Jump to content

turning point


Scouts Honor

Recommended Posts

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Scouts Honor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Did gladiators fight tigers? - Quora

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...