one guy more than the other, which leads to a mistake, usually by the guy who is called 2nd.  If I get put on passivity first, I know 100% that the other guys is going to have to start taking way more risks and Im just going to wait to capitalize.  Watch how many times in modern wrestling, one guy gets hit for passivity and there as absolutely no way to tell who is being more passive.  In fact, it is overwhelming common to see the guy who is more aggressive in the 2nd get hit for passivity for the exact reason I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT (preferably the sudden death type) is better for the sport in terms of optics and holding the interest of casual fans. Either OT or criteria are better than ending in a tie, and all are better than the old freestyle clinch, haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you like wrestling's tiebreaker rules versus those in these other 1.1 sports?

Fencing
If the score is tied when time runs out then the director determines priority randomly (coin flip). After priority is determined the fencers bout for one minute. If a point is scored, then that fencer wins, however if no points are scored then the fencer with priority wins.  During regulation, there is also a concept of priority to help determine who scores a point, the rules are somewhat convoluted, and their interpretation is a source of much acrimony.  Generally the attack is favored over a counter-attack.

Judo
In the case of a tie in competition judo, the match proceeds to Golden Score, another form of Sudden Death. Sudden Death in competition Judo consists of a 5 minute long match, during which the first competitor to achieve a score is awarded the match. Penalties in Judo award points to the other competitor, making fair-play of absolute importance. If no victor is decided in Golden Score, the match is decided based on a Referee's Decision. A Referee's Decision is a vote amongst the Referee and both Judges of the match.

Handball
When a tie needs to be broken in handball, two straight 5-minute overtimes are played. If the teams are still tied after that, this overtime procedure is repeated once more; a further draw will result in a penalty shootout.

Karate
If a match is tied at the end of two minutes, a sudden victory (first person to score a point) overtime period will determine the match.

Share this post


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

OT (preferably the sudden death type) is better for the sport in terms of optics and holding the interest of casual fans. Either OT or criteria are better than ending in a tie, and all are better than the old freestyle clinch, haha.

I wasn't following wrestling when the ball-pull and leg-clinch was a thing.  What was wrong about it?  Was it taking to much time for the wrestlers to jockey for position?  Was it a problem that each wrestler was not given the same opportunity to start with the clinch?

For those interested, this article explains the enforcement of penalties for inactivity and also describes why cumulative score is preferred to the best-of-three-period format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of overtime.  It won't make for boring matches if the refs are good and call stalling.  I think the sport of wrestling is trying to make itself for exciting to gain fans.  Going with criteria is not way to do it.  There are so many ways a wrestler be cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:49 PM, jross said:

How do you like wrestling's tiebreaker rules versus those in these other 1.1 sports?

Fencing
If the score is tied when time runs out then the director determines priority randomly (coin flip). After priority is determined the fencers bout for one minute. If a point is scored, then that fencer wins, however if no points are scored then the fencer with priority wins.  During regulation, there is also a concept of priority to help determine who scores a point, the rules are somewhat convoluted, and their interpretation is a source of much acrimony.  Generally the attack is favored over a counter-attack.

Judo
In the case of a tie in competition judo, the match proceeds to Golden Score, another form of Sudden Death. Sudden Death in competition Judo consists of a 5 minute long match, during which the first competitor to achieve a score is awarded the match. Penalties in Judo award points to the other competitor, making fair-play of absolute importance. If no victor is decided in Golden Score, the match is decided based on a Referee's Decision. A Referee's Decision is a vote amongst the Referee and both Judges of the match.

Handball
When a tie needs to be broken in handball, two straight 5-minute overtimes are played. If the teams are still tied after that, this overtime procedure is repeated once more; a further draw will result in a penalty shootout.

Karate
If a match is tied at the end of two minutes, a sudden victory (first person to score a point) overtime period will determine the match.

Karate and Handball are basically sudden victory.  In in favor of that.  I'm not sure what the "golden score" means in judo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 2:31 PM, jross said:

I wasn't following wrestling when the ball-pull and leg-clinch was a thing.  What was wrong about it?  Was it taking to much time for the wrestlers to jockey for position?  Was it a problem that each wrestler was not given the same opportunity to start with the clinch?

For those interested, this article explains the enforcement of penalties for inactivity and also describes why cumulative score is preferred to the best-of-three-period format.

The winner was decided by pulling a colored ball from a bag...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did they do in the golden years?  Was it they had to wrestle another match?  They should do that.  Make them go another 7 minutes.  
 

I think they should take away the ride outs and just wrestle another FULL 2 minute period.  Too many wrestlers content with overtime, and trying to get through SV so they can get to the ride out.  If no score after that period, another 2 min period.  With stall rules it shouldn’t get to that.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder, and maybe first time knowledge for those born when men had only been on earth, the ultimate tiebreaker was a vote of three refs. In the 1976 Olympics the one seesion of Judo I was at was the same way. Two refs would hold ultimately a red or blue flag, if they were opposite colors, the ref would point, ina very dignified manner, to the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly a big outlier here but if we had Criteria in 04 we would have never gotten that beautiful display put on by Brandon Paulson and Dennis Hall.  My favorite wrestling match of all time. 
 

That said I’m more of a fan of the criteria. Like has been said if showing a tie score in the result is the biggest problem, add a criteria point. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criteria sucks, but it isn’t just because of the whole “seeing a winner when there’s a tied score”. It’s just confusing for casual fans, and further complicates a sport where even long-time fans often can’t agree on what constitutes a takedown, turn or passivity. Sudden death OT is straightforward and simple. It’s gripping and it’s easy for new fans, folks who watch folkstyle but not FS/GR and the most technical & sophisticated fans to understand.

Also the idea that criteria creates more action is a fallacy, at least in a tournament format. The pace of international tournaments is fast by design. Wrestlers sometimes just get the minimum 20 mins of rest before their next match, so there’s already an incentive to get their matches over as quickly as possible and move on. Wrestlers who push for OT and try to play the endurance game would be punished because they’ll have nothing for their next opponent.

OT > Criteria by a mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LJB said:

i am curious who these "casual fans" are that so many base their suspect opinions around?

For starters, try watching an international match with a non-wrestling fan and try explaining criteria to them and see how long it take for their eyes to glaze over. The sport is going to be on display for a global audience this summer.

Share this post


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

For starters, try watching an international match with a non-wrestling fan and try explaining criteria to them and see how long it take for their eyes to glaze over. The sport is going to be on display for a global audience this summer.

there are no "casual" wrestling fans... it is a common fallacy in weak arguments... wrestling is a niche' sport and it always will be... get over it...

and if in then unlikely circumstance i am ever watching an international event with a non-fan of wrestling and they can not comprehend the concept of criteria, i won't be chatting with them about anything else because they are clearly just intelligent enough to keep breathing while asleep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LJB said:

there are no "casual" wrestling fans... it is a common fallacy in weak arguments... wrestling is a niche' sport and it always will be... get over it...

and if in then unlikely circumstance i am ever watching an international event with a non-fan of wrestling and they can not comprehend the concept of criteria, i won't be chatting with them about anything else because they are clearly just intelligent enough to keep breathing while asleep...

Oh you mean the same way J’Den Cox and his corner didn’t understand the criteria rules in Rio? It arguably cost him a shot at the finals.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...