turning point

[fishbane]

10 hours ago, Formally140 said:

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

I think you completely missed my point.  You got distracted by the basketball analogy and let it slip right past you.  I wasn't suggesting the use of the freestyle implementation, I simply used it to demonstrate how the sport of wrestling could use something from another sport like basketball.  

My point is that asking referees to call stalling slightly different is not the answer and that putting more things at their discretion is a bad idear.

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Which is arguably more subjective than most folkstyle stalling calls…

I think the fact that 2 out of 3 officials must agree is an improvement and should make for greater consistency in the calls than a single official making the call.  The other thing that I like about it is that the official doesn't simply hand the other wrestler a point in most instances.  After two calls the wrestler has a 0:30 period to prevent the point.  So whilst there is subjectivity in the initial two calls the 2/3 system should make for greater consistency and ultimately awarding the penalty point is a fairly objective criteria - was there scoring during the 0:30 period?

What makes it arguably more subjective is that there is a forced call in a 0-0 match.  There could be a match with a ton of action in the first two minutes,  but with no scoring the officials must pick the more passive wrestler to put on the clock with 1:00 remaining.  This means they are having to pick a wrestler in a lot of instances where it is a close call.  This might mean there is a lot of subjectivity in the calls (it could go either way), but at the same time there is consistency in that there is always a call and only two possible outcomes.  The wrestlers will know better how this will be handled than in a folkstyle match. 

 

[1032004]

18 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I think you completely missed my point.  You got distracted by the basketball analogy and let it slip right past you.  I wasn't suggesting the use of the freestyle implementation, I simply used it to demonstrate how the sport of wrestling could use something from another sport like basketball.  

My point is that asking referees to call stalling slightly different is not the answer and that putting more things at their discretion is a bad idear.

I think the fact that 2 out of 3 officials must agree is an improvement and should make for greater consistency in the calls than a single official making the call.  The other thing that I like about it is that the official doesn't simply hand the other wrestler a point in most instances.  After two calls the wrestler has a 0:30 period to prevent the point.  So whilst there is subjectivity in the initial two calls the 2/3 system should make for greater consistency and ultimately awarding the penalty point is a fairly objective criteria - was there scoring during the 0:30 period?

What makes it arguably more subjective is that there is a forced call in a 0-0 match.  There could be a match with a ton of action in the first two minutes,  but with no scoring the officials must pick the more passive wrestler to put on the clock with 1:00 remaining.  This means they are having to pick a wrestler in a lot of instances where it is a close call.  This might mean there is a lot of subjectivity in the calls (it could go either way), but at the same time there is consistency in that there is always a call and only two possible outcomes.  The wrestlers will know better how this will be handled than in a folkstyle match. 

 

I don't watch a ton of freestyle but I feel like 9 times out of 10 one person gets put on the clock then the other one does.    Which seems the complete opposite of what typically happens especially in folkstyle where it's usually one guy doing most of the stalling.

I don't love the subjectivity of stalling in folkstyle, but I think it's better than just removing it (not saying you're suggesting that), and making this change isn't really changing the subjectivity, since they previously had to work to "improve" which was still subjective anyway.  

[fishbane]

25 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

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 

I don't think the freestyle rules was intended to prevent stalling.  I think it was designed to encourage action and scoring.  With the elimination of OT and the ball grab 0-0 matches would one a problem.  

Having thought about it more maybe a freestyle solution would work well to address stalling on top.  Suppose that after a TD, reversal, or start of a period a clock is started and after some set period of time (this could be anything 0:30, 0:45, 1:00) if no points are scored (no escape/reversal/NF/PF) then a 0:30 clock is set.  If a NF, fall, reversal, or escape is not scored within the 0:30 period, then the defensive wrestler is awarded a point and action is restarted in the neutral position.  This would be a shot clock implementation with zero subjectivity.  Ultimately it may be considered too complicated to implement since it needs 3 running clocks at some point, but overall I think it is fairly simple.

[Pinnacle]

The surprise animal suggestion got me. Well played. 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

 

I think the fact that 2 out of 3 officials must agree is an improvement and should make for greater consistency in the calls than a single official making the call.  The other thing that I like about it is that the official doesn't simply hand the other wrestler a point in most instances.  After two calls the wrestler has a 0:30 period to prevent the point.  So whilst there is subjectivity in the initial two calls the 2/3 system should make for greater consistency and ultimately awarding the penalty point is a fairly objective criteria - was there scoring during the 0:30 period?

 

 

I disagree that voting is an improvement. you still have people scratching their heads about calls.

and just controlling the middle is an example of NOT stalling? come on.

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't think the freestyle rules was intended to prevent stalling.  I think it was designed to encourage action and scoring.  With the elimination of OT and the ball grab 0-0 matches would one a problem.  

Having thought about it more maybe a freestyle solution would work well to address stalling on top.  Suppose that after a TD, reversal, or start of a period a clock is started and after some set period of time (this could be anything 0:30, 0:45, 1:00) if no points are scored (no escape/reversal/NF/PF) then a 0:30 clock is set.  If a NF, fall, reversal, or escape is not scored within the 0:30 period, then the defensive wrestler is awarded a point and action is restarted in the neutral position.  This would be a shot clock implementation with zero subjectivity.  Ultimately it may be considered too complicated to implement since it needs 3 running clocks at some point, but overall I think it is fairly simple.

i like the clock thing... but now you are going to give him a point? all he has to do is stall... 

i can see letting him up after the clock goes off.

but giving him a point. no. 

why not have a clock on the bottom guy? if he doesn't escape within 30 seconds the top guy gets a point... not just at the end of the match....like RT

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't think the freestyle rules was intended to prevent stalling.  I think it was designed to encourage action and scoring.  With the elimination of OT and the ball grab 0-0 matches would one a problem.  

 

I would like to see some data on this. did the 30 sec increase action and scoring. i dont know if it has or not.

but i know that action during that 30 sec clock has not improved. seldom do you see anyone score. and more often than not, its a counter. 

then they added the points if you do score. so it makes it even less action, b/c the guy on the clock doesn't want to get countered.

but I am open to data that shows it had its intended outcome.

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said:

I disagree that voting is an improvement. you still have people scratching their heads about calls.

and just controlling the middle is an example of NOT stalling? come on.

The two out of three decreasing variance is mathematical principle.  

For example suppose you have a pool of 20 officials score a sequence.  Nineteen of them score it one way and one scores it the other way.  If you assign a single official to a mat then that sequence could get scored the alternative way 1/20th of the time.  Now if you randomly select 3 officials to officiate a mat and have them vote on the scoring, in theory that same sequence should never be scored the alternative way.  The one dissenting official would always be outvoted.  

If two of the 20 officials would score it the alternative way then 10% of the time a single official scoring a bout would arrive at the alternative scoring.  If you have a group of three officials scoring it then to get the alternative scoring both the the dissenting officials would need to be on the same officiating crew which isn't likely.  There are only 18 possible groups of three that would vote the alternative way and there are 1140 possible groups of three to be made.  It ends up being <1.6% of the 3 person officiating crews that would vote the alternative scoring.

I would like the call to be more activity based, but with the forced call in 0-0 matches it can be a real pick-em scenario.  Controlling center can be more objective than who tried harder to score.

6 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I don't watch a ton of freestyle but I feel like 9 times out of 10 one person gets put on the clock then the other one does.    Which seems the complete opposite of what typically happens especially in folkstyle where it's usually one guy doing most of the stalling.

 I don't watch that much freestyle either, but I don't think 9 of 10 matches result in two shot clocks.  Probably the last freestyle event I watched was Final X I don't think any of the men's matches had two shot clocks in the same match.  That said I am aware of the style of match you're referring to where no one is really scoring and there are alternating shot clocks in the first and second period.  While it may seem like the officials are just flipping their calls out of perhaps fairness, it is also a consequence of the scoring system that with no scoring beyond the first shot clock point that the other wrestler will be more offensive going forward.  If no one has scored and one guy gets put on the shot clock and is unable to score in the 0:30 period then that wrestler is now down 1-0.  It makes sense that they will be less passive going forward in the match now that they are behind and that the other wrestler initially less passive may be more passive with the lead.

I think the fact that a wrestler is always trailing is a strength of the freestyle system.  One wrestler should always be trying to score since 2:30 into the match there must be a point on the board and thus a wrestler in the lead. 

[fishbane]

29 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i like the clock thing... but now you are going to give him a point? all he has to do is stall... 

i can see letting him up after the clock goes off.

but giving him a point. no. 

I'm open to tweaks.  My reasoning behind giving the bottom guy a point would be that standing them up without giving up a point might provide the top guy with an incentive to stall to the standup.  This may change in the era of a 3 point TD, but historically getting a TD and riding out the period is a really big advantage because the defensive wrestler loses the ability to get that escape point.  It can be the difference in the match.  Denying the defensive wrestler the ability to get the escape point seems like it would be rewarding the top wrestlers ineffective riding.  

3 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

why not have a clock on the bottom guy? if he doesn't escape within 30 seconds the top guy gets a point... not just at the end of the match....like RT

I though this might be redundant with the point for 1:00 riding time advantage.  With this 30 second clock on the bottom would you eliminate the point for 1:00 advantage time?

Maybe after the initial period the officials could vote on who was less active (top or bottom wrestler) and whichever wrestler is chosen gets put on a 0:30 clock and must score in the period.  In the case of the top man failing to score the bottom wrestler gets 1 point and action restarted on the feet.  If the bottom man fails to score then top wrestler is given choice to restart (top, bottom, neutral) and no points are awarded.

[1032004]

10 hours ago, fishbane said:

I'm open to tweaks.  My reasoning behind giving the bottom guy a point would be that standing them up without giving up a point might provide the top guy with an incentive to stall to the standup.  This may change in the era of a 3 point TD, but historically getting a TD and riding out the period is a really big advantage because the defensive wrestler loses the ability to get that escape point.  It can be the difference in the match.  Denying the defensive wrestler the ability to get the escape point seems like it would be rewarding the top wrestlers ineffective riding.  

I though this might be redundant with the point for 1:00 riding time advantage.  With this 30 second clock on the bottom would you eliminate the point for 1:00 advantage time?

Maybe after the initial period the officials could vote on who was less active (top or bottom wrestler) and whichever wrestler is chosen gets put on a 0:30 clock and must score in the period.  In the case of the top man failing to score the bottom wrestler gets 1 point and action restarted on the feet.  If the bottom man fails to score then top wrestler is given choice to restart (top, bottom, neutral) and no points are awarded.

I think there’s always going to be some subjectivity, but don’t think we should be really adding more.

I could get on board with a shot clock of some sort though.  Maybe something like:

Whoever has choice in the 2nd and 3rd periods has 1:00 minute to score (which could possibly include going over 1:00 in RT, and could also possibly be null if the other guy scores instead) or they receive a stall call.    Using the 1:00 mark in the period would make it a little more simple for refs to keep track IMO, and they are already keeping track of who had choice at the start of the period.

For one I think this would encourage more guys to choose bottom and we see more mat wrestling, which seems to be a concern of some that with the 3pt takedown it will just become all neutral wrestling.

This could also help how we often don’t see any stall calls until there’s ~15 seconds left in the match when they don’t mean much.

[Scouts Honor]

17 hours ago, fishbane said:

I'm open to tweaks.  My reasoning behind giving the bottom guy a point would be that standing them up without giving up a point might provide the top guy with an incentive to stall to the standup.  This may change in the era of a 3 point TD, but historically getting a TD and riding out the period is a really big advantage because the defensive wrestler loses the ability to get that escape point.  It can be the difference in the match.  Denying the defensive wrestler the ability to get the escape point seems like it would be rewarding the top wrestlers ineffective riding.  

I though this might be redundant with the point for 1:00 riding time advantage.  With this 30 second clock on the bottom would you eliminate the point for 1:00 advantage time?

Maybe after the initial period the officials could vote on who was less active (top or bottom wrestler) and whichever wrestler is chosen gets put on a 0:30 clock and must score in the period.  In the case of the top man failing to score the bottom wrestler gets 1 point and action restarted on the feet.  If the bottom man fails to score then top wrestler is given choice to restart (top, bottom, neutral) and no points are awarded.

no i get a point for every 30 seconds i hold him down. 30 consecutive.

it makes the td that much more important.

[Scouts Honor]

17 hours ago, fishbane said:

 

Maybe after the initial period the officials could vote on who was less active (top or bottom wrestler) and whichever wrestler is chosen gets put on a 0:30 clock and must score in the period.  In the case of the top man failing to score the bottom wrestler gets 1 point and action restarted on the feet.  If the bottom man fails to score then top wrestler is given choice to restart (top, bottom, neutral) and no points are awarded.

no more voting.

[CHROMEBIRD]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:49 PM, Scouts Honor said:

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

so it isn't worth dealing with

Read the entire post, genius.

[Husker_Du]

On 7/1/2023 at 11:14 PM, 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.  

this is fuggin incredible

[Scouts Honor]

thanks for believing in me

 

[fishbane]

It used to decide far more bouts at NCAAs.  Before the adoption of the point system in 1941, riding time advantage was the primary criteria in determining the winner of a bout that did not end in a pinfall.  After the adoption of the points system, each 1 minute in advantage time earned a point - 1:00 advantage =1 points, 2:00=2points, 3:00=3points up to I suppose a maximum of 8.  Matches were 3-3-3 back then.  If the match went to OT and they kept the RT clock through OT I guess it could go higher.  OT was 2-2 minute periods and there was no sudden death, so perhaps 12 points would have been the max. 

It wasn't until 1955 that the riding time point was capped at 1 for over 1:00, but then it was changed again in 1966 to 1 point for 1:00 or more and 2 points for more than 2 minutes.  In 1970 it was changed back to 1 point for 1:00 or more and it hasn't changed since.