turning point

[Scouts Honor]

https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/11099028-why-the-ncaa-wrestling-rules-committee-nixed-the-turning-point-proposal

[Scouts Honor]

A riding time point went on the board in 325 of the 640 matches at the Division I NCAA Championships in March. Only 23 of those bouts were determined by or sent into overtime by a riding time point. Of those 23, none of the wrestlers who registered riding time points also scored near-fall points.  

[98lberEating2Lunches]

7 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

Of those 23, none of the wrestlers who registered riding time points also scored near-fall points.

Of those 23, how many AA'd?

Of those 23 matches, how many yielded team points that potentially affected a team trophy position?

[Formally140]

In the round of 12 it was at least 3 matches….

[Wrestleknownothing]

11 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

A riding time point went on the board in 325 of the 640 matches at the Division I NCAA Championships in March. Only 23 of those bouts were determined by or sent into overtime by a riding time point. Of those 23, none of the wrestlers who registered riding time points also scored near-fall points.  

When I read the article it was not clear to me what point they were trying to make with these stats. How do you intrepret them?

[ionel]

13 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

 also scored near-fall points.  

Why don't they call these nearpinfall points?  Hopefully asking someone who knows something.  

[CHROMEBIRD]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

When I read the article it was not clear to me what point they were trying to make with these stats. How do you intrepret them?

I agree, it was a number salad without any clear insights or takeaways. It looked like the data was awkwardly jammed randomly into the article just for the sake of having some stats in there. Looking at the paragraph, my own read is:

• A riding time point was scored in about half the matches at Nationals = RT is scored frequently enough... 
• Of those matches with RT, the added point was a determining factor in fewer than 1 in 10 (7%) of them = ... but RT usually doesn't make a difference  either way in who wins a match... 
• Of those 7% of matches where RT was a factor, the bottom man didn't get turned = ... and when RT matters, the top wrestler just sat on top and won (or sent the match into OT)

I think the author was trying to say, in a very convoluted way, that a turning point rule would complicate the rules while only affecting a very small # of matches? But that reasoning is flawed, because with a turning point rule, RT could have been a determining factor in more than 7% of the matches (the data doesn't indicate either way) AND a subset of those matches (again, the data doesn't indicate what proportion) where RT mattered would have gone into OT, so longer matches.

[Scouts Honor]

5 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

When I read the article it was not clear to me what point they were trying to make with these stats. How do you intrepret them?

i say, the reason they didn't add the need to turn was that it only happened in 7% of the riding time matches...

[Scouts Honor]

9 hours ago, 98lberEating2Lunches said:

Of those 23, how many AA'd?

Of those 23 matches, how many yielded team points that potentially affected a team trophy position?

Quote

Quote

 

 

who knows? who cares? 

im just quoting the article.

only 7% of the time did the guy with RT NOT get backs

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Why don't they call these nearpinfall points?  Hopefully asking someone who knows something.  

Quote

i call them back points

 

[Scouts Honor]

5 hours ago, Formally140 said:

In the round of 12 it was at least 3 matches….

yes, in really tight matches you aren't  going to turn guys

 

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I agree, it was a number salad without any clear insights or takeaways. It looked like the data was awkwardly jammed randomly into the article just for the sake of having some stats in there. Looking at the paragraph, my own read is:

• A riding time point was scored in about half the matches at Nationals = RT is scored frequently enough... 
• Of those matches with RT, the added point was a determining factor in fewer than 1 in 10 (7%) of them = ... but RT usually doesn't make a difference  either way in who wins a match... 
• Of those 7% of matches where RT was a factor, the bottom man didn't get turned = ... and when RT matters, the top wrestler just sat on top and won (or sent the match into OT)

I think the author was trying to say, in a very convoluted way, that a turning point rule would complicate the rules while only affecting a very small # of matches? But that reasoning is flawed, because with a turning point rule, RT could have been a determining factor in more than 7% of the matches (the data doesn't indicate either way) AND a subset of those matches (again, the data doesn't indicate what proportion) where RT mattered would have gone into OT, so longer matches.

what there saying is.. only 7% of the time.. guys didn't get backs... 

so it isn't worth dealing with

[Formally140]

I mean getting rid of riding time and telling the refs to calm stalling based off the guy actually working to turn are the actual solutions but they only did one of them 

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Formally140 said:

I mean getting rid of riding time and telling the refs to calm stalling based off the guy actually working to turn are the actual solutions but they only did one of them 

I don't think referees should be in charge of calming stalling.   The rules should be such that they disincentivize it.  I am not really in favour of a solution where the official uses his/her judgement as to whether or not someone is trying to do something to call stalling.

The sport of basketball had a stalling problem.  The way they addressed it wasn't to have officials call a foul when in the judgement of the official one team was not trying to score.  It was the shot clock which is an objective standard with very little in the way of judgement.

[Formally140]

2 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't think referees should be in charge of calming stalling.   The rules should be such that they disincentivize it.  I am not really in favour of a solution where the official uses his/her judgement as to whether or not someone is trying to do something to call stalling.

The sport of basketball had a stalling problem.  The way they addressed it wasn't to have officials call a foul when in the judgement of the official one team was not trying to score.  It was the shot clock which is an objective standard with very little in the way of judgement.

This isn’t basketball 

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Formally140 said:

This isn’t basketball 

In case you were unaware, there is a popular style of wrestling that has addressed stalling/passivity with a shot clock.

[Formally140]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

In case you were unaware, there is a popular style of wrestling that has addressed stalling/passivity with a shot clock.

I am. But the refs still are pretty involved.. so your point doesn’t hold merit. If you want to do freestyle. Promote it. 

[1032004]

6 hours ago, fishbane said:

In case you were unaware, there is a popular style of wrestling that has addressed stalling/passivity with a shot clock.

Which is arguably more subjective than most folkstyle stalling calls…

[1032004]

13 hours ago, Formally140 said:

I mean getting rid of riding time and telling the refs to calm stalling based off the guy actually working to turn are the actual solutions but they only did one of them 

I think the change of telling the refs to call stalling could be a reason they are holding off on the turn needed for riding time.  Makes sense to see what kind of impact that has first

[Corby]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I think the change of telling the refs to call stalling could be a reason they are holding off on the turn needed for riding time.  Makes sense to see what kind of impact that has first

Refs have been told that forever. The goal of wrestling has always been pin your opponent. Which means work for a turn

[ionel]

44 minutes ago, Corby said:

The goal of wrestling has always been pin your opponent. 

Not according to Wkn ... but then what does he know? 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Corby said:

Refs have been told that forever. The goal of wrestling has always been pin your opponent. Which means work for a turn

According to the NCAA rulebook until now, this is not true.

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

WHAT THEY DID:

Three-point Takedown

No Hand-Touch Takedowns

Three-Point Nearfall

Refs Review All Action During a Challenge

First Medical Forfeit in Tournament Equals Loss

Ankle Rides Increasingly Penalized

Facial Hair Permitted

 

WHAT THEY SHOULD'VE DONE:

Facial Hair Required

Ten-Point High Amplitude Throw

Somebody on Shot Clock at All Times

Surprise Animal Introduced into Cage in Second Period

[Scouts Honor]

12 hours ago, fishbane said:

In case you were unaware, there is a popular style of wrestling that has addressed stalling/passivity with a shot clock.

yes, but it doesn't really address stalling. on the clock.. action stops. one guy runs... the other guy does as little as possible so as to not get countered.

it is nothing like the basketball shot clock

in basketball you dont have to score... you just have to hit the rim 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Scouts Honor

[Scouts Honor]

16 minutes ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

WHAT THEY DID:

Three-point Takedown

No Hand-Touch Takedowns

Three-Point Nearfall

Refs Review All Action During a Challenge

First Medical Forfeit in Tournament Equals Loss

Ankle Rides Increasingly Penalized

Facial Hair Permitted

 

WHAT THEY SHOULD'VE DONE:

Facial Hair Required

Ten-Point High Amplitude Throw

Somebody on Shot Clock at All Times

Surprise Animal Introduced into Cage in Second Period