Effect of the 3-point TD

[gimpeltf]

48 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

So it has been tried and rejected?

Tried? Yes. Rejected? Not sure if that's how to phrase it since it was only a similar rule then. It was instantiated because one school got a bazillion tds. The rule then was 2 for the first and 1 after. But that's similar enough to 3 for the first and 2 after now.

And I brought it up more because of the OK State connection both times.

Edited Sunday at 02:56 PM by gimpeltf

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Tried? Yes. Rejected? Not sure if that's how to phrase it since it was only a similar rule then. It was instantiated because one school got a bazillion tds. The rule then was 2 for the first and 1 after. But that's similar enough to 3 for the first and 2 after now.

And I brought it up more because of the OK State connection both times.

Was there a problem with a lack of scoring in the first period that led to the initiation of the rule?

[TexRef]

47 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

So it has been tried and rejected?

Things are different now than they were in the 60's. We are all wearing singlets, we are all on mats where the out of bounds lines are round, and the technique is far better. 

It might be worth a try. 

One thing that most don't understand or realize is stalling is a JUDGEMENT call. We are all going to have a different opinion. I think a lot of guys are pushing their opponents oob but the stall call goes to the wrestler getting pushed out. The pusher isn't pushing to set up a shot. 

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, TexRef said:

One thing that most don't understand or realize is stalling is a JUDGEMENT call. We are all going to have a different opinion. I think a lot of guys are pushing their opponents oob but the stall call goes to the wrestler getting pushed out. The pusher isn't pushing to set up a shot. 

Agreed.  It’s also my position that the top man can’t stall unless the bottom wrestler is also stalling.  My recommendation is that the penalty for stalling is a restart with choice of position to the non-offending wrestler, much like after an injury timeout. 

[Coastal]

If you want to increase taking shots and scoring, make grabbing the ankle by the defensive wrestler(the non-initial shot taker) the same as a top wrestler grabbing the ankle.  5 seconds is a stall.

A wrestler could still sprawl, chest wrap, crotch lock but the grab the ankle and hope for a stalemate days would be done.

[Scouts Honor]

i guess i dont' understand the idea of needing more scoring back then

i remember many matches in the old days going 20-14 etc... lots of scoring

think rick sanders

[Scouts Honor]

4 minutes ago, Coastal said:

If you want to increase taking shots and scoring, make grabbing the ankle by the defensive wrestler(the non-initial shot taker) the same as a top wrestler grabbing the ankle.  5 seconds is a stall.

A wrestler could still sprawl, chest wrap, crotch lock but the grab the ankle and hope for a stalemate days would be done.

yes, similar to the heil rule, this would stop guys from avoiding wrestling by looking for that stalemate 

[scourge165]

52 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

no

People are so eager to make the refs decide these matches.

So you take two guys who are attacking...Barry and Buchanan and no score, you give someone a point?

And I'm sure they're in favor of the pushout rule(the actual pushout, not backing straight off. 

Some people are never pleased!

[scourge165]

33 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i guess i dont' understand the idea of needing more scoring back then

i remember many matches in the old days going 20-14 etc... lots of scoring

think rick sanders

The only thing I'd consider doing is making stalling a stronger point of emphasis. Fleeing and stalling. 

OR maybe you make it two different types of stalling. You get stuck in a position and get a 5 count while riding, that's a technical stalling. If you're refusing to engage on your feet, that can be...well, refusal to engage and maybe 1 warning, 1 point and then 2 points. If you're circling at the end, tell refs to call that. 

So dropping in on a leg on top or getting kinda stuck in that position is a different than avoiding action.

 

I don't know how you could clean that up and make it work, but...ya know, something like that. 

[TexRef]

Back in the late 70s, in Freestyle, if you took 1 step backwards, you got called for pasivity. There was no jumping back a few steps to adjust your knee pad, singlet, or to actually get in a decent stance. 

That is a FS rule that I would welcome back and would welcome to Folkstyle. 

[Coastal]

1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said:

yes, similar to the heil rule, this would stop guys from avoiding wrestling by looking for that stalemate 

I forgot to add that I wouldn't make it a stop of action stall like the top grab.  Count to 5 issue stalling, start counting again.  Basically holding the ankle for 10 seconds is a point. 15 seconds two points 20 four points 25 a DQ.

[lu_alum]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Agreed.  It’s also my position that the top man can’t stall unless the bottom wrestler is also stalling.  My recommendation is that the penalty for stalling is a restart with choice of position to the non-offending wrestler, much like after an injury timeout. 

Disagree with this viewpoint.  You can't tell me the the top guy isn't stalling when he throws in double boots and flattens out the bottom guy. Bottom guy always gets called, but what is he to do if incapacitated?  When the top guy does that & stays parallel, he is most certainly stalling.

[scourge165]

15 minutes ago, TexRef said:

Back in the late 70s, in Freestyle, if you took 1 step backwards, you got called for pasivity. There was no jumping back a few steps to adjust your knee pad, singlet, or to actually get in a decent stance. 

That is a FS rule that I would welcome back and would welcome to Folkstyle. 

I wouldn't. That would benefit certain guys so much more than others. That'd be GREAT for a guy like...say Marinelli from Iowa. It'd be awful for a guy like Robinson at 125 or Lillendahl or Jordan Burroughs. Guys who take a step back to try and get you to step. 

 

Guys who are really good getting in on that underhook, get good head position and you can block and push and YOU'RE staling, but you'll be rewarded for it. 

 

There's not many easy answers, but it's hard to Wrestle without creating space at times. 

[gimpeltf]

2 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

i guess i dont' understand the idea of needing more scoring back then

i remember many matches in the old days going 20-14 etc... lots of scoring

think rick sanders

The 70s/80s had lots of scoring. Not so much before that. The 60s rule (2 then 1) was an effort to REDUCE scoring by one team as compared to the rest of the country. Again, I brought this up to bring up the irony of Ok State possibly being the inspiration of both rules.

[BruceyB]

14 hours ago, Offthemat said:

You’re only speculating.  We won’t know how it would affect scoring until or unless it’s tried.  It would certainly put emphasis on being the first to get a takedown. 

It would just as much emphasis on not being the first one taken down. It would be even better to play it safe rather than risk a reattack to go down by more than a single TD the rest of the match.

[Not the Real Scribe]

16 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

I don’t know that I see any casualty linking the 3 pt to fewer TD attempts. Can someone explain the rationale?

I do agree that a 3 or 2 pt margin does promote stalling at end. Which is pissing me off.
 

 

Yeah stalling that officials neglect to call.  They seem to like to call warning with 5 seconds left in the match.  They were awful.

[BruceyB]

14 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Jesus...all you guys were bored during THESE finals! I thought they were incredible. Yeah, you're running in the 3rd period up by 3, but...there were a lot of attempts.

Plus, we all know that matches of this caliber of Wrestler is going to be VERY close and guys are going to want to be VERY careful about a bad shot. The Semis ARE better, you're right, the Finals are usually more...I wouldn't say boring, but not as wild. 

 

But Starocci, the Buchannan-Barr match, Hamiti-O'Toole, Mesnbrink shot all night, I thought '41 and '49 were both great.

 

And then...Hendrickson vs Steveson and...the biggest upset in NCAA History! Y'all have short ass attention spans! That was an awesome finals to cap a GREAT weekend!

 

184, 165, 174, and 197 were all solid matches, 141 was awesome, and HWT was obviously the moment of the night. So all in all, 6/10 matches were typical or better, and there are always some snoozers in there. But a big part of the problem was you started with 184, then went about 40 minutes of live time with two absolutely brutal matches to watch at 125 and 133. Two matches later had a guy win at 149 that was never in on a shot, while his opponent arguably did score a takedown.. At 157 you had someone evade action for an entire period and get hit for stalling.. 3 times and win? That's a 4/5 match stretch that the way the matches played out was a pretty unsatisfactory was to crown a champion, at least in my own opinion.

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, lu_alum said:

Disagree with this viewpoint.  You can't tell me the the top guy isn't stalling when he throws in double boots and flattens out the bottom guy. Bottom guy always gets called, but what is he to do if incapacitated?  When the top guy does that & stays parallel, he is most certainly stalling.

The ref can call stalemate, but not award points unilaterally. 

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, BruceyB said:

It would just as much emphasis on not being the first one taken down. It would be even better to play it safe rather than risk a reattack to go down by more than a single TD the rest of the match.

I’m sure some would go that route, maybe even duck the entire match.