Potential Rule Changes (Poll)

[peanut]

Please vote on the following potential rule changes, as summarized by 1032004.

I was only able to add three separate questions to the poll, so I picked the three questions I wanted to hear about the most.

[Dark Energy]

My votes - all yes.

On the step out …. I was hopeful that the increased likelihood of a stall call  would help but refs have swallowed their whistles.  However they do it, they still need to bang top wrestlers for driving bottom wrestlers out if they get to their feet.

And yes pls on requiring a top wrestler to work for a turn / pin.  Shocked that this was not a rule.  

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

I would've rephrased Q2.  Earning a riding time point is working for a point.  Preventing an escape in short time, is effectively working for a point.

I guess it meant should be read as required to work for a near fall.  I personally don't like it, because it seems to require too much subjective referee judgment.

I would prefer what some consider top stalling (leg riding without attempting a turn) to result in a double-stall and return to neutral without an escape point, only after riding time exceeds two minutes.

Edited April 2, 2023 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[Lipdrag]

What's going on?!?  I could vote only once per question!!  I am from a blue state and I demand my voting right, and another voting right, and another right, until my side wins.  I also want to know how many votes the other side got before I begin my voting sesssions to ensure fairness and transparency.  Because, you know, that democracy thing.

[Offthemat]

If YES on 1, will starting wrestlers avoid attending tournaments?

If YES on 2, how many wrestlers will be DQ’d in CHA?

If YES on 3,  will the oob area of the mat be enlarged and the uniform changed to sumo style?

One change I’ve thought would help is adapting the freestyle rewarding of moves that are initiated inbounds, but finish oob.  

[CementMixer]

The push out rule already is b.s. No way that gets passed. The other two rules should be good to go.

[Tigerfan]

What is the goal of counting a mff as a loss? Don’t we already do that? The mff’ing wrestler doesn’t advance, the opponent scores the equivalent of a fall for his team AND advances to the next round or higher placement. If the goal is simply to penalize the “injured” wrestler in future rankings/seedings, then apply a loss to that team’s entrant at future seeded tournaments and future rankings, but you can’t penalize the wrestler for being injured, and it is impossible to discern the severity or legitimacy of injuries with any degree of accuracy. 
 

I would also support an 8 pt forfeit in duals to incentivize actually competing vs “ducking”, but then I still cling to the make duals matter philosophy. 

[BobDole]

RE: The Push-Out Point

I think three years ago I would have definitely say YES, but I believe the refs(at least DI) have figured out how to call the out of bounds in a consistent manner. There are very few calls on the edge that make me wonder what is going on versus the first couple years.

One thing to understand is that it takes a couple years for referees to become accustomed to calling new rules.

[ugarles]

what do you mean by "the first MFF"? an in-match injury default should definitely count as a loss. a match where the wrestler does not take the mat because of an injury sustained in an earlier match should not, even if they wrestled to the final whistle of that match. 

[gimpeltf]

5 hours ago, ugarles said:

what do you mean by "the first MFF"? an in-match injury default should definitely count as a loss. a match where the wrestler does not take the mat because of an injury sustained in an earlier match should not, even if they wrestled to the final whistle of that match. 

A default is a loss and it's not a med forfeit. You blow the whistle for a default.

[ugarles]

5 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

A default is a loss and it's not a med forfeit. You blow the whistle for a default.

i know; i was asking about the intent of OP, not the rule. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

9 hours ago, ugarles said:

i know; i was asking about the intent of OP, not the rule. 

I am not sure if I understand your question, but the MFF counting as a loss is to prevent athletes from defaulting out of a tourney after a loss.  We all know that in many such cases, they are healthy but don't feel like wrestling back for some reason.  This has been deemed "bad for the sport.' Not to mention: some of these situations are flat out "ducks."

Edited April 5, 2023 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken