ADVERTISEMENT

Rear standing takedown rule

Irv ONian

Active Member
May 26, 2020
33
65
1
Can someone who is knowledgeable about the NCAA rule book explain to me why Hidlay did not get awarded a takedown at the edge of the mat near the end of AB’s match?

Let me be clear—I am a huge PSU and AB fan, and was very glad that he won. But when they were showing the replay, I realized that I don’t exactly understand this rule (despite having been a PIAA wrestling referee 25 years ago).

Thanks. And congratulations to the team on another great season.
 
Can someone who is knowledgeable about the NCAA rule book explain to me why Hidlay did not get awarded a takedown at the edge of the mat near the end of AB’s match?

Let me be clear—I am a huge PSU and AB fan, and was very glad that he won. But when they were showing the replay, I realized that I don’t exactly understand this rule (despite having been a PIAA wrestling referee 25 years ago).

Thanks. And congratulations to the team on another great season.
I believe it was because one of Aaron‘s hands was touching the carpet beyond the mat. By rule, that ends the sequence.
 
And not more stalling for 6 minutes of gluing his a$$ to the edge of the ring.

I'm wondering if our wrestlers might be taught that if the opponent continues to hug the out-of-bounds ring that they just keep moving back to the center and force the opponent to do the same. I'm not sure any ref would allow a wrestler to simply stand there in his "safe spot" for very long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger Dan
I'm wondering if our wrestlers might be taught that if the opponent continues to hug the out-of-bounds ring that they just keep moving back to the center and force the opponent to do the same. I'm not sure any ref would allow a wrestler to simply stand there in his "safe spot" for very long.
Just a hunch, but I have a feeling Aaron was intentionally not backing up much at all in that match. I don’t imagine you wanna couple your own momentum with the force of that underhook.
 
Just a hunch, but I have a feeling Aaron was intentionally not backing up much at all in that match. I don’t imagine you wanna couple your own momentum with the force of that underhook.

Certainly, you're correct. Aaron would have needed to pick his spots. However, his opponent's tactic was SOOOOO bloody obvious and significant to the match that something should have been done. Why the ref allowed it to keep happening is somewhat concerning.
 
Certainly, you're correct. Aaron would have needed to pick his spots. However, his opponent's tactic was SOOOOO bloody obvious and significant to the match that something should have been done. Why the ref allowed it to keep happening is somewhat concerning.
He did warn and then penalize him a point for stalling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liex26 and Lb4097
Can someone who is knowledgeable about the NCAA rule book explain to me why Hidlay did not get awarded a takedown at the edge of the mat near the end of AB’s match?

Let me be clear—I am a huge PSU and AB fan, and was very glad that he won. But when they were showing the replay, I realized that I don’t exactly understand this rule (despite having been a PIAA wrestling referee 25 years ago).

Thanks. And congratulations to the team on another great season.
Not sure what the decision would have been otherwise, but as nerfstate pointed out once it is obvious AB's hand made contact with edge of the mat the action was done.
 
Sorry, I didn't consider that the guy's positioning on the mat might be a factor in the stalling calls. He was generally refusing to initiate anything until the end...
 
Thanks, I didn’t notice that hand positioning when I was watching last night, that is pretty clear (I figured that it must have been unambiguous, since the review was so brief).

Just wondering, rule-wise, is control of just the foot (which is what Hidlay had) sufficient for a rear standing takedown (setting aside the hand positioning in this particular match)?
 
Thanks, I didn’t notice that hand positioning when I was watching last night, that is pretty clear (I figured that it must have been unambiguous, since the review was so brief).

Just wondering, rule-wise, is control of just the foot (which is what Hidlay had) sufficient for a rear standing takedown (setting aside the hand positioning in this particular match)?

No one knows for sure (sarcasm). It gets called both ways. It didn’t work out for Sammy Sasso as a TD.
 
Not rear standing, but I thought that Sasso had it last night, when he captured the second foot.

Nice to see another MO-based Nittany Lion here, I’m in CoMo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lb4097
Not rear standing, but I thought that Sasso had it last night, when he captured the second foot.

Nice to see another MO-based Nittany Lion here, I’m in CoMo.

I thought Sasso had it as well. I spend most time at our place on the Lake of the Ozarks but have a place in JoCo KS as well.
 
Right, the key to this rule is that a hand touch takedown (the only one without reaction time) requires *rear standing neutral control* before the hand touches. Clearly not the case here. Starting from the hip and working behind gives reaction time, and Brooks had his hand up before that.

Good write up here:

Actually works the same on the back points on the reversal. Can't have back points until you first have control. Control requires reaction time in all but one very specific circumstance. It was tight for 2 seconds in a vacuum, and the count doesn't start immediately there.
 
I had Hidlay with 48 seconds of the first period spent with 1 or both feet on or out of the circle. Of those 48 seconds, he had both feet out of the circle 30 seconds. How many times can one ignore the ref telling you to center without getting hit for stalling?
 
Right, the key to this rule is that a hand touch takedown (the only one without reaction time) requires *rear standing neutral control* before the hand touches. Clearly not the case here. Starting from the hip and working behind gives reaction time, and Brooks had his hand up before that.

Good write up here:

Actually works the same on the back points on the reversal. Can't have back points until you first have control. Control requires reaction time in all but one very specific circumstance. It was tight for 2 seconds in a vacuum, and the count doesn't start immediately there.
Thanks so much, this is exactly the detail that I was requesting!
 
Can someone who is knowledgeable about the NCAA rule book explain to me why Hidlay did not get awarded a takedown at the edge of the mat near the end of AB’s match?

Let me be clear—I am a huge PSU and AB fan, and was very glad that he won. But when they were showing the replay, I realized that I don’t exactly understand this rule (despite having been a PIAA wrestling referee 25 years ago).

Thanks. And congratulations to the team on another great season.

If you watch the videos, Brooks' hand goes completely off the mat and touches the ground off the mat surface... the whistle is blown for being OB and therefore, that is the moment that determines whether a TD occurred, or not. At the moment Brooks's hand touches completely off the mat surface, Hidlay was not fully behind him - he was still pulling on his right leg only.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ClarencButthorn
And what was your interpretation of the Sasso non-takedown at the end of his match? Thanks again.

I haven't looked at that one nearly as much, but my quick take is that I didn't see all of combined *control* of both feet (he had contact with both, but not control of both) while also having O'Connor down on his butt beyond reaction time. I think he had pieces of them at various times, but never all together.
 
I had Hidlay with 48 seconds of the first period spent with 1 or both feet on or out of the circle. Of those 48 seconds, he had both feet out of the circle 30 seconds. How many times can one ignore the ref telling you to center without getting hit for stalling?
He was warned for stalling.
 
I had Hidlay with 48 seconds of the first period spent with 1 or both feet on or out of the circle. Of those 48 seconds, he had both feet out of the circle 30 seconds. How many times can one ignore the ref telling you to center without getting hit for stalling?
The sad thing is he did that all tournament. There wasn't one match where he didn't go to the line. That's where he hangs out lol
 
He was warned for stalling.

Actually warned and called a 2nd time. If I'm not mistaken, the point awarded for the 2nd Stall Call at about 1:15 - 1:30 mark of 3rd Period is what gave Aaron the 2-1 lead and was ultimately the deciding point.
 
Actually warned and called a 2nd time. If I'm not mistaken, the point awarded for the 2nd Stall Call at about 1:15 - 1:30 mark of 3rd Period is what gave Aaron the 2-1 lead and was ultimately the deciding point.

Gave Aaron the 3-2* lead.

Aaron had a reversal, Hilday had two E1s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6
Gave Aaron the 3-2* lead.

Aaron had a reversal, Hilday had two E1s.

Yes, my bad - funny, I was pointing out yesterday that they need to create a criteria rule in wrestling based on highest scoring move / # of highest scoring moves that only sends 0-0 or 1-1 type matches to SV.... and mentioned it in regards to Aaron's match.
 
Yes, my bad - funny, I was pointing out yesterday that they need to create a criteria rule in wrestling based on highest scoring move / # of highest scoring moves that only sends 0-0 or 1-1 type matches to SV.... and mentioned it in regards to Aaron's match.
I would like that criteria, after 2 one minute tie breakers with both wrestlers getting choice of position.
 
Last edited:
I would like that criteria used after a 2 one minute tie breakers with both wrestlers getting choice of position.
I definitely like that as a tiebreaker criteria before riding time at the end of however may OTs there are. It makes getting a reversal then giving up an escape worth more than just getting an escape, which make sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liex26
If the refs would of seen the mat grab does it go to SV next? Still think Brooks wins and was definitely rooting for him. Hidlay going directly oob, and staying there, as soon as the match starts was tough to watch.
 
I saw multiple wrestlers reach out and put their hand out of bounds and not get called for stalling during the tournament. I think Venz may have done it against Brooks (can’t remember exactly, but I know someone did against one of our guys).
 
I don't think reaching out of bounds (off the mat) is supposed to be called stalling. In general, I think it should be. But I can see the argument that that might incentivize the offensive wrestler to drive further out of bounds, and that it may not be safe to do so in all contexts.
 
I'm wondering if our wrestlers might be taught that if the opponent continues to hug the out-of-bounds ring that they just keep moving back to the center and force the opponent to do the same. I'm not sure any ref would allow a wrestler to simply stand there in his "safe spot" for very long.
I do recall criticism of one of our recent/former wrestlers (Zain or Nolf) where they said our guy was retreating to the center of the mat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liex26 and danoftw
It's time for wrestling mats to be made larger. Not the circle, mind you, but the out of bounds. It should not be possible for a wrestler to reach the edge of the mat if an opponent has their legs. Placing a hand outside the mat area has become a go to method for avoiding a takedown .

Plus its a safety thing. With the edge rules the way they are, you see lots and lots of wrestlers fly off the mat and end up near or partially off the mat edge. Also when multiple mats are used, the OOB is just too small between mats and you sometimes see pairs of wrestlers fly dangerously close to each other off adjoining mats.
 
Last edited:
It's time for wrestling mats to be made larger. Not the circle, mind you, but the out of bounds. It should not be possible for a wrestler to reach the edge of the mat if an opponent has their legs. Placing a hand outside the mat area has become a go to method for avoiding a takedown .

Plus its a safety thing. With the edge rules the way they are, you see lots and lots of wrestlers fly off the mat and end up near or partially off the mat edge. Also when multiple mats are used, the OOB is just too small between mats and you sometimes see pairs of wrestlers fly dangerously close to each other off adjoining mats.
The sport has evolved into scrambling. With that we need a bigger mat kids are faster and scrambling takes room. It's time to add 4 feet to the circle
 
Keep the mats the same size and make the circle smaller. Keep the wrestlers in close contact.
 
Keep the mats the same size and make the circle smaller. Keep the wrestlers in close contact.
Not without a pushout rule.

Actually on second thought: not even with a pushout rule. Do not need PIAA mats where a HWT double goes out of bounds before landing.
 
I have to say that it was a pretty brilliant strategy from Hidlay. Only got called for stalling twice despite not wrestling the first 6 minutes. He also made it nearly impossible for AB to take him down, as any forward momentum from AB would likely take them out of bounds. Hidlay was completely or partially OOB for more than a minute in the first period alone.
 
I don't think reaching out of bounds (off the mat) is supposed to be called stalling. In general, I think it should be. But I can see the argument that that might incentivize the offensive wrestler to drive further out of bounds, and that it may not be safe to do so in all contexts.

Wrestling mats need a 6-7' border. Then again I think the circle needs to be larger as well. Granted gymnasiums and other venues only have so much available space. We saw it all year where action at the boundary flowed off the mat onto the floor. Very inconsistent calls tied to fleeing the mat don't help either. I think it is called about 25% of the time at best.
 
I have to say that it was a pretty brilliant strategy from Hidlay. Only got called for stalling twice despite not wrestling the first 6 minutes. He also made it nearly impossible for AB to take him down, as any forward momentum from AB would likely take them out of bounds. Hidlay was completely or partially OOB for more than a minute in the first period alone.
Chris Perry style.

I don’t want to hear any belly-aching from NCST fans on this one. Hidlay knows if he truly presented himself, Brooks picks him apart. Ref didn’t do his job
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7brwnpsu
Wrestling mats need a 6-7' border. Then again I think the circle needs to be larger as well. Granted gymnasiums and other venues only have so much available space. We saw it all year where action at the boundary flowed off the mat onto the floor. Very inconsistent calls tied to fleeing the mat don't help either. I think it is called about 25% of the time at best.
There are some really small gyms, so this, as Willie said, isn't feasible.
 
There are some really small gyms, so this, as Willie said, isn't feasible.
My opinion....while the fleeing rule is inconsistent, it did have the effect of moving wrestlers away from the edge as a second defender. The intent of the rule was achieved. At least until Hidlay took the mat Sat night. That was a complete throwback....retreating at the whistle and riding the rim.
 
ADVERTISEMENT