Pushout/grounding

[dragit]

Apologies if this has been well covered elsewhere.

I'm generally fan of the pushout rule.  I think it creates good incentives and produces more action. 

But aren't we approaching a point where the tactics around grounding are threatening to produce the same problem as we have in folkstyle?  It comes down to the subjective discretion of the ref. Action/stalling.  Grounded/not grounded.

My take as of now is there shouldn't be a grounding rule.  If you're out, you're out.

The benefit from the pushout rule is that it is objective.  That's what creates the incentives for more action in the center of the mat. 

It's now descending into a subjective morass. You watch a few different low scoring matches and see inconsistent application of the standard, which is exactly what the rule is supposed to avoid.

[Scouts Honor]

it has been that way almost since the pushout and grounding came into being.

[mspart]

There's always a way around a rule. 

mspart

[forkemaz]

Get rid of criteria. Add OT. First score wins. Pushouts only in OT. No such thing as grounding. 

[dragit]

1 hour ago, forkemaz said:

Get rid of criteria. Add OT. First score wins. Pushouts only in OT. No such thing as grounding. 

I like criteria.  The incentives are bad without them. Both guys will be more cautious.  Criteria is a little unfair but it is objective and it increases action. The pushout is objective too but the grounding rule is a giant loophole that can and often does swallow the rule.

[dragit]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

There's always a way around a rule. 

mspart

If the rule didn't allow for grounding, wouldn't that take away the way around it?

[mspart]

11 hours ago, dragit said:

If the rule didn't allow for grounding, wouldn't that take away the way around it?

I'm for it.

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

23 hours ago, dragit said:

I like criteria.  The incentives are bad without them. Both guys will be more cautious.  Criteria is a little unfair but it is objective and it increases action. The pushout is objective too but the grounding rule is a giant loophole that can and often does swallow the rule.

i dont think it increases action...

the guy ahead still stalls... nothing new here 

and i agree grounding is crap

[BruceyB]

13 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

the guy ahead still stalls... nothing new here

But at least they aren't tied where neither wrestler feels the need to take a risk. Hence, creating more action by someone being behind and needing to score.

[Scouts Honor]

manufactured action

why isn't the advantage given to the first person to score if we really want action? 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

manufactured action

why isn't the advantage given to the first person to score if we really want action? 

“Manufactured action?”   Don’t we manufacture all of our movement and action in a wrestling match? 
 

Just trying to understand what you mean by this phrase. 

[Scouts Honor]

because someone is behind, we are forcing someone to act.

why not force the person who didn't score first?

[Piper]

The original rule was for the first person to score. But it was too easy to just give up a late takedown. But this was also in the ball grab, 1 point takedown era. Someone getting a push out then giving up a takedown with 15 seconds left would win the period.