Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigApple

Redefine What Is Control

Recommended Posts

A change was made this year that when the offensive wrestler was in on a leg and the defending wrestler has just a finger tip touch the mat even with a whizzer in it is a takedown.

 

Yet when a wrestler is flat on his back for at least two seconds and the other wrestler is on top but doesn't have and arm on arm, but leg on an arm it isn't control (Howe versus Perry) it seems to me that perhaps the coaches need to revisit exactly what is and isn't control.

 

Any comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think before making any more changes they need to solidify the changes in regards to the "Oliver takedown" and what you posted "A change was made this year that when the offensive wrestler was in on a leg and the defending wrestler has just a finger tip touch the mat even with a whizzer in it is a takedown."

 

This season I have witnessed the same ref award TDs and then not award TDs in similar situations.

Biggest discrepancy seems to be in covering both ankles/lower legs when the defending wrestler is in a split or hurdler position; the refs aren't consistent when the offensive wrestler grabs the far ankle. I've seen that be awarded 2 and not be awarded 2. And frankly, I'm not sure what it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about creating a 1 point for exposure when a wrestler goes to his back to avoid a takedown. What i'm seeing is a lot of diving under to avoid the takedown, hoping to score or at least stalemate. What Delgado did was smart the way the referees are calling matches, but it is not "counter" wrestling as I learned to enjoy watching LewBoo and Wade Schalles do counter offensive moves.

 

Right now the smart wrestlers aren't shooting unless they are almost certain they'll score, or only when they have to win a match. Cael was right the referees are ruining the sport for spectators the way the rules are being enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that if you are neutral and you allow your back to be exposed long enough for a count, then control should start.

 

These guys that grab a leg and then roll to their back holding the leg by their face with their own back exposed should be giving up points.

 

Just my opinion......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This season I have witnessed the same ref award TDs and then not award TDs in similar situations.

Biggest discrepancy seems to be in covering both ankles/lower legs when the defending wrestler is in a split or hurdler position; the refs aren't consistent when the offensive wrestler grabs the far ankle. I've seen that be awarded 2 and not be awarded 2. And frankly, I'm not sure what it should be.

 

Per the new rules, it should be a TD, but I agree that it is not consistently called one way or the other, which is very frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They definitely need to make a scoring situation out of a wrestler being on his back for an extended time, with or without being in neutral. NF, not a TD.

 

THIS.

 

Even if the ref said something to the effect to "RED/BLUE DANGER" and gave them an immediate instruction to prove that they could get off of their back it would be better than the ridiculous situation which pretty much everyone in this thread has pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother was sitting in the upper level at the Big 12. Next to him was a couple that had driven up from texas. The woman didn't know much about wrestling as she asked how many periods there were. After the Howe vs. Perry match she said you'd think one of his 75 takedowns would have counted. An we wonder why we have trouble attracting fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a sport where the ultimate goal is to pin the opponent, you'd think there would be a reward for keeping an opponent on his back. Well, that's what near-fall is supposed to do, but it's crazy when a guy can stay on his back and there are no points. Many scramble situations with no TD awarded are actually much "nearer" to a fall than most tilts.

 

Most folkstyle fans have made it clear that they don't want exposure like in freestyle, because they like the control element. That's fine, but we've now equated "control" with "takedown". There's no reason there can't be different definitions of control for different situations. Holding a guy on his back, even if for just a few seconds, takes control. We should just make a rule where the referee starts a count when a wrestler is exposed. And somewhere in the 2-3 sec vicinity, 1 point should be awarded (the exact time could be argued, but if it's too long, it will be a worthless rule). Rolling across your back in scrambles will still be fine, but you can't afford to get stuck on your back. So if the score was 0-0, wrestler A shoots in and wrester B rolls underneath and gets stuck for 3 seconds before rolling through and holding the leg for a stalemate, they would be back on their feet (no TD) but the score is now 1-0. It would make many stalemates less frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this idea is the right way to do it. But I agree that something needs to be done to shift the risk/reward of a shot attempt back towards the offensive wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absolute last thing we need to do is add any rule or situation where the officials need to interpret anything. The best thing that could happen to the rules and case book would be to get rid of contradictions i.e. locked or clasped hands good sometimes penalized others. Penalizing the wrestler who causes a PD by failing to give way thereby putting himself in danger by awarding the take down or NF. OB is penalized immediately on the defending wrestler, regardless whose body part goes out when. Top must release legs as soon as bottom stands or escape awarded and neutral start. Rules to be enforced IN EVERY CASE. Less rules clearly written. One rule interpreted very badly is the multiple tilt to NF award. Just what constitutes recovery? What exactly is an escape? and at which pt can defense score 1&2 instead of only being given a reversal? i.e. simple resolution. Whenever defense goes from bottom to top in a continuous motion it is 3 pts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving this thread. A wrestler can't have their ankles held or touch the mat in a tripod but they can lay on their frigging back and not give up points. Unreal.

 

Folk style fans don't like back exposure roll throughs and I respect that. But if you are laying on your back fir several seconds you should be giving up points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in a sport that lacks action because positioning has gotten so good, several of you believe the answer is to essentially eliminate scrambling defense? The wrestlers that go to their backs to defend shots are taking serious risks and they do get punished for it sometimes.

 

Would you rather see a scramble that ends up in a stalemate? Or the classic stalemate situation where wrestler "A" shoots a single or hi-c and just hangs onto a leg while wrestler "B" sprawls and tries to go behind? I know what most kids and young adults prefer.

 

 

"Perhaps collegiate wrestling could use a little more danger in a day and age when, despite some changes to the scoring rules, there are still far too many seven-minute yawners."

 

http://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/arti ... angerously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This season I have witnessed the same ref award TDs and then not award TDs in similar situations.

Biggest discrepancy seems to be in covering both ankles/lower legs when the defending wrestler is in a split or hurdler position; the refs aren't consistent when the offensive wrestler grabs the far ankle. I've seen that be awarded 2 and not be awarded 2. And frankly, I'm not sure what it should be.

 

Per the new rules, it should be a TD, but I agree that it is not consistently called one way or the other, which is very frustrating.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree, something needs to be done in making that call consistent.

Or eliminating that position as a scoring takedown; after all, it really doesn't seem like the guy that would be scoring has established control. At least that is how I felt when in that situation be it attacking or defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Howe/Perry match is obviously a perfect illustration of how ridiculous folkstyle rules are sometimes. I think the match was called reasonably well from what the rules are, and that just shows how dumb the rules are. Perry should feel like he is in danger there. He should not feel comfortable laying on his back repeatedly just because he is clinging to an ankle. He should feel compelled to bail out and get to his belly, or to risk giving up NF. Instead he is totally content to lie on his back (the worst thing in wrestling). Something needs to change and it is not the ref in the match. That is how it is called 99 times out of 100. The NCAA tournament is filled with guys going to their back in neutral to prevent control, and then dropping to an ankle and riding below the waist to get "riding time" in 50/50 positions that would not get them takedowns from neutral.

 

How can it not be a TD in neutral because there is no control, but the exact same situation gets you riding time for being in control?

 

I like the idea of allowing exposure without a TD (I'd make it a 5 count and make sure the ref is very clear a count has begun). Then guys hear the count and have to decide to bail out or risk it, rather than hanging on for a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where the comments about "not liking funk" or "eliminating scrambling" come from. Establishing a count when near-fall criteria are met in neutral does not eliminate funk or scrambles, it only eliminates sloppy funk and scrambles. Nobody teaches funk in which you stay on your back for 5 seconds or more. That's why it's called a roll-through. Not a roll and get stuck. Askren rolled across his back many times, but I don't remember him getting stuck. Maybe this isn't the right way to go, but an above poster was correct in his assessment that a situation that wouldn't be scored a TD is still considered "in control" on top. And to take it a step further, during scrambles that start from referees position, near-fall is given in many situations where it would not be given from neutral (because no control). Often the top man benefits from a 2 point near fall in which he didn't really do anything, but the bottom guy tried to scramble and got stuck on his back for 2 seconds. This isn't bad, but the same situation from neutral doesn't score anything. I think what everyone wants to see is scoring, whether offensive or defensive. But stalemates, stalling, and playing the edge in neutral are all issues that need to be addressed. If a mat was 100 feet in diameter and the refs just let guys wrestle, some of these issues would take care of themselves. But since it's not, we need to address the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure where the comments about "not liking funk" or "eliminating scrambling" come from. Establishing a count when near-fall criteria are met in neutral does not eliminate funk or scrambles, it only eliminates sloppy funk and scrambles. Nobody teaches funk in which you stay on your back for 5 seconds or more. That's why it's called a roll-through. Not a roll and get stuck. Askren rolled across his back many times, but I don't remember him getting stuck. Maybe this isn't the right way to go, but an above poster was correct in his assessment that a situation that wouldn't be scored a TD is still considered "in control" on top. And to take it a step further, during scrambles that start from referees position, near-fall is given in many situations where it would not be given from neutral (because no control). Often the top man benefits from a 2 point near fall in which he didn't really do anything, but the bottom guy tried to scramble and got stuck on his back for 2 seconds. This isn't bad, but the same situation from neutral doesn't score anything. I think what everyone wants to see is scoring, whether offensive or defensive. But stalemates, stalling, and playing the edge in neutral are all issues that need to be addressed. If a mat was 100 feet in diameter and the refs just let guys wrestle, some of these issues would take care of themselves. But since it's not, we need to address the issues.

 

Those comments come from statements in this very thread such as BigApple saying, "I thought about creating a 1 point for exposure when a wrestler goes to his back to avoid a takedown." Also Fatman saying, "I believe that if you are neutral and you allow your back to be exposed long enough for a count, then control should start." When he says "a count" I believe he means only two seconds.

 

Askren was stopped with his back exposed for two or more seconds a countless amount of times so that was a pretty poor example. Both Delgado and Megaludis had their backs exposed for two seconds while neutral in their match on Sunday. Are all these guys just sloppy wrestlers to you? If you've learned these techniques you should know that just like there are counters to a half nelson or a headlock, there are counters to a leg pass this will slow down the "roll through" so it could take 2-3 seconds. That is not control.

 

Scrambling/Funk/leg passes are very rarely attempted from the bottom position because it is so risky. Give points for short exposure in neutral situations(freestyle) and it'll be just as rare as it is now from bottom.

 

I agree that everyone wants to see more scoring, but artificial points are not the answer. I believe that "funk" and scrambling(and the better wrestlers who use it e.g. Askren and Dylan Ness) are part of the reason wrestling is growing at the youth level. Punishing this technique would be taking a step backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when control is in question, you can't take the judgement of the official out of it. Maybe that is the problem. They have tried to make it so the official doesn't have to use judgement, but instead they are looking for certain things. In the case of the funk, a lot of it should depend on who is in "control" of the situation. When the defensive wrestler hits his back initially, it is by his design, and he should not be penalized, but when he is held there for an extended period of time, that is by the offensive wrestlers design, and he is not being rewarded. In the Howe/Perry match, the first precarious situation was created by Perry where he was greeted by a Howe knee to the chest, then Howe held them there for an extended period of time with Perry trying to complete his funk, but was having difficulty getting to his belly. The official saw that as two, and IMO, that was the correct call. But then, Howe used the entrapped ankle to create a foot half and returned him to danger. That was not by Perry's design, that was by Howe's design. And I don't know what the officials were talking about in the review, but it might have centered around the control aspect if Perry had an ankle entangled, but Howe did control Perry in that situation, but maybe the rules said he didn't? But it was pretty obvious from watching the situation who was in control of that scramble, and it was the offensive wrester, and he was rewarded two and two, and then it was taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a sport where the ultimate goal is to pin the opponent, you'd think there would be a reward for keeping an opponent on his back. Well, that's what near-fall is supposed to do, but it's crazy when a guy can stay on his back and there are no points. Many scramble situations with no TD awarded are actually much "nearer" to a fall than most tilts.

 

Most folkstyle fans have made it clear that they don't want exposure like in freestyle, because they like the control element. That's fine, but we've now equated "control" with "takedown". There's no reason there can't be different definitions of control for different situations. Holding a guy on his back, even if for just a few seconds, takes control. We should just make a rule where the referee starts a count when a wrestler is exposed. And somewhere in the 2-3 sec vicinity, 1 point should be awarded (the exact time could be argued, but if it's too long, it will be a worthless rule). Rolling across your back in scrambles will still be fine, but you can't afford to get stuck on your back. So if the score was 0-0, wrestler A shoots in and wrester B rolls underneath and gets stuck for 3 seconds before rolling through and holding the leg for a stalemate, they would be back on their feet (no TD) but the score is now 1-0. It would make many stalemates less frustrating.

 

YESSS!!!

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...