Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tommygun

Overtime: Sudden Victory

Recommended Posts

Agree 100% with Husker_Du - Make them wrestle on their feet until someone scores or quits

This simply wouldn't work for every event, but I would be in favor of this being instituted for the NCAA finals.

 

 

Dake vs Howe this summer was incredibly exciting even without much scoring. "Howe is this match still going? I can't Dake it anymore" indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be one minute SV (as there is now), and two 30 second tie breakers (as there are now) but that the riding time should be calculated to determine the winner after the first OT periods (instead of waiting until after the second round of tie-breakers). In the event of a first OT tiebreaker being even then a second SV and TB would be contested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back ~25 years back when they first started doing OT they tried unlimited SV period at some tourney. They ended up sending kids to the hospital.

I see results in the NCAA brackets on Boomer's website with OT as early as 1957 (57 years ago). Are you referring to a specific OT rule change that occurred ~25 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree - rideouts are way too subjective, often hinging on stalling judgement calls. Add the pushout rule and SV would rarely, if ever, last as long as the current format.

 

Didn't read the whole thread, but this piqued my interest. Unlimited time SV on your feet, with the same 1pt step-out that freestyle has. I like the 30 second rideout in high school, but watching D1 guys play "who can kill more time on the ankle/merkel ride" sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back ~25 years back when they first started doing OT they tried unlimited SV period at some tourney. They ended up sending kids to the hospital.

I see results in the NCAA brackets on Boomer's website with OT as early as 1957 (57 years ago). Are you referring to a specific OT rule change that occurred ~25 years ago?

 

I meant when they first started the Tie Breaker stuff around 25 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to include all positions, think about this. Right now, we have 1-:30-:30 and if tied 1-:30-:30 again -- 4 minutes total.

 

Why make the whole thing a lot more simple and give the wrestlers more time to score with 2-1-1?

 

First overtime: 2 minutes of sudden victory. Most matches would be decided here. If still tied...

Top-bottom: 1 minute each wrestler. Riding time still wins but now you have 1 full minute on top so dropping to ankles and holding on is not as easy. If riding time is equal, then go back to repeat cycle...

 

This is EXACTLY the same as what we have now, only it's not broken up so much so that nothing can really happen. We all know that having twelve :10 periods to score is not the same as 2 minutes continuous. The more breaks in the action, the harder it is to generate scoring.

 

I think all positions need to be a part of overtime. I just don't see why we can't give the athletes a little longer to do something to win the match, rather than put so much pressure on the referee to make calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you really want to include all positions, think about this. Right now, we have 1-:30-:30 and if tied 1-:30-:30 again -- 4 minutes total.

 

Why make the whole thing a lot more simple and give the wrestlers more time to score with 2-1-1?

 

First overtime: 2 minutes of sudden victory. Most matches would be decided here. If still tied...

Top-bottom: 1 minute each wrestler. Riding time still wins but now you have 1 full minute on top so dropping to ankles and holding on is not as easy. If riding time is equal, then go back to repeat cycle...

 

This is EXACTLY the same as what we have now, only it's not broken up so much so that nothing can really happen. We all know that having twelve :10 periods to score is not the same as 2 minutes continuous. The more breaks in the action, the harder it is to generate scoring.

 

I think all positions need to be a part of overtime. I just don't see why we can't give the athletes a little longer to do something to win the match, rather than put so much pressure on the referee to make calls.

+1

I really I like this idea too Adam. Fewer breaks in action may also mean conditioning becomes more of a factor than it already is in OT. Do you think the NCAA rules committee would also need to include a point of emphasis on the need to actually call stalling in these 1 minute ride out periods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you really want to include all positions, think about this. Right now, we have 1-:30-:30 and if tied 1-:30-:30 again -- 4 minutes total.

 

Why make the whole thing a lot more simple and give the wrestlers more time to score with 2-1-1?

 

First overtime: 2 minutes of sudden victory. Most matches would be decided here. If still tied...

Top-bottom: 1 minute each wrestler. Riding time still wins but now you have 1 full minute on top so dropping to ankles and holding on is not as easy. If riding time is equal, then go back to repeat cycle...

 

This is EXACTLY the same as what we have now, only it's not broken up so much so that nothing can really happen. We all know that having twelve :10 periods to score is not the same as 2 minutes continuous. The more breaks in the action, the harder it is to generate scoring.

 

I think all positions need to be a part of overtime. I just don't see why we can't give the athletes a little longer to do something to win the match, rather than put so much pressure on the referee to make calls.

+1

I really I like this idea too Adam. Fewer breaks in action may also mean conditioning becomes more of a factor than it already is in OT. Do you think the NCAA rules committee would also need to include a point of emphasis on the need to actually call stalling in these 1 minute ride out periods?

 

I think you have them call stalling the same way it's done in regulation. To me, it's crazy that we change our stalling/stalemate rules to accomodate extremely short OT periods. Call stalling in the Sudden Victory (neutral) OT if only 1 guy is trying to score. Call it in the tiebreaker OT as well, the same as you would in the 2nd period of a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the era of the rideout, OT was 1-1-1. If tied at the end it was a referee and two judges decision. I'd like to go back to that, except instead of the referee's decision, i'd make it who scored first in the match would be the winner. That would encourage more activity in the first period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the era of the rideout, OT was 1-1-1. If tied at the end it was a referee and two judges decision. I'd like to go back to that, except instead of the referee's decision, i'd make it who scored first in the match would be the winner. That would encourage more activity in the first period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the era of the rideout, OT was 1-1-1. If tied at the end it was a referee and two judges decision. I'd like to go back to that, except instead of the referee's decision, i'd make it who scored first in the match would be the winner. That would encourage more activity in the first period.

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...