Double Overtime

[1032004]

Anyone else think this needs to be changed?

Winning on 1 second of riding time seems silly to me, I’d much rather see the high school version of the ultimate tiebreaker with just 1 30 second period.  I’d also entertain an unlimited time on your feet or something but Michael DeAugustino, Will Lewan, and 30% of heavyweight matches would never end.

[jackwebster]

Idk there's a reductio ad absurdum problem here.

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Idk there's a reductio ad absurdum problem here.

I had to google what this means, but I disagree

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Anyone else think this needs to be changed?

Winning on 1 second of riding time seems silly to me, I’d much rather see the high school version of the ultimate tiebreaker with just 1 30 second period.  I’d also entertain an unlimited time on your feet or something but Michael DeAugustino, Will Lewan, and 30% of heavyweight matches would never end.

So win by coin flip?   We used to do that, see John Lockhart. 

 

[1032004]

14 minutes ago, ionel said:

So win by coin flip?   We used to do that, see John Lockhart. 

 

That’s an oversimplification IMO, as it will also be impacted by the strategy you employ earlier in the match, and not all 2OT matches will have 0-0 first periods, so I still think it’s better than winning by 1 second of RT.

I’m open to other ideas.

Maybe shorten the UTB to 20 seconds so an escape is more difficult?

Keep alternating sets of 2 30 second periods until 1 person actually has a higher score?

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

That’s an oversimplification IMO, as it will also be impacted by the strategy you employ earlier in the match, and not all 2OT matches will have 0-0 first periods, so I still think it’s better than winning by 1 second of RT.

I’m open to other ideas.

Maybe shorten the UTB to 20 seconds so an escape is more difficult?

Keep alternating sets of 2 30 second periods until 1 person actually has a higher score?

I think it works now, we used to do those forever SV & TB sessions.  Combined with the 3pt td there are other interesting strategies being employed.  

Is 1 sec dif in TB any different than the 1 sec difference to gain a rt pt,  59 vs 60?

Edited February 3 by ionel

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 second of riding time difference is absurd given how imprecisely the end of riding time is determined. It is like dragging out the chains to impose a phony perception of precision in footballl games. There are so many sources of measurement error but we will just pretend them away and use an index card between the ball and stick to decide first down. Theater.

[Offthemat]

Rock, paper, scissors. 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

Rock, paper, scissors. 

^^^ this ^^^

[1032004]

27 minutes ago, ionel said:

I think it works now, we used to do those forever SV & TB sessions.  Combined with the 3pt td there are other interesting strategies being employed.  

Is 1 sec dif in TB any different than the 1 sec difference to gain a rt pt,  59 vs 60?

The obvious difference there is they’ve already gained an advantage of 59 seconds vs an advantage of only 1 second.  If they’re going to award a point for a 1 second advantage, they should at least not erase the riding time that was earned in regulation

[peanut]

OT could feature a smaller circle and push outs. 

Or, instead of OT, tied marches could be decided by criteria. Personally I like criteria.

[Yellow_Medal]

I hate to admit it, but criteria is something freestyle got right.

[MPhillips]

34 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

If they’re going to award a point for a 1 second advantage, they should at least not erase the riding time that was earned in regulation

If they're going to do that, then just make that the criteria in regulation.

[Wrestleknownothing]

11 minutes ago, Yellow_Medal said:

I hate to admit it, but criteria is something freestyle got right.

Amen. The idea that someone is always behind makes for great endings.

[1032004]

20 minutes ago, Yellow_Medal said:

I hate to admit it, but criteria is something freestyle got right.

That’s one option for sure, but I think it makes it more confusing for casual fans (not that that should be a dealbreaker)

13 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

If they're going to do that, then just make that the criteria in regulation.

I do like having the first 2 minute SV period on your feet though 

[D3 for LU]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Rock, paper, scissors. 

Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock!

( ... somebody gonna have to choose something other than Spock.  )

D3

[PencilNeck]

Bring back ties in dual meet bouts. Maybe keep the first SV period within duals and after that it’s a tie. Obviously for elimination tournaments you need overtime and tie breaks. If you can’t be ahead on points after 9 minutes, I don’t really care about perfect fairness. Current rules are fine.

Edited February 3 by PencilNeck

[JuanMogen]

Will Lewan picks off #2 and keeps it to 1 point vs #1.  I’m seeing a Lewan v Blockhus NCAA final. Lewan wins when Blockhus gets so frustrated by the inactivity he throws a punch and gets DQ’d. 

[Yellow_Medal]

I do like having the first 2 minute SV period on your feet though 

I get the confusing argument, but I also have a hard time believing that criteria is any more confusing than the current college OT rules. Consider for a moment how many words it would take to explain double OT vs how many words to explain freestyle criteria. I’d say it’s a tie, if not less for criteria.

[ionel]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

The obvious difference there is they’ve already gained an advantage of 59 seconds vs an advantage of only 1 second.  If they’re going to award a point for a 1 second advantage, they should at least not erase the riding time that was earned in regulation

2.5 pts for reversal might eliminate a bunch of ties and OT.  Would actually give an incentive for reversal vs straight escape.

Edited February 3 by ionel

[1032004]

17 minutes ago, Yellow_Medal said:

I get the confusing argument, but I also have a hard time believing that criteria is any more confusing than the current college OT rules. Consider for a moment how many words it would take to explain double OT vs how many words to explain freestyle criteria. I’d say it’s a tie, if not less for criteria.

Fair enough, but I think the difference is double OT matches are just a portion of total OT matches, and the first SV period is pretty self-explanatory.

I’m not opposed to criteria overall though.  It would also shorten the length of duals and tournaments which would be a good thing IMO.

[ionel]

28 minutes ago, ionel said:

2.5 pts for reversal might eliminate a bunch of ties and OT.  Would actually give an incentive for reversal vs straight escape.

Could even go 0.5pt for each say 30 or 40 sec of riding.  So say 43 sec half point, 1:25 you get a full point.  With digital scoring this would be easy and eliminate many OTs.

[flanders]

Sudden victory until someone scores....no time limit. Easy peasy.

[1032004]

1 minute ago, flanders said:

Sudden victory until someone scores....no time limit. Easy peasy.

No one wants to watch Will Lewan wrestle for an hour

[Yellow_Medal]

Fair enough, but I think the difference is double OT matches are just a portion of total OT matches, and the first SV period is pretty self-explanatory.
I’m not opposed to criteria overall though.  It would also shorten the length of duals and tournaments which would be a good thing IMO.

All good points. Maybe a mix of the two? If no score after first OT, criteria takes it. Not that that would be any less confusing..