Potential riding time solution

[Regulator]

I’ve been thinking about this a bit since the Penn state- Iowa match. I don’t think getting rid of riding time is the answer as it is still an important skill in wrestling. But, What if the rules states riding time is awarded only if greater than 2 points has been scored in the match?  It gets rid of the 2-1 riding time point win. Also if it’s 1-0 and the guy winning has riding time but now the bottom wrestler has the whole third period to get an escape which would tie it instead of losing 2-1. It Still can be the deciding factor in a 6-6(7-6 with rt)match.  Thoughts?
 

Sorry if anyone else posted this idea previously. 

[SocraTease]

I prefer David Taylor's idea.  You get riding time if you turn a guy.  If you don't, no RT.  It encourages action. 

If you can't turn a guy, you need to let him up and score another way.

I would even be okay if the top man is put on a 30 second clock.  No turn, then action returns to the feet. 

[scourge165]

Interesting ideas and I get the impetus for them after that PSU-Iowa duel, but two things. 

1-Matchup's like that are ALMOST never that dull. 

2-It kinda gives the bottom guy or the inferior wrestler an out. 

 

I'd prefer some smaller tweaks. You hold the ankle for 5 seconds, it's a stall. So don't let a guy just hook the ankle all match. Call stalling on top more if guys aren't trying to score. Just smaller tweaks. But I see the point. 

Starroci should NOT be riding a guy like Brands escaping with a 2-1 win. 

[ScarletKnight]

4 hours ago, SocraTease said:

I prefer David Taylor's idea.  You get riding time if you turn a guy.  If you don't, no RT.  It encourages action. 

If you can't turn a guy, you need to let him up and score another way.

I would even be okay if the top man is put on a 30 second clock.  No turn, then action returns to the feet. 

You usually don't need another point if u turn the guy.  Taylor is on the short list of guys who turned almost everyone. 4 backpoints is a lot to overcome by cutting someone and taking them down (like micic vs gross in the finals) 

No need to change the rules for that imo but maybe instead hit top guys for stalling or dont hit bottom guys for stalling when they are trying get out.  Remember how many times desanto was hit for stalling on bottom in his blood round loss? 

 

[Scouts Honor]

its called riding time. but i think it's meant as control time. control doesn't mean i turn him, it means i control him.

and im old enough to remember the fiasco in international where you couldn't win without 3 points... wasn't a fan of taht.

this i must score 2 to get riding time is well.. about the same... 

[Jason Bryant]

It isn’t DT’s idea, it’s been recycled for a while. I don’t remember when I first heard it, but I recall writing about that concept no less than 15 years ago.

[PortaJohn]

I always liked the idea of having the wrestlers start each period in neutral.  Riding time is then awarded to a wrestler achieving a takedown or reversal.  And Refs actually enforcing the neutral rules that already exist. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by PortaJohn

[Voice of the Quakers]

I'll mention my idea for the umpteenth time, not that anyone cares...

Riding time should not be worth a point. Rather, it should only be used to break a tie at the end of regulation, much as it is used at the end of overtime. 

So, if a match is tied 6-6 at the end of seven minutes, you can break the tie and award a win if one of the wrestlers has more than a minute of riding time.

It's a bit similar to the check mark system used for aggressiveness and other criteria in eastern martial arts.

[Scouts Honor]

12 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I always liked the idea of having the wrestlers start each period in neutral.  Riding time is then awarded to a wrestler achieving a takedown or reversal.  And Refs actually enforcing the neutral rules that already exist. 

i do like this idea!!

 

[Scouts Honor]

8 minutes ago, Voice of the Quakers said:

I'll mention my idea for the umpteenth time, not that anyone cares...

Riding time should not be worth a point. Rather, it should only be used to break a tie at the end of regulation, much as it is used at the end of overtime. 

So, if a match is tied 6-6 at the end of seven minutes, you can break the tie and award a win if one of the wrestlers has more than a minute of riding time.

It's a bit similar to the check mark system used for aggressiveness and other criteria in eastern martial arts.

i like this idea... but being in control is still a skill. a hard skill.

if everyone could do it... 

 

[PencilNeck]

I don't think riding time is a problem. The problem is wrestlers choosing down and not escaping quickly.

[JVStateChamp]

6 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i like this idea... but being in control is still a skill. a hard skill.

if everyone could do it... 

 

Riding on top is a skill and very hard to do at the higher levels. But the difficulty to be in control goes down when their is no intent to turn. When a wrestler ankle rides or has double boots in without any intention to turn riding becomes less difficult and is really a way to waste time. My pet peeve while watching college wrestling is when a top wrestler who has double boots in and in full control is showing minimal intention to turn but yet bottom man gets hit with stalling. 

[Scouts Honor]

5 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

Riding on top is a skill and very hard to do at the higher levels. But the difficulty to be in control goes down when their is no intent to turn. When a wrestler ankle rides or has double boots in without any intention to turn riding becomes less difficult and is really a way to waste time. My pet peeve while watching college wrestling is when a top wrestler who has double boots in and in full control is showing minimal intention to turn but yet bottom man gets hit with stalling. 

i agree, the ankle rides, double thigh pry and double boots should be called stalling

 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Make escapes be worth 1.5 points

[boconnell]

The biggest problem is more mandatory stall calls have made refs ignore non-mandatory ones.  5 seconds on the legs is stalling, but 4.5 seconds 5 different times is 22.5 seconds of legal riding time.  If a guy continuously drops for 4 seconds, call stalling.  Not attempting a mat return is a stall, but letting him stand for 4 seconds and then pushing him out of bounds isn't stalling on top.  The problem isn't the rules, the problem is refs refusing to call obvious stalling.

[bnwtwg]

1 hour ago, JVStateChamp said:

Riding on top is a skill and very hard to do at the higher levels. But the difficulty to be in control goes down when their is no intent to turn. When a wrestler ankle rides or has double boots in without any intention to turn riding becomes less difficult and is really a way to waste time. My pet peeve while watching college wrestling is when a top wrestler who has double boots in and in full control is showing minimal intention to turn but yet bottom man gets hit with stalling. 

Unless your name is Nick Suriano and when you are about to get ridden like a show pony in the NCAA finals they blow it dead and let you have a mulligan on your standup. Terrible call with regards to consistency because as @Scouts Honor mentioned, Riding Time = controlling time not turning time. Been waiting a few years to get that one off my chest.

 

[Elevator]

2 hours ago, Voice of the Quakers said:

I'll mention my idea for the umpteenth time, not that anyone cares...

Riding time should not be worth a point. Rather, it should only be used to break a tie at the end of regulation, much as it is used at the end of overtime. 

So, if a match is tied 6-6 at the end of seven minutes, you can break the tie and award a win if one of the wrestlers has more than a minute of riding time.

It's a bit similar to the check mark system used for aggressiveness and other criteria in eastern martial arts.

This is a good idea!   Maybe make it so it only breaks the tie after the first OT period - that would make the 2 min OT period more productive and exciting.

I wonder if NCAA rules committee is reading this board for all of its good ideas?

[Elevator]

3 hours ago, JVStateChamp said:

Riding on top is a skill and very hard to do at the higher levels. But the difficulty to be in control goes down when their is no intent to turn. When a wrestler ankle rides or has double boots in without any intention to turn riding becomes less difficult and is really a way to waste time. My pet peeve while watching college wrestling is when a top wrestler who has double boots in and in full control is showing minimal intention to turn but yet bottom man gets hit with stalling. 

Yes - that is some bullshit and remarkably frequent.  Have these guys never been on bottom when someone has a leg hooked or two boots in?  

[SocraTease]

Two boots in should have a 5 count limit or something like that.  Very few guys are capable of turning anyone with it in Division 1 and it very difficult to escape from.

Riding for the sake of riding is barely wrestling. Most fans hate it and find it boring. 

It the opposite of action.  It is re-action in fact to the bottom wrestler's attempts to get out.

If the top wrestler isn't working to turn a guy, put them back on their feet.   Freestyle has this right.   Folkstyle can give them a longer period of time to work (say, 30 seconds)  but limit it.  When guys parallel ride, they generally are not working for a turn.  They are stalling or going for a RT point.