ADVERTISEMENT

NCAA Rules changes coming!!

Can someone explain how this new riding point rule would work? Can the turn be at any point in the match or does it have to have specific timing with respect to a ride? Does any any back points count or only those back points initiated during the top position/ride?
I don't believe anybody truly yet knows.

My impression is anytime riding time is being accrued, because I've seen no caveats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donboy6499
Can someone explain how this new riding point rule would work? Can the turn be at any point in the match or does it have to have specific timing with respect to a ride? Does any any back points count or only those back points initiated during the top position/ride?
From the link in Post #14 (article by the NCAA Media Center):

Riding point modification​

The committee proposed changing the way wrestlers can earn riding time. Under the recommendation, a riding time point could be awarded only if the wrestler in the top position has both a minute of time advantage and has scored near-fall points during the match.
 
It sounds like I’m in the definite minority but I like the 3 point td. I watch so many PSU matches where someone like RBY is putting on a td clinic but with 2 for 1’s and giving up a late td pushing for a tech and it ends up like a 10 point win. I think for a team like PSU this is a huge positive development. We have so many kids push the pace from neutral this should turn into a lot more techs. I wish more kids were focused on turning from top and maybe the new rule proposals will help but I’m not sold. I know a lot of guys here don’t like freestyle but the one rule I wish that folk would adopt is the push out but only from neutral. Edge wrestling and stalling are horrible to watch and need fixed. I’m glad the coaches and higher ups are looking at ways to improve our great sport but I’m just not sure these ideas are the way to do it
It's funny, but I never really bought into the idea that RBY or Jason Nolf needed help teching guys. It's true, especially w/ RBY, that he could absolutely humilate a guy, but would struggle to get a tech. But a 15pt tech from exclusively a catch-and-release strategy is like a unicorn of sorts. If you aren't Jason Nolf, you probably aren't going to get many, and I always thought that was cool (as a fan of Jason Nolf's). But yes, a 3pt takedown does mean more techs for the good guys. Still not sure about it.
 
It should be top wrestler actively looking to break down and turn. Bottom actively trying to escape. Anything else is stalling.

Too many guys riding just to ride, including several PSU wrestlers. I get you want to tire out the other guy, but many don't even attempt to turn. It's boring. Carter and RBY were among the biggest offenders. Accumulated lots of riding time with nothing to show. And they're such dynamic wrestlers that it's a bit disappointing to watch them at times.

Too many just turtle up on bottom content to get ridden out but not give up back points.
a small edit...
 
We said the same thing about Stallalonga. He graduated in 2015. And he was hardly the first.

Waiting decades for the refs to call stalling the way we want, is itself a form of stalling.
It might be a coincidence, but after you posted this mentioning Stallalonga, CowboyUp came around... unless I missed earlier recent posts by him.
 
Imagine a situation off a restart where the guy on bottom stands and the top guy has control, it gets near the edge, and there's a step out rule. And the guy on top gets a warning then dinged even if the other wrestler steps out first if deemed that the top guy forced the step out.

Even with the current rules we have, I can't imagine a better way to steer the action away from mat wrestling and still allow for good mat wrestlers to ride/score. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, we just need to penalize passivity.
 
If you guys want to see more stalling calls just replace the refs with Iowa fans. 🤷‍♂️
Like this, except minority wrestlers wear the beer.

anigif_original-grid-image-18448-1444780273-4.gif
 
It should be top wrestler actively looking to break down and turn. Bottom actively trying to escape. Anything else is stalling.

Too many guys riding just to ride, including several PSU wrestlers. I get you want to tire out the other guy, but many don't even attempt to turn. It's boring. Carter and RBY were among the biggest offenders. Accumulated lots of riding time with nothing to show. And they're such dynamic wrestlers that it's a bit disappointing to watch them at times.

Too many just turtle up on bottom content to get ridden out but not give up back points.
I disagree to an extent. Guys on top are trying to turn. They wait for the appropriate wrist control so they can get a tilt. They never get it due to the bottom guy preventing.. Greg's matches mimic that a lot - if no tilt or cross face cradle he is working to get them.. just doesn't look like much. I do agree there are many times where the guy on top is simply riding to not give up a point. That's part of wrestling, folkstyle, to an extent in my book. Shows dominance. Doesn't happen all the time cause many people do get off of the bottom - more often than not
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
Pretty sure. Anaerobic means no oxygen is needed.
It means no oxygen, not sure about the needed part. Muscles can function without oxygen by breaking down glucose. I think Adam was referring to the fact that the best conditioned wrestlers have developed bodies that do this better than most, if not all, athletes.
 
Anaerobic energy production is generally thought to be less than 30 seconds. Sprints, power lifting etc. Wrestling is definitely not an anaerobic sport!
I don't think that's true. It's both. But when you're talking about fatigue at the end of a match, as Adam mentioned, it's more anaerobic.
Google has a few interesting tidbits, though I don't really know these sources:

Conditioning for wrestling requires high-levels of anaerobic power and capacity as elite wrestlers display greater values in this area making it a distinguishing factor for elite performance. Aerobic conditioning is also vitally important in maintaining high-intensity efforts and recovery between matches.

Although it’s categorized as a purely anaerobic sport, wrestling has a huge aerobic component. It doesn’t matter how strong and powerful you are if you can’t move because you’re exhausted. You need endurance training to keep you going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
I don't think that's true. It's both. But when you're talking about fatigue at the end of a match, as Adam mentioned, it's more anaerobic.
Google has a few interesting tidbits, though I don't really know these sources:



The anaerobic energy pathway is very short term. Wrestling has components that use this pathway (for example, the explosive moves) but wrestlers aren’t relying on anaerobic production for seven minute matches. That’s why they run, bike etc. I honestly didn’t read all of your links, bc I am not arguing there is an anaerobic component.
 
The anaerobic energy pathway is very short term. Wrestling has components that use this pathway (for example, the explosive moves) but wrestlers aren’t relying on anaerobic production for seven minute matches. That’s why they run, bike etc. I honestly didn’t read all of your links, bc I am not arguing there is an anaerobic component.
I'm fine w/ a "it's both" designation, because it obviously is. But I think Tirappelle was talking about anaerobic fatigue--I don't think it was a typo, or misinformed.

Edit: And if you feel like reading just one link I've provided, look at this one:

It's been noted the PSU wrestlers don't do a ton of running, and I think that article points to why. The body starts to shut down after intense activity. The wrestlers who can endure that experience the best are usually the ones who win.
 
Last edited:
It means no oxygen, not sure about the needed part.
I just go by desk references it comes to biology / chemical reaction definition (preferred source for me over a financial management analyst).

Anaerobic means it can occur without the presence of oxygen (i.e., oxygen is not required, i.e., it's not needed). Some gasket making material is necessary anaerobic.

Obviously, wrestling cannot occur without the presence of oxygen. Wrestlers will not perform optimally without excellent oxygen management.

Sure, anaerobic can also relate to an exercise that does not improve the efficiency of the body's cardiovascular system in absorbing and transporting oxygen.

But I don't see that as relates to building stamina or preventing fatigue in a sport such as wrestling. In contrast, aerobic makes perfect sense..

If wrestling was anaerobic, people would've thought reports of Beard not breathing was good training.

Occam's Razor : It was a typo.

I consider this horse sufficiently beaten.
 
I just go by desk references it comes to biology / chemical reaction definition (preferred source for me over a financial management analyst).

Anaerobic means it can occur without the presence of oxygen (i.e., oxygen is not required, i.e., it's not needed). Some gasket making material is necessary anaerobic.

Obviously, wrestling cannot occur without the presence of oxygen. Wrestlers will not perform optimally without excellent oxygen management.

Sure, anaerobic can also relate to an exercise that does not improve the efficiency of the body's cardiovascular system in absorbing and transporting oxygen.

But I don't see that as relates to building stamina or preventing fatigue in a sport such as wrestling. In contrast, aerobic makes perfect sense..

If wrestling was anaerobic, people would've thought reports of Beard not breathing was good training.

Occam's Razor : It was a typo.

I consider this horse sufficiently beaten.
Oh geez though, I can't let it go yet--we seem to be close to a breakthrough!

You guys are treating these systems like they exist in a vacuum when they're both components to how the body produces energy. Even marathoners deal with lactic acid. Know how lactic acid is produced? If you have a great aerobic stamina, your muscles will function in that state for longer--that's a great advantage to have while wrestling, to be sure, and you'll certainly recover faster. But when your body isn't able to deliver enough oxygen for the work you are asking it to do, the anaerobic system kicks in. When Michael Beard isn't breathing well enough, he's taking a fast track to that system, which has a cost in fatigue, and eventually, things shutting down. Elite wrestlers build up a tolerance in their body for managing that situation, and recovering from it quickly. The best wrestlers probably have the best tolerance for it of any sport, IMO. To me, that makes wrestling a substantial anaerobic activity. Maybe not as much as those sports that only exist there like weightlifting, but still quite a bit. OK. I think I'm done now.

edit….Except that Tirapelle isn’t just a financial manager—he’s also an NCAA champ and a coach of one of the most successful high school wrestling programs in the country (ask them Nevills boys about him)
 
Last edited:
Apparently the rules committee ran out of patience after waiting several decades for the refs to call stalling.
Here's the other problem:

Do we actually NEED any of these rules (at least the ones pertaining to action on the mat? I heartily state we do not.

Sure, there is some stalling, but that doesn't stop college wrestling from being VERY fun and having incredible competition right now.

"If it ain't broke..."

Besides, if they can't apparently do an annual point of emphasis to get refs to call stalling, then just changing the rules all the time isn't going to fix things either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psualt
We said the same thing about Stallalonga. He graduated in 2015. And he was hardly the first.

Waiting decades for the refs to call stalling the way we want, is itself a form of stalling.
But it isn't about waiting for the refs. It should be about reforming the rules committee. Who even is on the rules committee? I have no idea. But they aren't doing their jobs properly.
 
I don't have too big of an issue with guys not actively engaging the last 30 seconds of a match if they're in the lead. It just means at some point, they did something to earn points during the match. It's similar to kneeling on the ball to end a football game. Why run a play that might cost you.

I have a big problem with allowing inactivity the other 6:30 of the match.

And yes, Spencer earned the right to run away at the end of that match. He didn't and it cost him. A lot of fans I'm sure wouldn't have liked it and I'm sure a ton of booing would have happened. But he is likely a 4X champ if he does.
There is never a right to run away.

But refs and those who hire them think there is. That's how we end up with uncalled stalling.
 
But it isn't about waiting for the refs. It should be about reforming the rules committee. Who even is on the rules committee? I have no idea. But they aren't doing their jobs properly.
The refs don't make the correct calls --> it's not about the refs, it's about the rules committee --> we don't need the rules changed, we need them enforced --> the refs don't make the correct calls ...
 
Discourse on this topic has reached the “zany (or is it zainey?)“ phase:

 
Don't like the 3 point takedown, unless it's strictly for the first TD. Then maybe.

I don't like the video review change. Reviews already are way too long. Allowing the ref to look for additional corrections will prolong them further

I'm fine with giving the others a chance. Wish they would use opens or extra matches for trial runs. Especially extra matches, so coaches see how the changes work. Unless I'm wrong, I didn't think most of the coaches travel to the opens.

I like that idea. An extra point for the first takedown.
 
The refs don't make the correct calls --> it's not about the refs, it's about the rules committee --> we don't need the rules changed, we need them enforced --> the refs don't make the correct calls ...
What's the process for someone becoming a ref in the NCAA. You would think they would really push this if there is some program they need to complete to be a ref.
 
There is never a right to run away.

But refs and those who hire them think there is. That's how we end up with uncalled stalling.
Well, maybe it's not a right per say, but I find it to be way less egregious than stalling the entire match. In particular, the first period.
 
Prefer a modification to riding-time / escape than 3 pt TD. 30 seconds to escape or turn after being taken down. No escape or turn, wrestlers put back on their feet. If top wrestler turns bottom wrestler, even if they don't get exposure points, they can continue to ride.

Same rule for 2nd and 3rd periods.
 
6 TD to 0 could end 18-3. That just doesn’t seem right to me. That’s a beat down but is it *that* level of dominant?
About equal to the TD-roll-roll-roll-roll TF of freestyle.

Edit….per poster above….my comment is actually worse. Lol.
 
I added it cause in many cases you have to break down the bottom guy to turn him. There are exceptions of course. The key regardless is working towards a turn to score or pin.
agree there
What's the process for someone becoming a ref in the NCAA. You would think they would really push this if there is some program they need to complete to be a ref.
there is a program, and methodology, to getting into the NCAA. But, like all other levels, there is a shortage of those who want to take the abuse, low pay, travel, etc. So, you end up with some that aren't really capable of working the level they end up. Then you have supervisors telling them not to inject themselves into the match. So, stalling doesn't get called the way the rules are written. So we make new rules, making it even more difficult.

Seems like a vicious circle.
 
What's the process for someone becoming a ref in the NCAA. You would think they would really push this if there is some program they need to complete to be a ref.
Military volunteer system -- everybody get in a line, when they ask for volunteers, people step back. Everyone left in the front gets the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: District four
The refs don't make the correct calls --> it's not about the refs, it's about the rules committee --> we don't need the rules changed, we need them enforced --> the refs don't make the correct calls ...
Look.

With one possible exception, None of the proposed rule changes are going to do anything to reduce stalling.

They have 2 changes really pointed directly at "stalling"

- One is the ankle ride revision proposal. The 5 second count rule hasn't actually reduced stalling rides, in my opinion, since it does nothing about stalling from higher. Second, the rule is poorly considered as it will penalize bow and arrows.
- The other is not giving a riding time point unless you score near fall etc. This does nothing about stalling in either neutral or bottom, and, in certain circumstances, probably wouldn't stop top stalling either (like if I'm up 2-0 or 1-0 something entering the 3rd, and I take top, even without the RT point, who cares? may as well stall from top if I can). Also, it fails to make a distinction between guys who are trying to turn, which is really hard at the college level, and someone being Tony Nelson.

Cael Sanderson once got a Hawkeye DQd for stalling at a dual meet. I believe it was Paul Jenn. That would never happen now. So, why is it that refs formerly called stalling more aggressively (I'd say correctly) and don't now? Is it the refs? Is it the senior people at the NCAA rules committees? I don't know, but the problem is obviously how refs view stalling, and none of these rule changes will fix that because they haven't fixed it so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creamery freak
Look.

With one possible exception, None of the proposed rule changes are going to do anything to reduce stalling.

They have 2 changes really pointed directly at "stalling"

- One is the ankle ride revision proposal. The 5 second count rule hasn't actually reduced stalling rides, in my opinion, since it does nothing about stalling from higher. Second, the rule is poorly considered as it will penalize bow and arrows.
- The other is not giving a riding time point unless you score near fall etc. This does nothing about stalling in either neutral or bottom, and, in certain circumstances, probably wouldn't stop top stalling either (like if I'm up 2-0 or 1-0 something entering the 3rd, and I take top, even without the RT point, who cares? may as well stall from top if I can). Also, it fails to make a distinction between guys who are trying to turn, which is really hard at the college level, and someone being Tony Nelson.

Cael Sanderson once got a Hawkeye DQd for stalling at a dual meet. I believe it was Paul Jenn. That would never happen now. So, why is it that refs formerly called stalling more aggressively (I'd say correctly) and don't now? Is it the refs? Is it the senior people at the NCAA rules committees? I don't know, but the problem is obviously how refs view stalling, and none of these rule changes will fix that because they haven't fixed it so far.
And lastly, and this is by far my biggest point:

These rule changes aren't even necessary. Like, at all. The sport has a few dud matches here and there, but, aesthetically, it's the best it's probably ever been. This stuff about reductions in viewership or whatever, please. If you want to grow the sport, then find ways to increase the numbers of programs and opportunities (looking at you, federal courts and ADs).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT