Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MSU158

The new cradle takedown rule

Recommended Posts

I am all for it. It was called inconsistently all last year. It is a pinning combination by definition. By that definition it should be considered control. That is regardless of your position relative to your opponent. I am all for taking the judgment part out of the equation. If you lock up a move, the move ITSELF is a takedown. No controversy possible.

 

As far as the let it go, lock it up again scenario goes, it would still be viewed like any escape is. The ref is supposed to make you work up to your feet off the front headlock and again make you free your head while standing before awarding the escape. So I do not see any issue with it being a multiple takedown issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all for it. It was called inconsistently all last year. It is a pinning combination by definition. By that definition it should be considered control. That is regardless of your position relative to your opponent. I am all for taking the judgment part out of the equation. If you lock up a move, the move ITSELF is a takedown. No controversy possible.

 

You shouldn't be able to score a takedown out in front of your opponent. Period. Yes, taking judgement out of officiating is good, but we're going to see at least one really terrible example of this rule in a big match. While we probably won't see a lot of wrestlers locking up cradles from way out front on a front head, the rule should still say "hands locked and to the side of your opponent" or something. Thank goodness Ruth and Taylor won't be around for this change, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point but there is an inconsistency as regards another pinning combination that would be a similar situation that is not called control, that being the deep half off of a whizzer counter. That too is a pinning combination that may or may not convert to back points. You can't and don't give control with that move until there's a dump --no knee contact or the whizzer is broken/ineffective.

 

The new cradle td rule is IMO too quick and easy and lacks a dump or breakdown factor, no different than a locked up bear hug, locked up single or locked up double without finishing it. I want more scoring but I want it to be earned without question. It's just a matter of being well-defined in words and pictures in the rules manual. Just locking your hands around body parts ain't enough in my book. There has to be a significant, observable collapse of the support points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the proposal, you have to have a cradle locked and the opponent has to post a hand. This seems reasonable and easy to call.

 

I might change my mind if someone can show me video of a wrestler entirely out in front of his opponent locking up a cradle, with his opponent responding by posting a hand despite never actually being in danger of going toward his back or getting broken down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point but there is an inconsistency as regards another pinning combination that would be a similar situation that is not called control, that being the deep half off of a whizzer counter. That too is a pinning combination that may or may not convert to back points. You can't and don't give control with that move until there's a dump --no knee contact or the whizzer is broken/ineffective.

 

The new cradle td rule is IMO too quick and easy and lacks a dump or breakdown factor, no different than a locked up bear hug, locked up single or locked up double without finishing it. I want more scoring but I want it to be earned without question. It's just a matter of being well-defined in words and pictures in the rules manual. Just locking your hands around body parts ain't enough in my book. There has to be a significant, observable collapse of the support points.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. A cradle IS control. No matter what you are not truly out front of a wrestler if you have their head, most often an arm and their leg bundled to the point you have your hands clasped together and your arms ENCIRCLING them. When someone has a cradle on you do you feel like they are NOT in control? Even the guy with funk expertise is scrambling to get out.

 

I know there will always be people who disagree, but to me this is a no brainer. If the merkle is always considered a takedown than this shouldn't even be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Front and back suplay, a deep locked, lifting bear hug, a double leg or fireman's, entirely lifted up off the mat, are total, full body, head to toe control, but no points are awarded until the move is finished. I'm sure the guy about to get tossed feels completely helpless and out of control, but the ref does not award points until the move is completed. Encirclement strongly suggests and appears to be control, and yes, the opponent is scrambling to get out as a natural reaction to any danger. All I can say is we're being fooled by appearances. I think the new cradle td is more an optical illusion than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Front and back suplay, a deep locked, lifting bear hug, a double leg or fireman's, entirely lifted up off the mat, are total, full body, head to toe control, but no points are awarded until the move is finished. I'm sure the guy about to get tossed feels completely helpless and out of control, but the ref does not award points until the move is completed. Encirclement strongly suggests and appears to be control, and yes, the opponent is scrambling to get out as a natural reaction to any danger. All I can say is we're being fooled by appearances. I think the new cradle td is more an optical illusion than anything else.

 

But the wrestler being cradled is ON the mat. The rule clearly states 3 points on the mat. As soon as the moves you mention get 3 points on the mat they will be takedowns as well.

 

I also believe that you have established control if you have the other wrestler on the mat and are able to bring his knee to his head while encircling the head and leg with your hands locked. At this point it is fair to say the wrestler being cradled is in imminent danger of being put on his back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are in front with a cradle, you are not in control. When you get to the side, in proper position to attempt a legitimate turn, you gain control.

 

If being in front is control, then moving to the side, where any legitimate follow-up move can be attempted, should not be an issue, so there should be no push-back to having side position determine control. The reality is that those in front who remain in front are not there by choice but rather, because they cannot move to the side, i.e. they cannot gain control.

 

That said, having cradles interpreted one way and only that way is better than having points awarded randomly sometimes but not always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a locked cradle as truly being in front of the wrestler. There is no way you are 180 degrees linear with your opponent. Your opponent would have to be sitting on his butt doing the splits with you having a front headlock with the other arm around the leg. I could argue that even though you have the leg and head encircled it is NOT EVEN a cradle at that point. At that point I believe the ref would still be able to decide if it was in fact a cradle and could avoid awarding the takedown at that point.

 

With the above said, if you have an arm behind the opponents knee and the other around his head and are able to clasp your hands, without him sitting directly on his butt in the splits, you are at least partially to the side of your opponent and have established enough, for me at least, to consider it control.

 

In the end I would rather it be a clear cut rule like this so you know to avoid the lock at all costs vs. hoping the ref interprets it the way you think he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see a locked cradle as truly being in front of the wrestler. There is no way you are 180 degrees linear with your opponent. Your opponent would have to be sitting on his butt doing the splits with you having a front headlock with the other arm around the leg. I could argue that even though you have the leg and head encircled it is NOT EVEN a cradle at that point. At that point I believe the ref would still be able to decide if it was in fact a cradle and could avoid awarding the takedown at that point.

 

With the above said, if you have an arm behind the opponents knee and the other around his head and are able to clasp your hands, without him sitting directly on his butt in the splits, you are at least partially to the side of your opponent and have established enough, for me at least, to consider it control.

 

In the end I would rather it be a clear cut rule like this so you know to avoid the lock at all costs vs. hoping the ref interprets it the way you think he should.

re-posting what I wrote on another thread...

 

I think you are going to see a lot of TDs called when there is, in fact, no control. I can see calling the TD if you have a cradle locked up AND you are to the side. (perpendicular to your opponent)

 

However, I don't believe a TD should be called if a cradle is locked and the wrestlers are facing each other. e.g., locking a cradle from a front headlock while still in front of your opponent. That's not control, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSU, we can nitpick how many degrees from 180 to 90 are required to no longer be "in front" but that's semantics. What some of us are trying to say is that there is some point at which a cradle becomes threatening. As opposed to the equivalent of being stuck "in front" with a front headlock locked up but nowhere to go.

 

The exact point of control is subjective. Therefore, those who like consistency will prefer the shotgun approach of calling ANY cradle a TD. But in reality, there are and will continue to be situations where a cradle is locked up but no control is achieved and the hold results in a stalemate that can only be broken if the ineffective cradle with no hope of scoring is released.

 

Since I like consistency, at the margin, I'm OK with the rule change, but I am not going to pretend it's a perfect rule. Those with a bone to pick with the rule have a very valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it doesn't happen often, what about the scenarios where the top may (usually a pretty long wrestler) is able to lock a cradle while the bottom/shooting wrestler is actually in on a shot and has a leg (head outside single/HighC)? Three points would be down, but that position is truly more a stalemate than anything, I rarely see wrestling progress from that position, usually ends in a whistle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it doesn't happen often, what about the scenarios where the top may (usually a pretty long wrestler) is able to lock a cradle while the bottom/shooting wrestler is actually in on a shot and has a leg (head outside single/HighC)? Three points would be down, but that position is truly more a stalemate than anything, I rarely see wrestling progress from that position, usually ends in a whistle...

 

Precisely why not all cradles represent control.

 

There was a 141/149 lber from Lehigh around the time Troy Letters was wrestling who was well over 6 ft tall (looked like a skinnier, longer version of David Taylor). Under the new rules, he could've TFed opponents without ever actually gaining control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not disagree that there are some legitimate concerns. There almost always are. I simply prefer the rule to eliminate judgment as much as possible. As I said before this position was one of, if not the, most inconsistently called last season. Hopefully they will clarify things like if you are still clearly in a defensive position such as on your butt with the opponent in on a shot, you do not truly have a cradle by definition even if you have the head and leg encircled. There is a simple way to clarify the rule without making it subjective.

 

The easiest way would be to clearly define what is considered a cradle position warranting control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the rear standing position not control when it occurs in neutral and control when it occurs as a reversal?

 

Why is a pin to the shoulders when it would be more dominant to pin someone to their stomach?

 

Control is whatever the rulebooks say it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll concede 3 pts on the mat is control, but let's explore one more thing philosophically: Does this new ruling reduce the incentive to use the cradle to pin? Will we get a new kind of td--the bluff--the guy who can lock it up but chickens out the rest of the way? Does this remove some incentive to take the risk to master cradles--and are we creating a new breed of fakers? I still like the equally clear, objective definition of the "hip touching down" which is as easy to see as '3 points on the mat' and more meaningful in reducing faking and encouraging a correct finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still like the equally clear, objective definition of the "hip touching down" which is as easy to see as '3 points on the mat' and more meaningful in reducing faking and encouraging a correct finish.

 

In theory, the original rule - break down to the hip - was clear and objective. In practice, control was awarded before that standard was reached.

 

By the way, I suspect that this rule is actually NOT "3 points on the mat" - if you have a standing cradle and the opponent touches the ground with his hand, I expect that to be called a takedown, given the language in the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it doesn't happen often, what about the scenarios where the top may (usually a pretty long wrestler) is able to lock a cradle while the bottom/shooting wrestler is actually in on a shot and has a leg (head outside single/HighC)? Three points would be down, but that position is truly more a stalemate than anything, I rarely see wrestling progress from that position, usually ends in a whistle...

 

Precisely why not all cradles represent control.

 

There was a 141/149 lber from Lehigh around the time Troy Letters was wrestling who was well over 6 ft tall (looked like a skinnier, longer version of David Taylor). Under the new rules, he could've TFed opponents without ever actually gaining control.

 

Matt Anderson. 149-157. 6-5, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa, whoa, whoa,... stop the train... !!!

 

I think, first we are jumping the gun here...

There is NO rule change... !!

The rule remains the same in the book...

What was done, was there was a "clarification / Interpretation" given by the... well.. by those upstairs.

The 'Clarification' was given to everyone on 2/24... basically AFTER the dual meet season, and just prior to qualifiers and championships.

Therefore, you may have noticed a difference in the way it was being called in the post season tournaments.

 

The puzzling thing was.. the explanations seem to contradict each other... !

The first clarification said that it is considered a TD if the wrestler applying the cradle could get:

The cradle lock and two feet and one hand on the mat. - 2 TD

 

BUT...

the second clarification said.. it is NOT a TD until the wrestler applying the cradle breaks the wrestler 'down to his hip'.... No TD until hip...

 

HUH....

 

In the first clarification.. the wrestler doesn't need to be on the hip to be awarded a TD.... !!!

in the second clarification... the wrestler is on TWO knees, and is also on his hand or elbow.. BUT YET he is NOT taken down until he is broken down to the hip.....

 

it seems to me that in the second clarification.. if he is on his knees and hand/arm.. he has ALREADY met the first clarifications criteria... !!!!!!

 

WHY are we wanting to give out REALLY bad cradles as TD's... !!

standard criteria.. was that the wrestler applying the cradle had to

1- defeat the arm

2- demonstrate the ability to get 'hip to hip' (and that only had to be a split second).

 

I think that this new 'clarification' has really turned the cradle TD into a real Cluster F#*K..!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to this (and other) positions not being called consistently is NOT to have someone type up a definition of a position and award points for getting to that spot. That IMO simply promotes wrestling the rule book as opposed to your opponent. (good example might be recent freestyle rules) Next thing you know maybe we can have those fancy bags of balls to determine ncaa matches.

 

The solution is that if an official cannot recognize true control in that situation, he shouldn't be doing college matches. Honestly I think the rule is fine as it is, it is an easy call to make or not make. I can't remember having this ever be one of those calls that stay with me after a match or tournament wondering "boy did I get that one right? did I miss something? How am I going call that in the future?

 

Here are a couple things I thought about reading this thread and what my thought process is during a match.

Does a weak wizzer prevent a takedown? The answser is no if I double you to the mat and your on your hip or butt, I'm on top in a strong position and you "technically" have a wizzer position but not a chance of using it that weak wizzer is not preventing me from scoring.

Why should a weak (how I term it) cradle score points? Answer, it shouldn't. there will be coaches and fans and parents and teammates that will protest and say thats a cradle(as if I didn't know), but come on you know it's weak. It's the same as the guy with the weak wizzer protesting I wasn't taken down I still had the wizzer.

If you have been there and competed and know these situations, you know when you've scored, or been scored on.

 

This is one of those situations I bring up in premeet as well. If you think you've earned your points but I haven't given them that means I'm looking for something to show me the control. It might be a minor thing like clearing a block or establishing solid hip position or getting your guys hip to the mat etc. When I see that, your demonstrating control and I'm throwing points.

To me that is a better approach than having your tall lanky guy out in front with head & arm and managing to get his hands locked while defending being dumped himself and getting 2 for essentially no control.

 

Also, it is rare but does happen, if I have a neutral scramble situation that ends with both guys having a cradle, should I give 2 takedowns and say they are both in control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when you hit a drag or slide by, and end up standing on the side of your opponent facing the same direction as him, and can gather a head and near arm, while stepping in front of, and hooking his near leg. In my area we call it a Frazzell, and you until now,don't score with it until you opponent has 3 points on the mat. I would think that the takedown for this would be as soon as you lock up with the new rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. Rule 2.6 Takedown. Emphasis that in the neutral position, if wrestler is in a cradle situation (hands locked up) either on the mat or on their feet and a hand touches, a takedown will be awarded.

 

I understand the situations where several of you have argued against the takedown being called. However, if this rule is 100% enforced, EVERY wrestler should know when it is a takedown and practice either defending against that situation or forcing it offensively. As in any competitive sport you may not like the rules but I personally prefer rules that leave the judgment of the referee out of the picture.

 

I would rather the rule be clearly stated like it is than watch a wrestler lock up a cradle, never improve his position, and 30 secs later the ref signals a takedown. You also have the lock up the cradle, come out to the side, but because the other wrestler is barely holding an ankle they never call the 2.

 

Hopefully this will result in 2 things all fans want. 1.) Less inconsistency from referees. 2.) Less stalemates. If it is awarded a takedown, the dynamics will automatically change. Now, instead of fighting to get the ref to blow the whistle, you will be forced to get out of the position as the offensive wrestler will now be accruing riding time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251277-Midlands-2013/video/727977-Hwt-f-Bobby-Telford-Iowa-vs-Adam-Coon-Michigan#.U4h-vPldVoM

 

Coon vs. Telford Midlands final . . .

 

Maybe not applicable due to the "body" cradle. Would this have been called a takedown/reversal under the new clarificaiton?

 

As far as I am interpreting the rule I would say Telford had a takedown there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×