Supposed rule changes the NCAA is thinking of ...

[Tom McAndrew]

I got the below from the Iowa board. You can read the original post at this link.

The post states:

"My son got the NCAA annual survey today, here are some rule change considerations that they included for feedback:

1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one countEliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count.Push-out, but not from a scramble situationAllow MMA-type gear instead of singletsHome team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams.First takedown in the first period is worth three pointsFalls are worth 7 pointsMajor Decision at 6 points instead of 8Tech Fall at 10 points instead of 15Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back pointsWhen defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso"
I'm going to spend a day or so ruminating about these ideas, and then will post my thoughts.

I'm curious what some of you think about the potential rule changes.

Tom

 

[a_mshaffer]

I hope they would keep two things in mind: 1) keep the rules/scoring simple so a uneducated fan could quickly pick it up; 2) don't wonder too far away from the roots of the sport (in America) and don't change it for the sake of change or 'commercialism' (still have disdain towards American football always succumbing to commercialism!)

 

[El-Jefe]

This was posted on FOS yesterday. Below is what I posted. Cowbell had some good thoughts as well ...


1. 1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one count. No. Penalizes risk-taking on bottom. Leads to fewer big moves and reversals, and likely more bottom stalling.

2. Eliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count. Only if #1 implemented, because there's little physical difference between a 2-count vs. 3-count.

3. Push-out, but not from a scramble situation Not
sold on push-out. Incentives the matador defense (I back up to the
edge, you shoot, !Ole!, I score). Also needs to not count for
carry-outs -- if you shoot and lift your opponent, at least try to
finish in bounds. Plus what Cowbell said.

4. Allow MMA-type gear instead of singlets Allow,
sure, why not? Mandate, wouldn't go that far. I think the negative
effects of singlets are overblown. If alternate uniforms organically
take over, I'm OK with that.

5. Home team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams. How
dumb does the NCAA think fans are? The ONLY time this makes any sense
is at large tourneys, where fans look around frequently and not all mats
are on the big screen.

6. First takedown in the first period is worth three points I'm OK with this. Too many scoreless first periods.

7. Falls are worth 7 points I'm good with this and would entertain higher values yet ... but also jack up forfeits to score more than falls.

8. Major Decision at 6 points instead of 8 Meh. Definitely not if in conjunction with #1.

9. Tech Fall at 10 points instead of 15 Absolutely
not. This would reduce pins and prematurely end matches with action.
With this rule in place, Rob Rohn's cement mixer never happened.

10. Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back points YES!!
With Cowbell's caveat that the refs aggressively call bottom stalling.
I'd consider going further: RT is only counted during rides where back
points are scored -- but that would be too complicated for scoring.

11. When defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso. Didn't realize this was a huge problem.


I
also strongly favor Wade Schalles' idea that you can't be saved by the
bell -- if you're on your back, the period doesn't end until you fight
out of it or get pinned.

And I'd get rid of Criterion #4 being first takedown in the entire dual. Most first takedowns makes a lot more sense.

 

[PSU22]

Just off the top of my head here are some things I'd like:

- Takedown = 3 PTS
- 1 Minute of riding time = 1 PT awarded immediately and wrestlers are restarted on their feet. Time is only specific to each wrestler, not cumulative.
- Head referees are not allowed to review their own calls.

 

[jammenz]

1) 0-0 score after 1st period the match is declared a no contest. If you can't get a td in 3 mins I don't want to watch anymore.
2) ot rideouts are eliminated. SV on their feet til a td. If you insist on a time limit then it goes to a referee's decision if no td.

 

[dicemen99]

1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one count YES. Although Jefe, brings up a good point about bottom wrestling, it would be somewhat mitigated by the one count (we use to have merely meeting criteria). I'm more interested in seeing the offensive wrestler work for nearfall anyway than bottom wrestling. As it stands now in D1, bottom doesn't take any risks anyway. When is the last time you saw a "big move" from bottom in D1? 90% of the time you see escapes anyway, as bottom is concerned with stopping riding time with the current rules.Eliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count. I think #1 is all that is necessary.Push-out, but not from a scramble situation 100% YES. Jefe, I will strongly disagree with you on this - push out would not be called in that situation 9 times out of 10 as I take it scramble situation means something similar to the current freestyle rules. Also, this does NOT result in much difference in wrestling action at lighter weights, wrestlers adapt quickly, circle to center, much more continuous action. The sumo argument that some pose is also ridiculous - has anyone watched what currently goes on at 285? You may as well reward them and make it more interesting.Allow MMA-type gear instead of singlets 100% YESHome team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams. Agree with Jefe - the only place identification is an issue is at tournaments and in college this isn't really an issue. In HS, yes - they need to cut down on all the alternate singlets for some schools.First takedown in the first period is worth three points YES/NO. Like the idea, but I would like to follow the KISS rules in regards to scoring. Complicates things.Falls are worth 7 points - NO, forfeits maybe, but falls are worth the correct amount in relation to decisions currently.Major Decision at 6 points instead of 8 NOTech Fall at 10 points instead of 15 - NO - if it were up to me, I would eliminate the TF at the collegiate level. KISS. I bet we'd see more falls also.Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back points. YES/NO. I like the idea of encouraging offensive wrestling. But it flies in the face of KISS.When defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso" I guess they are trying to eliminate stalemates. I'm not sure this is necessary.
This post was edited on 2/26 2:04 PM by dicemen99

 

[dicemen99]

And before anyone brings up David Taylor in response to my slightly rhetorical question "when is the last time you saw a big move from bottom in D1?"

David Taylor would be making big moves from bottom UNDER ANY SET OF RULES regarding NF when wrestling in D1.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

not too crazy about your proposals ...

1) 0-0 score after 1st period the match is declared a no contest. If you can't get a td in 3 mins I don't want to watch anymore.

There are some matches that you know 1-2 minutes in that it's not going to be an entertaining match. However, when 2 really good wrestlers meet up, you can have a great 1st period that is also scoreless. Plus, folkstyle demands skills on your feet, on the mat, and on top, so you can't end a match when only 1 of the 3 skills have been on trial, so to speak.

2) ot rideouts are eliminated. SV on their feet til a td. If you insist on a time limit then it goes to a referee's decision if no td.

The 1st part I could live with. I think it goes against the idea of a wrestler needing skills in each of the 3 elements, but I'd rather have the match decided by TDs, no matter how long it takes to get them, than by rideouts.

The 2nd part is problematic. It is good to keep matches moving, so a 7-minute SV would be somewhat frustrating to watch, and also take a lot of time (especially if a lot of OOBs or stalemates). At the same time, I think most matches would be decided long before that. Plus, no matter how much refs/coaches/wrestlers/fans like to see matches move along, time is always variable, with stoppages for PDs, OOB, stalemate, technical violations, etc. Plus, if there is a serious injury, even though the match may be decided by an injury forfeit, the primary concern is to address the injured wrestler, and not to get him off the mat so that the next match can get started.

As for the 2nd part of he 2nd part (the refs make the decision), that's a terrible suggestion. The ref's job is to fairly and objectively enforce the rules. They do not want any part of making a decision about a winner in a tie match. As soon as they made a decision like you propose, their credibility would be shot with the team that lost the ref's decision, let alone the fans of that team. This approach would be an absolute mess, IMHO.

Tom

 

[clucas]

I can say this...

as a coach in middle school in TN, I would have more kids wrestle if they didn't have to wear singlets. If the ultimate goal is to have more kids participating and learning the sport, than I am all for a uniform change. I think you will see a move away from the singlet in wrestling.

Granted, they do not grow up with the sport here as I did in Pennsylvania. I didn't think twice about wearing a singlet, nor do I think twice about seeing one now. But, a lot of the response I get here is..."I have to wear what??"

I also like #10

 

[jammenz]

not too crazy about your proposals

Tom,
1) was offered slightly tongue-in-cheek, but 0-0 1st periods often lead into overtime with no SV td and then the awful 30 stall rides.
2) You do know that at one time referee decisions were used to decide ot matches. Those matches had more action than ones today. The irony of trying to solve the "ref decides the match problem" has led to the "everybody is stalling problem" which again is blamed on the refs, not the rules.

 

[jammenz]

when is the last time you saw a big move from bottom in D1?"

And I was thinking when Storley reversed Brown to his back for a pin.

 

[dicemen99]

Re: when is the last time you saw a big move from bottom in D1?"

Originally posted by jammenz:
And I was thinking when Storley reversed Brown to his back for a pin.

LOL. Very good.

When was that exactly?

 

[BDB57]

I think Storely's big move from the bottom was a few years before Beitz's cradle while reversing Kindig!!

 

[El-Jefe]

Re: not too crazy about your proposals

Originally posted by jammenz:
Tom,
1) was offered slightly tongue-in-cheek, but 0-0 1st periods often lead into overtime with no SV td and then the awful 30 stall rides.

Or, far more frequently, the Tony Nelson Special: 2-0 decision with an escape and RT on the Spiral Ride of Doom which was actually an awful 120-sec stall ride.

 

[psualt]

I've never bought into the no riding time awarded if you don't score back points. No back points are often a result of the bottom man just defending coupled with referees that have turned hypersensitive to potentially dangerous calls.

Make the TF worth more than a major when no back points are scored. If activity is what they want to reward why would I care if someone gets 15 takedowns to win because the bottom wrestler stalls.

One point nearfall....not sure I want to see even more wrestlers bellying out to avoid the NF.


If the NCAA wants to increase the action scrap this list and call stalling more. Really how hard is that to do???

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

Here's another one - Eliminate the stall warning.

The first time a guy backs up, avoids engagement, or hangs on a leg for 5 seconds to avoid giving up an escape (without trying to move up), give a point to the opponent. No warnings. If called properly (like at a state high school tourney I watched last night), this sets the tone and avoids the classic meaningless stall warning with 15 seconds left in the match.