Cael wants a pushout rule

[MPhillips]

Just now, boconnell said:

If you can now move a grounded opponent out for a point

Is that the new rule?

[boconnell]

4 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Is that the new rule?

You can't avoid a push out by being grounded.  That means if you are on the ground you can still be pushed out.  I'm not sure how else it could be applied.

[PSULou64]

I said this a month or so ago and still think it makes sense.

The lack of offense seems to come from the advantage that they have given defensive wrestlers who want you on their leg so they can grab an ankle, roll through, sit the corner, lock through the crotch, etc. they rarely get hit for stalling even though they don't take shots because in many circumstances they score.

Most guys then are very careful when and how often they shoot. My idea is that counter takedowns in those scenarios are only worth 1 point. It still rewards guys with a point and being on top but would still keep guys aggressive because the risk reward ratio now outweighs to the true aggressor.

[boconnell]

2 minutes ago, PSULou64 said:

I said this a month or so ago and still think it makes sense.

The lack of offense seems to come from the advantage that they have given defensive wrestlers who want you on their leg so they can grab an ankle, roll through, sit the corner, lock through the crotch, etc. they rarely get hit for stalling even though they don't take shots because in many circumstances they score.

Most guys then are very careful when and how often they shoot. My idea is that counter takedowns in those scenarios are only worth 1 point. It still rewards guys with a point and being on top but would still keep guys aggressive because the risk reward ratio now outweighs to the true aggressor.

That's a terrible idea that makes no sense.  The object of the sport isn't to take guys down with shots and pin them.  It's to take them down and pin them.  

[forkemaz]

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

I'd love to remove it unless that means guys are delaying for the pushout period or the clinch period or anything else that's been suggested like that.  I think human nature is that the lesser guy is going to try to keep it close.  It happens in every sport.  I think most attempts to regulate that out will not accomplish what we intend.

I wasn't suggesting the clinch in over time I was suggesting it from the first whistle, from the first stall call. Hard to run when you're in an under over. Do I love it? No. But people wouldn't go for what I really want. The clinch is more palatable.

[alex1fly]

3 hours ago, boconnell said:

Plus the pushout is already gamed in FS by guys grounding themselves before they go out of bounds.  I honestly think guys go out just as much in FS.

Its the funny thing about rules - you make them to eliminate a competitive advantage, and then people find new competitive advantages. These convos are fun but I don't think any rule change in the last 10 years has been without unintended negative consequences.

3 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Yes, I'm a ref.  That is a lot.  And would be worse for fans.  We want to make stuff as easy to understand as possible, and we still have trouble with it!

Amen! I've been involved with the sport for 30 some years and I've just kind of given up on keeping up. The meat of takedowns and control is still there obviously but edge stalling, leg counts, exposure takedowns, and reaction time have all served to make wrestling more confusing and create more problems while supposedly solving problems. "Stop tinkering and just wrestle!" he said grumpily, lol

[boconnell]

2 hours ago, forkemaz said:

I wasn't suggesting the clinch in over time I was suggesting it from the first whistle, from the first stall call. Hard to run when you're in an under over. Do I love it? No. But people wouldn't go for what I really want. The clinch is more palatable.

I don't think it's more palatable.  Right now we have to deal with tie breakers in like 10% of the matches.  With this rule we are dealing with a gimmicky clinch in 90% of the matches.

[WrestlingRasta]

23 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Rather than push out or step out, award takedowns that are initiated inside the circle but land outside the circle.  This takes the edge sanctuary away if you continue to call stalling or fleeing as the rules are now. 

Agree whole heartedly with this.  Have been saying this amongst my coaching buddies for awhile. 

[forkemaz]

18 minutes ago, boconnell said:

I don't think it's more palatable.  Right now we have to deal with tie breakers in like 10% of the matches.  With this rule we are dealing with a gimmicky clinch in 90% of the matches.

What makes it gimmicky?

[GV4444]

5 hours ago, boconnell said:

The shot clock has zero to do with defining what a shot is.  The current shot clock in FS that is the context here is an activity clock.  If a guy is judged not to have been active then he is given 30 seconds to score.  At no point is a ref interpreting what a shot is.  None of what you brought up would help anybody avoid a shot clock.

My bad.  I wasn't thinking about the the FS activity clock.  There are issues to the activity clock, too.  It sometimes seems to be arbitrary who goes on the activity clock first.  It's worse in FS, because the first guy goes on the clock, then the second guys goes on the clock, the first guys has criteria and can win 1-1.

 

Edited March 23 by GV4444

[boconnell]

2 hours ago, forkemaz said:

What makes it gimmicky?

What makes a starting position that has never been used in 100 years of the sport at any level gimmicky?  What makes a starting position that responds to stalling by putting both guys in a 50/50 gimmicky?

You started with a disclaimer that you knew everyone would hate it.  You know it's a crazy gimmick.  If I thought there was a .01% chance of it happening, I'd keep discussing why it's a bad idea.  Instead I'll just agree to disagree and let the idea disappear forever.

[forkemaz]

6 hours ago, boconnell said:

What makes a starting position that has never been used in 100 years of the sport at any level gimmicky?  What makes a starting position that responds to stalling by putting both guys in a 50/50 gimmicky?

You started with a disclaimer that you knew everyone would hate it.  You know it's a crazy gimmick.  If I thought there was a .01% chance of it happening, I'd keep discussing why it's a bad idea.  Instead I'll just agree to disagree and let the idea disappear forever.

I don't think it's any more of a gimmick than a step out or a shot clock. At least with a clinch or as you call it a 50/50 position you're putting guys in a position that will actually cause wrestling. I did know people would hate it though and If I was the king of wrestling it's not how id address the problem. 

[Caveira]

12 hours ago, forkemaz said:

I don't think it's any more of a gimmick than a step out or a shot clock. At least with a clinch or as you call it a 50/50 position you're putting guys in a position that will actually cause wrestling. I did know people would hate it though and If I was the king of wrestling it's not how id address the problem. 

How did you know this.  
 

is it Because that inferior sport already tried it and basically every human alive didn’t like it ?

[mr.nonothingatall]

Of course cael wants that. His guys are always pushing forward and are great at circling in. It would benefit his team. 

I'm not in favor of a step out rule In regulation. The refs need to call stalling. Stalling don't mean it has to be called on the edge of the mat, this isn't SUMO.

Cool you pushed a guy to the edge of the mat and now u want rewarded??????

You should be shooting and trying to score. Then you can get rewarded. Step outs do not solve the issue, it creates less attacks, if there's anything to learn from rules in folk style it's that the coaches and teams will find loopholes and strategies to exploit them. The refs need to call stalling faster, stallmates more often (if guys are gonna handfight on the edge, stalemate, bring back to center) 

[scourge165]

On 3/24/2026 at 8:37 PM, mr.nonothingatall said:

Of course cael wants that. His guys are always pushing forward and are great at circling in. It would benefit his team. 

I'm not in favor of a step out rule In regulation. The refs need to call stalling. Stalling don't mean it has to be called on the edge of the mat, this isn't SUMO.

Cool you pushed a guy to the edge of the mat and now u want rewarded??????

You should be shooting and trying to score. Then you can get rewarded. Step outs do not solve the issue, it creates less attacks, if there's anything to learn from rules in folk style it's that the coaches and teams will find loopholes and strategies to exploit them. The refs need to call stalling faster, stallmates more often (if guys are gonna handfight on the edge, stalemate, bring back to center) 

No... I said I just wanted to see more stalling calls, not blocking and pushing and was told that would be more arbitrary. 

Also... we're talking about this like we just watched a terrible tournament. The finals were great! It was one of the best finals I've ever seen. Just make the stalling a point of emphasis. 

Let guys know you're going to be calling it more if you're backing up. You don't overcorrect in the last 30 seconds of a 4-1 or 4-2 match, you ref it the same. Hit McEnelly with a 2nd stalling there(I'm picking on him because I believe he could have scored... not at will, but multiple takedowns in that match). 

We don't need to fundamentally change the sport. I don't want to see Sinclair beat Ferrari by walking him out of bounds on a single anymore than I want to see Ferrari win by winning on a ride out. 


 

[WrestleFan12]

On 3/23/2026 at 2:23 PM, boconnell said:

Why wouldn't it be fair?

There was zero stalling in that match, that’s why.

Lack of scoring and lack of shots doesn’t necessarily equate to stalling. Good grief.

Edited March 27 by WrestleFan12

[boconnell]

10 minutes ago, WrestleFan12 said:

There was zero stalling in that match, that’s why.

Lack of scoring and lack of shots doesn’t necessarily equate to stalling. Good grief.

The guy who did nothing and never attempted to score wasn't stalling?  That's an opinion I guess.

[Threadkilla]

Zain Rutherford posted a couple rule change ideas that I love.  First he said they should make the call on the mat like they do in the NFL that without irrefutable evidence a call made by the ref can't be overturned.  And he said a push out should be used in OT, too many wrestlers ride the edge of the mat.   

Edited March 27 by Threadkilla

[BaldAt23]

On 3/26/2026 at 1:02 AM, scourge165 said:

No... I said I just wanted to see more stalling calls, not blocking and pushing and was told that would be more arbitrary. 

Also... we're talking about this like we just watched a terrible tournament. The finals were great! It was one of the best finals I've ever seen. Just make the stalling a point of emphasis. 

Let guys know you're going to be calling it more if you're backing up. You don't overcorrect in the last 30 seconds of a 4-1 or 4-2 match, you ref it the same. Hit McEnelly with a 2nd stalling there(I'm picking on him because I believe he could have scored... not at will, but multiple takedowns in that match). 

We don't need to fundamentally change the sport. I don't want to see Sinclair beat Ferrari by walking him out of bounds on a single anymore than I want to see Ferrari win by winning on a ride out. 


 

The finals were not great, and they never are. It’s always by far the worst round of the tournament. 

[scourge165]

17 hours ago, BaldAt23 said:

The finals were not great, and they never are. It’s always by far the worst round of the tournament. 

So what do I respond with here? "Yeah-huh?" I thought they were great. Most people thought they were great. Flo...FWIW had a discussion on if they were the greatest finals ever. 

That you prefer other rounds is... entirely moot to this conversation. The Semis or Quarters may be more entertaining. That couldn't have less bearing on what I just said. I said these were the best FINALS I've seen in a while and they were great. 

You don't ever think they're great. I doubt you'd change your mind with a pushout or other gimmicks we'd add to Folkstyle. 

[alex1fly]

On 3/24/2026 at 7:37 PM, mr.nonothingatall said:

Of course cael wants that. His guys are always pushing forward and are great at circling in. It would benefit his team. 

I'm not in favor of a step out rule In regulation. The refs need to call stalling. Stalling don't mean it has to be called on the edge of the mat, this isn't SUMO.

Cool you pushed a guy to the edge of the mat and now u want rewarded??????

You should be shooting and trying to score. Then you can get rewarded. Step outs do not solve the issue, it creates less attacks, if there's anything to learn from rules in folk style it's that the coaches and teams will find loopholes and strategies to exploit them. The refs need to call stalling faster, stallmates more often (if guys are gonna handfight on the edge, stalemate, bring back to center) 

100

push out doesn’t solve the problem folks want solved, it adds more problems, and decreases offensive activity. 

[BaldAt23]

On 3/28/2026 at 1:51 AM, scourge165 said:

So what do I respond with here? "Yeah-huh?" I thought they were great. Most people thought they were great. Flo...FWIW had a discussion on if they were the greatest finals ever. 

That you prefer other rounds is... entirely moot to this conversation. The Semis or Quarters may be more entertaining. That couldn't have less bearing on what I just said. I said these were the best FINALS I've seen in a while and they were great. 

You don't ever think they're great. I doubt you'd change your mind with a pushout or other gimmicks we'd add to Folkstyle. 

2 of the 10 final matches had zero offensive points and were decided by the refs. That is terrible. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

On 3/27/2026 at 7:41 AM, Threadkilla said:

Zain Rutherford posted a couple rule change ideas that I love. 

First he said they should make the call on the mat like they do in the NFL that without irrefutable evidence a call made by the ref can't be overturned. 

That IS the rule!

My understanding after listening to Flo and also reading an article on the call was that the refs in the booth saw that the cradle position did not meet the 2025-2026 interpretation for how the cradle position from neutral should be called: from both a position and reaction time standpoint.  This is not a new interpretation.  The point is: the guys in the booth saw that the official had made the wrong call according to their understanding of the current interpretation.  Irrefutable.

Many, many people complain that refs never overturn calls.  Now we have one that is overturned and people don't like it, likely due to laundry- and the fact that the position could not be recreated.

Zain knows more about wrestling than I ever possibly could hope too, but he wasn't making similar tweets after the "locked hands" in the Matt Brown 2015 final or the Zahid headgear grab of Mark Hall.

The ref in question was ranked #2 or #3 in the country before the gaffe.  He is very good.  He made an error- the PSU coaches were celebrating when he made the error btw.  

[GimJustafan]

 

[mr.nonothingatall]

36 minutes ago, GimJustafan said:

 

No

I like pyles and the flo gang, but for the past 2 weeks they have had some crazy takes on stuff imo.