Jump to content
Crotalus

Is the Dean Heil rule a complete success?

Is the Dean Heil rule a complete success?  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Dean Heil rule a complete success?

    • Yes
      35
    • No
      6
    • Needs tweaking
      4


Recommended Posts

Watching Deakin's semifinal match had me thinking that this is one of the best rule changes in recent years. My time was just before all this leg pass nonsense got so popular and I always hated watching guys lay on their backs waiting for stalemates. I'm not sure if the rule is perfect, but I can't think of a match where the call wasn't warranted. The 5 second danger count is plenty of time for a guy to keep working through the position or let go of a leg and give up 2 instead of 6. Are there folks out there that don't like this rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best rule changes ever imo. Let's guys still pull off that type of technique as long as they can get somewhere with it, but doesn't let people hang out on their back and wait for a stalemate. We see exponentially fewer stalemates these days because it incentivizes activity from both wrestlers in a scramble

Share this post


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

I like the rule, but I believe the count is only 3 seconds.  A really quick 3-count cost Eierman a semi-final match against Yanni a couple years ago.

Ah, yes. You are correct. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Agree yes it's good.  Only downside is I've seen a few instances where wrestlers thought they had their opponent in danger but it was actually themselves in danger

Totally agree. There is the occasional exception, but the rule is clearly a good solution. I think tweaking it would be harmful, as the exceptions are rare. 
  
next let’s fix random stalling calls. 

Share this post


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

Like the rule, enforcement thusfar is hit or miss.  Refs often won't start counting for a few seconds.

True, but to me the goal was to stop the stalemate, so whether it is 5 seconds or 8 seconds doesn’t matter that much

Share this post


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

Like the rule, enforcement thusfar is hit or miss.  Refs often won't start counting for a few seconds.

In defense of the refs, they have to first determine "danger"  and then clearly announce it before starting the count.  The way I was told is it really is a 5 second minimum(this can get closer to 8-10 seconds due to the ref making sure every aspect fits the danger criteria) allowing for at least 2 seconds to respond to danger before the count.  The key component being the bottom wrestler needs to first KNOW he is in danger and that a count is imminent.  

So, after the above, that is why it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for this to be reviewed.  You would have to have BOTH a clear view and clear sound of when danger was first announced and then the time after that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a situation where the "Danger rule"  would be great if enforced from a bottom position and you get in a scramble working for a reversal.   There was a guy exposed from top, but he didn't surrender a reversal...it was extremely close to being one, but not rewarded based on rule interpretation. 

Share this post


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

I saw a situation where the "Danger rule"  would be great if enforced from a bottom position and you get in a scramble working for a reversal.   There was a guy exposed from top, but he didn't surrender a reversal...it was extremely close to being one, but not rewarded based on rule interpretation. 

Huge difference between neutral danger and riding danger.  Remember, everyone wants to see the top man trying to score and turn, if you add a danger feature you are only going to see top guys riding parallel even more so.  On top of that, how do you differentiate when the bottom man is the ONLY guy in danger?  Remember, the top man is nearly always exposing his back when he is tilting his opponent.  I just think you would be creating an absolute mess for a ref if he needs to start looking for a danger call on the top guy, then a reversal, then nearfall when the bottom guy could regain control almost immediately.

Remember, there still is the defensive fall call.  I think that is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point.  I think we need to add to the count on the leg from top.  Parallel on  a guy and not doing anything should warrant a count to 5 and then a stall.  If you have legs in,  slightly different perhaps and warn with a caution,  but too many individuals just laying on top is super boring and doesn't help our sport. 

Share this post


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

Great point.  I think we need to add to the count on the leg from top.  Parallel on  a guy and not doing anything should warrant a count to 5 and then a stall.  If you have legs in,  slightly different perhaps and warn with a caution,  but too many individuals just laying on top is super boring and doesn't help our sport. 

I would like to see a parallel ride last maybe 10 seconds and if no improvement restart. Whether boots are in or not. Give the top a guy a legit chance to improve if he doesn't restart. That would also put pressure on officials to call stalling on the bottom guy more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Housebuye said:

 
next let’s fix random stalling calls. 

How big is your toolbelt?  :)

It's really bad.  And you nailed it -- it's random, which is why it isn't just frustrating, but at times can undermine the integrity of the sport.

[INSERT FREESTYLE DEBATE HERE.]

Share this post


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

I would like to see a parallel ride last maybe 10 seconds and if no improvement restart. Whether boots are in or not. Give the top a guy a legit chance to improve if he doesn't restart. That would also put pressure on officials to call stalling on the bottom guy more often.

Penn St. is notorious for trapping the leg and just sitting on it.  Happened to Romero against Starocci.  It is stalling, plain and simple.  I don’t know why the refs don’t call it.  He tried to do nothing with it but kill time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome rule.  Most guys just don't lay on their backs, and a few guys are forced to bail out of bad position and give up the takedown.  Either way it rarely has to actually be called, and that makes it a perfect rule.  It just closed the loophole instead of creating a bunch of no control takedowns.  Perfect rule and perfect impact on the actual wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that this rule change has been helpful. 

I'm now most concerned about the quick stalemate calls.  So many times stalemate was called during basic tie ups and shot penetrations.  Part of wrestling (folkstyle) is actually wrestling out of those seemingly dead end situations.  Let them wrestle!  You know a true stalemate when you see it, but during a freaking tie up.  C'mon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, treep2000 said:

Agreed that this rule change has been helpful. 

I'm now most concerned about the quick stalemate calls.  So many times stalemate was called during basic tie ups and shot penetrations.  Part of wrestling (folkstyle) is actually wrestling out of those seemingly dead end situations.  Let them wrestle!  You know a true stalemate when you see it, but during a freaking tie up.  C'mon...

I second this.  I'd add that sometimes it's very clear one guy is trying to create a stalemate while the other guy is trying to advance position.  I'm not sure ignoring it and wasting a period with 2 guys squeezing each other is the answer.  I'm not sure there is a helpful answer for this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to make a new rule for stalling. I'd you get hit with your second, you also lose your riding time point. I realize that the opponent already gets a point for it. But it'll cut down on the ride-flee-win strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 10:38 AM, XiXiTiger said:

I like the rule, but I believe the count is only 3 seconds.  A really quick 3-count cost Eierman a semi-final match against Yanni a couple years ago.

The Neutral Danger protocol is that the action needs to settle there beyond reaction time and then the official will verbally announce "Danger" followed by the color of the wrestler in danger. Once "Danger" has been announced it is then followed by a three count. So, it should realistically be more like a 5-6 second scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Swayz said:

I saw a situation where the "Danger rule"  would be great if enforced from a bottom position and you get in a scramble working for a reversal.   There was a guy exposed from top, but he didn't surrender a reversal...it was extremely close to being one, but not rewarded based on rule interpretation. 

The rule is called "Neutral Danger Zone" for a reason. It only applies when the wrestlers are in the neutral position.

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...