Burroughs thinks its for an NCAA push-out rule

[Katie 1,076]

"Folkstyle wrestling needs a push-out rule.  Out of bounds refers to being outside the wrestling boundaries of the mat or “the circle.” Due to the chaotic nature of wrestling, it is normal for wrestlers to go out of bounds frequently during a match. In some cases, wrestlers may intentionally go out when it is to their advantage. Hmmm. In other words, use the line as a safety net to prevent being scored upon. I saw too many guys diving for the line when an opponent was in on their legs. NCAA wrestling needs to create a push-out rule, and force wrestlers to defend in-bounds or give up a point."

 

-JB

[Alexander_Delarge_655321 63]

See the Kokesh vs Wilps match. Kokesh had 4 near TD's on the edge of the mat but Wilps does the splits and gets off the mat. Push out changes that outcome and makes Wilps wrestle in the middle.

[cornercoach 448]

... could do a "warning" first, then penalty sequence of some sort .....

[2td3nf 588]

No warning needed. Don't give them any incentive at all to wrestle near the edge. The pushout works beautifully in freestyle and Greco, and they don't simulate Sumo matches.

[2td3nf 588]

Oh yeah, and thank you Jordan Burroughs!

[OBJoeB 32]

How would this be handled when it is mat wrestling and the bottom guy gets an escape right at the edge?  Is the ref going to stop the action and return them to center or is it going to be cut the guy near the edge and then quickly push him out for a point?  Will this just be in regards to when the action starts neutral?

 

How about refs not letting wrestlers back up to the mat's edge? 

How about having a mat surface like international mats, and the circle on the edge being a warning area for neutral wrestling; if you aren't engaged in wrestling - for example shooting or defending - then you must circle out of that area. 

[Cooch1 147]

OB, neutral start then the PO is in force. Doesn't apply to mat wrestling. I'd go with a stall warning first then ding a point. Look for the rules people to stall (ironically) this good, but certainly not perfect, rule. On the whole the college game will improve by cutting down on the fan frustration. Many are seeing the empirical evidence of f-s and starting to go along. I'd be willing to bet it'll be more popular and sell more tickets and make the transition to f-s easier for our guys in worlds.

 

I'd also like to see the td and po count together, a 3 pointer. By all means reward the aggressor-initiator. If the defender can hit a counter at the edge then he's the initiator and gets the td/po. 

[OtisCampbell 94]

How about push out = automatic stall warning.  Then you get one to work with and it's affects will carry over to top bottom wrestling. 

[Plasmodium 2,307]

I see this rule as being unrelated to stalling.

[2td3nf 588]

I see this rule as being unrelated to stalling.

Then go watch the Big 10 125lb final.

[oldrules 32]

Another rehash of the same dead horse argument.

[scribe 1,845]

... could do a "warning" first, then penalty sequence of some sort .....

 

Too much referee subjectivity. Of which, makes it much more difficult for a casual viewer to follow.

 

You step out of the circle, you lose a point. You get pushed out of the circle, you lose a point. This is an objective referee decision.

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,067]

wrestle in bounds or get penalized. sounds like a good rule to me!

[justafan 123]

Replay already stops the momentum of so many matches.Not sure how many of you watch International wrestling but over half the pushouts go to review to see whos foot hit first it will slow down the matches even more.Stalling is a judgement call in every match one side thinks the other guy is stalling.I haven't seen to many matches where the guy warned for stalling starts firing off shots left and right.It should be up to the athletes who train 6 hours a day and do 1 hour goes in the room to try to score points for 7 min and it should be on the coaches to teach there kids that.So I blame the athletes first the coaches second and the refs would be my last blame.But in todays society its just the way it is everyone blames someone else

[dhun 2]

I thinnk making it a stall call is a great idea. I think the push out rule is good for wrestling but it isn't perfect. Sometimes you see guys with a decent shot, and the other wrestler with good scrambling ability hopping on one leg until he goes out of bounds. The previous freestyle rules benefited Burroughs tremendoiusly. He had so many peoiple hopping out of bounds. In the finals he was being conservative and was defensive until the last 10 second when he knew he could score.. Burroughs was undefeated with the previous freestyle rules.

Edited March 29, 2015 by dhun

[Katie 1,076]

Neither subjective stalling calls nor a push-out rule will work perfectly. But we've had decades of experience with stalling calls, and it hasn't worked. It's time to try the push-out rule. On average, the push-out rule will reward the aggressor much more than the defensive wrestler. And it takes out a lot of subjectivity out of the game. 

 

The sport we have now rewards defensiveness, lack of offensive, and riding time, and it does not penalize crawling out of bounds multiple times to avoid being scored on. The push out rule would reward aggression, make riding time much less significant, and on average give more points to the superior neutral wrestler even if he can't convert a takedown. 

 

It's time to see who the best wrestler is, not who is the best at avoiding wrestling. 

[Cletus_Tucker 890]

I thinnk making it a stall call is a great idea. I think the push out rule is good for wrestling but it isn't perfect. Sometimes you see guys with a decent shot, and the other wrestler with good scrambling ability hopping on one leg until he goes out of bounds. The previous freestyle rules benefited Burroughs tremendoiusly. He had so many peoiple hopping out of bounds. In the finals he was being conservative and was defensive until the last 10 second when he knew he could score.. Burroughs was undefeated with the previous freestyle rules.

 

 

What were the previous rules? 

[Cletus_Tucker 890]

Neither subjective stalling calls nor a push-out rule will work perfectly. But we've had decades of experience with stalling calls, and it hasn't worked. It's time to try the push-out rule. On average, the push-out rule will reward the aggressor much more than the defensive wrestler. And it takes out a lot of subjectivity out of the game. 

 

The sport we have now rewards defensiveness, lack of offensive, and riding time, and it does not penalize crawling out of bounds multiple times to avoid being scored on. The push out rule would reward aggression, make riding time much less significant, and on average give more points to the superior neutral wrestler even if he can't convert a takedown. 

 

It's time to see who the best wrestler is, not who is the best at avoiding wrestling. 

 

 

Katie, how does the push out rule make riding time less significant? 

[Cletus_Tucker 890]

I like the push out rule but it should go both ways.   As already mentioned briefly above, what about during mat wrestling.   You see both the top man and bottom man take the action intentionally out of bounds for a fresh start.   It happens all the time.   Occasionally the natural flow of the action wlil end up out of bounds.   But many times we see the clear intent by either wrestler be to go out of bounds.   That should be addressed as well.   You do that once it's a warning.  You do it twice, you're stalling.   Yes that one is subjective and open to the ref's interpretation.   I think that's better than not doing anything about it at all

[Katie 1,076]

Katie, how does the push out rule make riding time less significant? 

You can wipe it out with one push out. 

[Katie 1,076]

I like the push out rule but it should go both ways.   As already mentioned briefly above, what about during mat wrestling.   You see both the top man and bottom man take the action intentionally out of bounds for a fresh start.   It happens all the time.   Occasionally the natural flow of the action wlil end up out of bounds.   But many times we see the clear intent by either wrestler be to go out of bounds.   That should be addressed as well.   You do that once it's a warning.  You do it twice, you're stalling.   Yes that one is subjective and open to the ref's interpretation.   I think that's better than not doing anything about it at all

 

Thinking about the push-out rule specifically, you could address the mat wrestling issue pretty easily. Don't call push outs there. Once there is an escape, you award a point and then start the match back in the center. Only then do you start awarding push-out points again. 

 

Using the out-of-bounds line to assist in mat wrestling is a separate issue, and could very well be addressed with more aggressive stalling calls. 

[IronChef 1,134]

The push out rule would reward aggression, make riding time much less significant, and on average give more points to the superior neutral wrestler even if he can't convert a takedown.

 

It's time to see who the best wrestler is, not who is the best at avoiding wrestling.

I would say finishing takedowns is a big part of wrestling. Why reward wrestlers who can't convert attacks into takedowns? That's how you show you're the best wrestler, not by getting close to a takedown and shoving the other guy out.

[Fishhook 142]

The biggest component involved in the sport of wrestling is positioning. This rule pinpoints the need for a wrestler to have good position.  I like the idea of it for sure. I also think it will help make heavyweight wrestling much more exciting as it is very very hard to takedown a heavyweight wrestler.  

[Katie 1,076]

The biggest component involved in the sport of wrestling is positioning. This rule pinpoints the need for a wrestler to have good position.  I like the idea of it for sure. I also think it will help make heavyweight wrestling much more exciting as it is very very hard to takedown a heavyweight wrestler.  

Exactly. And the collateral effect of the push out rule is to keep the action on the mat more often.

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,067]

Why reward wrestlers who can't convert attacks into takedowns? That's how you show you're the best wrestler, not by getting close to a takedown and shoving the other guy out.

rather than rewarding them for walking out of bounds when they get in a tie they dont like? 

 

there are trade offs for every rule change. you'd still be rewarded more for a takedown then forcing a step out and i prefer rewarding guys for being aggressive instead of rewarding guys for being evasive.