Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not to beat a dead horse, I realize a lot of folks like criteria as is, but I still think it's confusing to the average fan. I've seen matches as recently as the past couple months where world class wrestlers don't realize they've lost.

I think a good compromise would be to use the existing criteria rules to put someone on the shot clock for 30 seconds.

So maybe, at the 6:00 mark, the "criteria winner" has choice of who is to be put on the shot clock. (Of course nobody would choose themselves. Would they?) Then they wrestle an additional 30 seconds to break the tie.

This is kinda/sorta like the 30-second "Ultimate Tiebreaker" rideout/escape that U.S. high school rules use to break ties.

Edited by wnywrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to beat a dead horse, I realize a lot of folks like criteria as is, but I still think it's confusing to the average fan. I've seen matches as recently as the past couple months where world class wrestlers don't realize they've lost. I think a good compromise would be to use the existing criteria rules to put someone on the shot clock for 30 seconds. So maybe, at the 6:00 mark, the "criteria winner" has choice of who is to be put on the shot clock. (Of course nobody would choose themselves. Would they?) Then they wrestle an additional 30 seconds to break the tie. This is kinda/sorta like the 30-second "Ultimate Tiebreaker" rideout/escape that U.S. high school rules use to break ties. 

 

 

 

Rule enforcement conversations (step outs, shot-clock, etc..) I'm all for (but not criteria)We've done this one too much.

I like the criteria win system

Also can we start saying "folkstyle fans" instead of "casual fan"

I really get bothered by that .

"Hey in this sport that is only wrestled in the United States we end our matches differently, it's too confusing to watch at the higher level, the only way the sport can grow is to end this madness"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

If criteria is confusing to you, how does using it for your solution help?

I've come around.  Criteria is better than overtime.

The time I heard criteria explained as "someone is always behind" it made perfect sense to me and I came around to preferring criteria.

No passive ends to close matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the current approach.  Makes the end of matches exciting often.  That said, I get that it is hard to be a casual fan and follow it.  Wonder if some adjustment can be made to the scoreboard / scoring to help make it more clear that there was not a ‘tie’ .... the underline doesn’t seem to be doing it.

Share this post


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

If criteria is confusing to you, how does using it for your solution help?

I've come around.  Criteria is better than overtime.

Because the score does not end up tied, as it does now. A score of 4-4 is certainly confusing.

(I could be wrong, but I think in one of James Green's matches against Yianni, he thought he won. If not, it was another match that night.)

 

EDIT: Yes it was Green.

https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6833703-65-kg-semifinal-yianni-diakomihalis-spartan-combat-rtc-vs-james-green-njrtcsertc

Edited by wnywrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the score does not end up tied, as it does now. A score of 4-4 is certainly confusing.
(I could be wrong, but I think in one of James Green's matches against Yianni, he thought he won. If not, it was another match that night.)
 
EDIT: Yes it was Green.
https://www.flowrestling.org/video/6833703-65-kg-semifinal-yianni-diakomihalis-spartan-combat-rtc-vs-james-green-njrtcsertc
There is no tie in criteria. Someone is always winning or losing, they're never tied.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think adding a 30 second period with one guy on the shot clock is going to lead to the other guy trying to defend which will lead to a lot of passivity calls determining matches which will lead to more naked mongolians. I'm fine with criteria. It is the coaches responsibility to know whether their guy is winning or losing and communicate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it more confusing than the riding time point? Granted we should add the point at the end just like that.

I wouldn’t mind seeing unlimited sudden death OT for PPVs and finals, but OT in tournaments is certainly not worth the extra time.

Now, as far as criteria itself goes, I think we could simplify it to first point scored being the only criteria. Simple, Rewards early action, and all other points count the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

0-0 

I assume you are joking about early in a match, but it raised the question for me if you can end 0-0? I know it is improbable with the shot clock, but is it impossible? Can there be enough back and forth action without any ultimate scoring to prevent anyone from being put on the shot clock? Or is it mandatory that in the absence of scoring someone has to be put on the shot clock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume you are joking about early in a match, but it raised the question for me if you can end 0-0? I know it is improbable with the shot clock, but is it impossible? Can there be enough back and forth action without any ultimate scoring to prevent anyone from being put on the shot clock? Or is it mandatory that in the absence of scoring someone has to be put on the shot clock?

Someone has to, by rule, be put on the clock by the end of the second minute of a scoreless match. A 0-0 final is proscribed by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I can't believe I am typing this.  You see, I love criteria.  I love the wrestling it rewards, and the wrestling it creates.  I love how it gives a feet to back action an advantage that is only surmountable in the event of a tie by another feet to back, or better yet a grand amplitude action.  I love the urgency it creates late in matches, where the tying action changes the winner.  Coupled with a firm penalty for stepping off the wrestling area, attacking for or fending off a match changing score has lead to some of the best action and exchanges in my lifetime of wrestling viewership.  And don't get me started on the alternative, two athletes avoiding risk in a silent agreement to watch a clock wind down and settle a match in a sudden death over time period.  I will die on the hill that criteria creates the best wrestling and correctly values the most dynamic actions.

So, it is with great pain that I recommend we return to sudden death overtime in event of a tie.  Our casual fanbase can't understand criteria and our die hard fanbase is divided.  Most of all, our untapped fanbase can't wrap their heads around criteria.  We can't effectively explain criteria to now-adult but once-active high school wrestlers before they put on folkstyle, the Red Sox, or even the NBA.  We have so little hope with the general, never-wrestling-affiliated sports fan it's not even worth discussing.

It is a sad moment for me to say all this.  I am recommending a huge concession of quality.  But I love this sport and want everyone to experience and enjoy watching as much as I do.  I guess there are some instances in life where you have to trade qualify for consumability.

Edited by JHRoseWrestling
Typo of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JHRoseWrestling said:

Ok, I can't believe I am typing this.  You see, I love criteria.  I love the wrestling it rewards, and the wrestling it creates.  I love how it gives a feet to back action an advantage that is only surmountable in the event of a tie by another feet to back, or better yet a grand amplitude action.  I love the urgency it creates late in matches, where the tying action changes the winner.  Coupled with a firm penalty for stepping off the wrestling area, attacking for or fending off a match changing score has lead to some of the best action and exchanges in my lifetime of wrestling viewership.  And don't get me started on the alternative, two athletes avoiding risk in a silent agreement to watch a clock wind down and settle a match in a sudden death over time period.  I will die on the hill that criteria creates the best wrestling and correctly values the most dynamic actions.

So, it is with great pain that I recommend we return to sudden death overtime in event of a tie.  Our casual fanbase can't understand criteria and our die hard fanbase is divided.  Most of all, our untapped fanbase can't wrap their heads around criteria.  We can't effectively explain criteria to now-adult but once-active high school wrestlers before they put on folkstyle, the Red Sox, or even the NBA.  We have so little hope with the general, never-wrestling-affiliated sports fan it's not even worth discussing.

It is a sad moment for me to say all this.  I am recommending a huge concession of quality.  But I love this sport and want everyone to experience and enjoy watching as much as I do.  I guess there are some instances in life where you have to trade qualify for consumability.

I hope no one is turning on the Red Sox after the abomination of a team they fielded this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JHRoseWrestling said:

Our casual fanbase can't understand criteria and our die hard fanbase is divided.  Most of all, our untapped fanbase can't wrap their heads around criteria. 

I'd say it's more of a refusal to understand. Not that it's too difficult to understand. When HS fans watched college, how long did it take to explain the differences in riding time, moves that are legal in college but illegal in high school and the length of periods.There are enough differences between age-groups in folkstyle wrestling that makes failure to "understand" criteria a non-starter for me. 

You watch something enough, and you say you can't understand the criteria, then I don't really have an answer. It takes how many times to understand the rules and differences in rules between styles and age groups of other sports we follow? A couple of times, right? There is zero difference. Constant confusion is just not giving it a chance. It's fine. People who don't want to like criteria will always find a problem with criteria. They're not going to change their minds. It's a refusal, not a "can't understand." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, JasonBryant said:

I'd say it's more of a refusal to understand. Not that it's too difficult to understand. When HS fans watched college, how long did it take to explain the differences in riding time, moves that are legal in college but illegal in high school and the length of periods.There are enough differences between age-groups in folkstyle wrestling that makes failure to "understand" criteria a non-starter for me. 

You watch something enough, and you say you can't understand the criteria, then I don't really have an answer. It takes how many times to understand the rules and differences in rules between styles and age groups of other sports we follow? A couple of times, right? There is zero difference. Constant confusion is just not giving it a chance. It's fine. People who don't want to like criteria will always find a problem with criteria. They're not going to change their minds. It's a refusal, not a "can't understand." 

I agree that criteria doesn’t seem so bad (if not better), and isn’t too hard to understand.   It does get a little harder to understand when trying to remember who scored the higher scoring move, so I probably wouldn’t hate if they changed it to simply last score has criteria.

But to the point of things being hard to understand, not trying to hijack the thread, but there are quite a few other rules that are harder to understand IMO (I’m trying to get more into FS so not as knowledgeable about the rules) so I feel like criteria is the least of the worries.   Grounded, “correct throws,” seemingly arbitrary shot clocks, etc are all harder to understand than criteria IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

casual fans, such that they even exist, don't care about any of the rules. they just want to see cool wrestling, which criteria encourages because it ensures someone is always losing late in a match, and OT discourages, because people will play it safe so as to not blow when there is still a chance to sneak a win in rideouts or what have you. 

explaining new rules is the most overrated reason to not adopt a new rule in any sport. no one can figure out the rules of cricket just by watching it. try it, I dare you. There are also three very distinct rules sets that vary the length of a contest from five days, to 1 day to 2 hours. and yet its far more popular than wrestling by orders of magnitude. then there's american football. try explaining the rules to an uninitiated person in under 30 minutes. impossible. then explain the basics of wrestling. 2 minutes tops. and yet football is also orders of magnitude more popular than wrestling.

Just add the criteria point at the end of a freestyle or greco match the same way they do in college matches after you finish the second set of tiebreakers when the score is still tied and all these problems go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought i was done and then i got to thinking about folkstyle rules and now i'm mad. i made myself mad online and that's a shame but too late now I'm already typing. so, if we can't implements "confusing" rules that encourage action and discourages stalling, why was the horrible out of bounds rules adopted without any uproar? why did with create the neutral danger rule? why is there locking hands but not when the bottom man tries to induce locking hands? why is there an entirely separate clock that just counting riding time which has an entire rulebook unto itself? 

why is it cool to adopt confusing and mostly bad new rules for folkstyle as long as they haven't been tried before but not okay to adopt good rules that work in freestyle and greco? none of this can ever be adequately explained to me and i will be forever mad at it.

okay now i'm done. thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they use criteria (and not OT) they could help quite a bit by awarding 1 point for criteria. That way, instead of the Yianni winning 4-4, which looks wrong or like a typo, he would win 5-4 (criteria).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

i thought i was done and then i got to thinking about folkstyle rules and now i'm mad. i made myself mad online and that's a shame but too late now I'm already typing. so, if we can't implements "confusing" rules that encourage action and discourages stalling, why was the horrible out of bounds rules adopted without any uproar? why did with create the neutral danger rule? why is there locking hands but not when the bottom man tries to induce locking hands? why is there an entirely separate clock that just counting riding time which has an entire rulebook unto itself? 

why is it cool to adopt confusing and mostly bad new rules for folkstyle as long as they haven't been tried before but not okay to adopt good rules that work in freestyle and greco? none of this can ever be adequately explained to me and i will be forever mad at it.

okay now i'm done. thank you. 

You’re just talking about criteria right?  Not other rules in FS?

When the announcers often aren’t sure what’s been scored, I think it’s safe to say there are some rules that can be improved on.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


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

Even if they use criteria (and not OT) they could help quite a bit by awarding 1 point for criteria. That way, instead of the Yianni winning 4-4, which looks wrong or like a typo, he would win 5-4 (criteria).

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just "no." Are you a king? Why no?
 
I think he is saying "no" because any wrestling fan with common sense sees a 4-4 win and says "he won on criteria" not "is this a typo" .
But I guess if some person who was not interested in wrestling happened to see a score they would have to have it explained to them.
But I don't think their interest would be any greater if they say 5-4 on paper

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...