Rule Changes

[PA Power]

Would love to see the following changes:

1) An independent third referee on every mat at the NCAA tournament to exclusively do the video reviews. The guy who makes the call should not then go review his own call.

2) Get rid of the ridiculous hands to the face emphasis. It was fine in past years when it was only called for blatant slaps/clubs/punches. It came close to deciding some important matches, especially late in the third when coaches randomly toss the challenge brick hoping to get a cheap point. I would have been sick to my stomach to see a tie match in the 3rd period decided on a weak penalty point.

3) If you want to challenge a call, you need to risk something. It should be like how it is in freestyle where if you lose a challenge your opponent gets a point. I would even accept your opponent getting choice. You should not be able to just stop the clock whenever you want with no penalty.

4) The 5 count on the leg rule is stupid. Why am I allowed to lace up the ankle with my leg and stretch it out, but if I do the same thing with my hand it’s a five count for a stall warning? Also hate when there is a scramble on the mat and the two wrestlers are in a roll around situation where they both have ankles and the top guy starts to get a five count. Is he supposed to just let go and give up a reversal? There’s action happening there. He is not just hanging onto an ankle to stall.

5) Get rid of the stalling DQ or increase the number of staff calls necessary to actually get a DQ. There are far more stall calls now with the edge rule than there used to be and they have not accordingly adjusted the number of stall calls that you can receive before being disqualified. See: Desanto 1st round match where he just ran his kid off the mat 4 times in a row.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Maybe a lost challenge should count as a stall call, as long as there was a third independent reviewer of the challenge.

I think it’s unfair to give 1 point for an escape where the wrestler on top/in control cuts the other guy loose. I’m not saying where the escapee is fightingbhis way out and the top guy concedes, but when they go out of bounds and return to the center, the guy on top should be able to say neutral and not give up a point.

Also, no stalling calls on the guy on bottom. If the wrestler on top can’t make progress, then they reset and there is the option to start neutral without awarding an escape point as discussed above.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Would love to see the following changes:

1) An independent third referee on every mat at the NCAA tournament to exclusively do the video reviews. The guy who makes the call should not then go review his own call.

2) Get rid of the ridiculous hands to the face emphasis. It was fine in past years when it was only called for blatant slaps/clubs/punches. It came close to deciding some important matches, especially late in the third when coaches randomly toss the challenge brick hoping to get a cheap point. I would have been sick to my stomach to see a tie match in the 3rd period decided on a weak penalty point.

3) If you want to challenge a call, you need to risk something. It should be like how it is in freestyle where if you lose a challenge your opponent gets a point. I would even accept your opponent getting choice. You should not be able to just stop the clock whenever you want with no penalty.

4) The 5 count on the leg rule is stupid. Why am I allowed to lace up the ankle with my leg and stretch it out, but if I do the same thing with my hand it’s a five count for a stall warning? Also hate when there is a scramble on the mat and the two wrestlers are in a roll around situation where they both have ankles and the top guy starts to get a five count. Is he supposed to just let go and give up a reversal? There’s action happening there. He is not just hanging onto an ankle to stall.

5) Get rid of the stalling DQ or increase the number of staff calls necessary to actually get a DQ. There are far more stall calls now with the edge rule than there used to be and they have not accordingly adjusted the number of stall calls that you can receive before being disqualified. See: Desanto 1st round match where he just ran his kid off the mat 4 times in a row.

4 was called inconsistently. I saw several examples where there was no call, others where the count started.

Disagree on 5. 5 is enough SW to be stalled out. Particularly, since stalling isn't being called enough, anyway.

 

[crablegs1]

4) The 5 count on the leg rule is stupid. Why am I allowed to lace up the ankle with my leg and stretch it out, but if I do the same thing with my hand it’s a five count for a stall warning? Also hate when there is a scramble on the mat and the two wrestlers are in a roll around situation where they both have ankles and the top guy starts to get a five count. Is he supposed to just let go and give up a reversal? There’s action happening there. He is not just hanging onto an ankle to stall.

I’m good with your top 3, but this one is just silly. There are multiple turns you can work when you have the ankle hooked with your leg such as cradles, 3/4s, and more. When you are holding the leg with your hands/arms there is literally nothing else you can do but hold on.

While the ankle ride can definitely be stalling (Mark Hall is the worst offender), it is much more subjective because you can actually work turns from there.

 

[JohnnyHandsome]

At a minimum, hands to the face should require a warning b4 awarding any points. Better yet, get rid of the rule unless its changed to hands to the eyes.

Sick of the ridiculous stall calls in the final 30-40 seconds in a close match against the wrestler in the lead no matter whats going on. Also sick of the stall calls that arent made, like with Fix in yesterdays final. No solution suggested

Agree, its tough to allow the ref to review his own call. In the NCAA tournament, it should go to the booth to a 3rd party where theres less pressure on the reviewer to be subjective.

 

[SandBuff]

I don’t like the 2 to 1 pts ratio that come with a takedown followed by an escape. It doesn’t reward takedowns enough. What I would like to see is after a takedown, if a stalemate is called or action goes out of bounds, then I’d give the top wrestler the option to restart on feet. I’d call it a release. Then they go back to feet without a cheap escape point going to the wrestler who was taken down. That would put more emphasis on attempting takedowns.
A typical first period where the agreesor completes 2 takedowns often ends with a 4-2 score and if it could be 4-3 with another escape in the second period. It’d be much more representative if it was 4-0 and would put the wrestlers who was taken down twice in more of a deficit.
I when a wrestler chooses down to start a period or after injury timeout, then I wouldn’t a release to be used. Lots of wrestlers depend on that easy point. I just don’t want to pair an easy point with a takedown.
Please pass that on to the powers that be.

 

[El-Jefe]

4) The 5 count on the leg rule is stupid. Why am I allowed to lace up the ankle with my leg and stretch it out, but if I do the same thing with my hand it’s a five count for a stall warning? Also hate when there is a scramble on the mat and the two wrestlers are in a roll around situation where they both have ankles and the top guy starts to get a five count. Is he supposed to just let go and give up a reversal? There’s action happening there. He is not just hanging onto an ankle to stall.

Mat wrestling has been significantly better since top was barred from just laying on the legs and waiting for a statemate at the first sign of danger.

Also might be time to brush up on the rule. Top can have one hand on the ankle -- but he'd better have the other hand above the waist.

 

[NoVaLion2]

I don’t like the 2 to 1 pts ratio that come with a takedown followed by an escape. It doesn’t reward takedowns enough. What I would like to see is after a takedown, if a stalemate is called or action goes out of bounds, then I’d give the top wrestler the option to restart on feet. I’d call it a release. Then they go back to feet without a cheap escape point going to the wrestler who was taken down. That would put more emphasis on attempting takedowns.
A typical first period where the agreesor completes 2 takedowns often ends with a 4-2 score and if it could be 4-3 with another escape in the second period. It’d be much more representative if it was 4-0 and would put the wrestlers who was taken down twice in more of a deficit.
I when a wrestler chooses down to start a period or after injury timeout, then I wouldn’t a release to be used. Lots of wrestlers depend on that easy point. I just don’t want to pair an easy point with a takedown.
Please pass that on to the powers that be.

I think this is a REALLY bad idea. You would be encouraging the top wrestler to take the action out of bounds to gain the differential... Or worse, simply force a stalemate to achieve the same result. Both of these would lead to less exciting wrestling.

 

[psualt]

Maybe a lost challenge should count as a stall call, as long as there was a third independent reviewer of the challenge.

I think it’s unfair to give 1 point for an escape where the wrestler on top/in control cuts the other guy loose. I’m not saying where the escapee is fightingbhis way out and the top guy concedes, but when they go out of bounds and return to the center, the guy on top should be able to say neutral and not give up a point.

Also, no stalling calls on the guy on bottom. If the wrestler on top can’t make progress, then they reset and there is the option to start neutral without awarding an escape point as discussed above.

You don’t see a problem with the top guy being able to choose neutral after going out of bounds? It seems pretty obvious what would end up occurring when the guy stands as does no stalling calls on the bottom guy.

 

[PSU Mike]

I think the most appropriate penalty for a failed challenge is a stall warning. I’ve seen a few too many gasser bricks.

 

[SandBuff]

I think this is a REALLY bad idea. You would be encouraging the top wrestler to take the action out of bounds to gain the differential... Or worse, simply force a stalemate to achieve the same result. Both of these would lead to less exciting wrestling.

I agree it would encourage the top wrestler to do as you say. The trade off would be more wrestling on the feet, which nudges folk style toward freestyle and I’m very ok with that. The ride will still be important when a wrestler chooses down so mat wrestling won’t completely go away it will just be reduced. Also wrestlers who are motivated to turn their opponents will still want to do mat wrestling. I don’t like the exposure rule in freestyle as I think that’s too easy, but I love turning and pins. So having freestyle like feet wrestling and folkstlys like pins would be great.

My motivation is based on watching PSU guys like Nolf scoring frequently while the opponent does nothing but still scores. For example in his last 2 or 3 matches vs Berger, Nolf should have won by shutouts. It’s a lot harder to run your mouth when there’s zeros next to your name. Based on what they did in the championship, Nolf should have won 10-0, not 10-2. Those 2 cheap points make Berger think he’s within a whisper of beating Nolf.

Other examples were when Iowa’s St John wrestled Dale and Taylor. He did nothing. Just was defensive and the escape points kept him in the match. I think wrestling is more exciting when you’re forced to wrestle. If favors how most PSU wrestlers wrestle. It hurts those that just are defensive.

 

[NoVaLion2]

One change I would like to see is that, at least in championship matches, if it's tied after 7 minutes then you just keep going until someone gets a takedown. We WANTs offense.

 

[fen103]

Get rid of headgear.

 

[psumacw]

ban leg attacks

 

[PSUcup1]

#4 is a ridiculous thought. It is absolutely stalling. Problem is the enforcement is so inconsistent. Count should start immediately when grabbed and enforced All the time

 

[Ranger Dan]

You don’t see a problem with the top guy being able to choose neutral after going out of bounds? It seems pretty obvious what would end up occurring when the guy stands as does no stalling calls on the bottom guy.

If the guy on bottom didn’t escape before going out of bounds, then today they would return with the same guy on top and in control. The guy on bottom didn’t earn an escape and if the guy on top wanted to go neutral he shouldn’t have to give up a point. What this would mean, is more take downs and less riding.

 

[jack66]

If they get rid of the 5 count on the legs, we'll see the return of the Jesse Delgado ride where wrestlers were dragging him around the mat like a strip of toilet paper stuck to their shoe.

 

[psualt]

If the guy on bottom didn’t escape before going out of bounds, then today they would return with the same guy on top and in control. The guy on bottom didn’t earn an escape and if the guy on top wanted to go neutral he shouldn’t have to give up a point. What this would mean, is more take downs and less riding.

What this would mean is more guys on top taking the guy out of bounds.

 

[Ranger Dan]

What this would mean is more guys on top taking the guy out of bounds.

So?

 

[El-Jefe]

If they get rid of the 5 count on the legs, we'll see the return of the Jesse Delgado ride where wrestlers were dragging him around the mat like a strip of toilet paper stuck to their shoe.

We saw the exact strip of toilet paper stuck to a shoe ride in the 133 final rideouts -- and it cost top a stalling point.

 

[jack66]

We saw the exact strip of toilet paper stuck to a shoe ride in the 133 final rideouts -- and it cost top a stalling point.

Yeah, I think Nico would have been a 2 time champ if they had instituted that rule, along with the OOB rules, a year earlier.

 

[RoarLions1]

-- Rule changes, for the most part, are in two-year cycles. This "Interpretations" Manual is a living/breathing document, so some changes are possible at any time.

-- The current cycle just ended (2017-18 an 2018-19 seasons), so we could expect hearing about the more significant changes this Summer, even late Spring.

-- Most requests for change have already been made (submitted by referees, coaches, etc.). Due by January 2019.

-- The annual rules committee meeting will be held April 8-10, 2019, so two weeks from now.

-- Guessing by May/June, again, fans will hear the tentative changes (either leaked, or publicly announced, or both ).

Here's video that contains some of the info on dates/timing, the majority though is on changes from this past cycle.

 

[El-Jefe]

Yeah, I think Nico would have been a 2 time champ if they had instituted that rule, along with the OOB rules, a year earlier.

And the Heil Rule.

Nico was just a man ahead of his time.

 

[El-Jefe]

-
-- The annual rules committee meeting will be held April 8-10, 2019, so two weeks from now.

Ate you sure about this?

Seems like Tom Ryan just held the mtg on Twitter.

 

[Conewago]

I would like to see more emphasis on calling stalling in the last 30 seconds of the 3rd period in close matches.

174 for example. In my opinion, Zahid won mostly fair and square, and the big difference in the Valencia-Hall match was that Mark couldn't escape in the 2nd. But, still, I personally think there could have been a stall call against Valencia in the last 30 seconds, which would have sent the match to OT. (And, regardless of who won, the first two periods of that match were so good, with both wrestlers so exciting, I wish there had been OT just to get more action between them!)

Especially when a guy starts literally running away or something in the last few seconds, while winning. Call me a stickler for the rules, but that guy should get hit for stalling. I don't care how big the lead is, he's avoiding wrestling action. (With that said, I wouldn't hit him if his opponent isn't trying anymore either)

I also thought McKenna probably should have banged for stalling when he started backing off after scoring his first takedown. But meh, whatever, that match worked out in the long run.

I think the refs were lucky that Suriano managed to beat Fix, 'cause otherwise they'd look bad for letting Fix stall terribly

With all that said, I thought stalling was called reasonably in this tournament, and we had great action most of the time

 

[RoarLions1]

Ate you sure about this?

Seems like Tom Ryan just held the mtg on Twitter.

Positive . Ryan's tweet means as much to me, you, and everyone else, as it does to the rules committee. Squat.

 

[Conewago]

Yeah, I think Nico would have been a 2 time champ if they had instituted that rule, along with the OOB rules, a year earlier.

Speaking of Nico and close losses, did anyone else think that they called takedowns inconsistently in his semi final match with Nahshon Garrett? It's been a long time, though, and my memory is probably foggy