NCAA Rule Change Proposals

[No BS Fan]

Why not give a stall call for a lost challenge?

[Not creative name]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Also propose a time limit for review.  This could work for any/all sports.  Lest say once the call is pushed thru for review in wrestling they have 2 minutes.  If they can't see anything by 2 then it stays as called on the mat and quickly wrestle on. 

 

i don't think i agree with this.  the point of a review is make sure a call was correct and somebody isn't screwed over. if the limit is set to 2 minutes this could defeat the purpose of making sure a call is correct. while long-ass review times can stink, it seems best to just deal with it.

[Not creative name]

11 minutes ago, Coastal said:

Correct is important but if one has to watch it 20 times to make a decision, the call on the mat should stand.   It really should be to correct clear and obvious errors.     I am all for a brick costing a point if losing the challenge.

if the reviewers need to watch 20 times that is the fault of the reviewers, not the brick being thrown. the reviewers might need better training, brushing up on rules, etc to make it more efficient.

[rsotelo]

I'd love to see one point awarded for every minute of riding time.  This is folkstyle wrestling, not freestyle.  It is about control and not exposure.  If you cannot escape, you should be penalized for it accordingly.  To me, not allowing your opponent to get away means you are controlling him

[ionel]

3 hours ago, Not creative name said:

i don't think i agree with this.  the point of a review is make sure a call was correct and somebody isn't screwed over. if the limit is set to 2 minutes this could defeat the purpose of making sure a call is correct. while long-ass review times can stink, it seems best to just deal with it.

But what if they review for 5 to 10 minutes and then get it wrong.  I've seen the review get it wrong.  Should we give the other coach a free brick and review the review for another 5 to 10 minutes.  If you can't see it in 5 slow replays then maybe it isn't there to see and we can just trust the two refs on the mat.  

[D3 for LU]

There has to be SOME kind of limit... it's not like the decision is a matter of LIFE or DEATH (though , for some, it feels Just Like That. )

D3

[Cornell Kevin]

12 hours ago, alex1fly said:

Riding time stops with a top man stall call, when does it restart?

 

I wondered that myself. 

Would it stop moving in that wrestlers advantage for the remaining duration of that period? 

Or would it be for as long as he is on top before the bottom wrestler escapes or reverses?  Meaning if he gives up an escape and gets another takedown that period, the riding time would then go again for him?  

Who knows. Not many details on some of these rules.  

[Not creative name]

19 hours ago, D3 for LU said:

There has to be SOME kind of limit... it's not like the decision is a matter of LIFE or DEATH (though , for some, it feels Just Like That. )

D3

If it isn’t life or death, why even have a challenge brick? Just let the officials do it all in real time. If there any missed calls the other wrestler just needs to suck it up then.

 

Edited May 4, 2025 by Not creative name

[okokzach]

7 hours ago, Not creative name said:

If it isn’t life or death, why even have a challenge brick? Just let the officials do it all in real time. If there any missed calls the other wrestler just needs to suck it up then.

If we can, I'd prefer the guy who earns more points to win 

[ugarles]

On 5/4/2025 at 12:05 AM, Cornell Kevin said:

I wondered that myself. 

Would it stop moving in that wrestlers advantage for the remaining duration of that period? 

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

[ionel]

On 5/4/2025 at 5:07 PM, okokzach said:

If we can, I'd prefer the guy who earns more points to win 

But how do you feel about pinfalls?  Asking for a friend.  

[ionel]

14 minutes ago, ugarles said:

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

I can see that.  

[rsotelo]

3 hours ago, ugarles said:

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

I can agree with that.  But would you do it on the first stall (warning) or on the second stall (1pt)?

 

[ugarles]

3 minutes ago, rsotelo said:

I can agree with that.  But would you do it on the first stall (warning) or on the second stall (1pt)?

 

at the warning

[scourge165]

On 5/2/2025 at 12:06 PM, BruceyB said:

When is the offensive wrestler "going to be called" for stalling?

Is this when the referee begins a count? So essentially you're just taking away 4 seconds at a time and creating a whole new mess for the scoring table to manage?

Or is it when the top wrestler is called for stalling the riding time stops?

I actually love the idea that if you get called for stalling in the top position that riding time stops. Especially in tie-breakers. It would essentially give you two potential ride-out results. A dirty ride out when you take a stall call (can't get 30 seconds of RT) or a clean ride out where the wrestler would get their full 30 seconds of RT.

I wouldn't think you could do that in the tie breaker. The standard for stalling is different. I mean, taking the 4 seconds or 5 seconds off when you're in on a leg or whatever, fine. That could make a substantial difference. 

But just like riding parallel on top or not working for the turn... the ride out rules are not the same as the first 7 minutes(though they keep changing them, someone could fact check me on that). 

 

On 5/2/2025 at 11:26 AM, Idaho said:

Mandatory mouth piece.

I don't like this at all. I couldn't breath as well with one in. At least not as well. I just...didn't like them. 

On 5/2/2025 at 11:26 AM, Idaho said:

Making the wearing of ear protection optional for wrestlers.

So...you're forcing them to take an to wear protective equipment for their mouth...which is new, but taking away the head gear? Which... fine, it's stupid, I was stupid and the 7 minutes is a TINY fraction of how much you actually Wrestle, but...it's a silly contradiction if implemented. 

 

On 5/2/2025 at 11:26 AM, Idaho said:

Eliminating the interlocking fingers penalty because it is virtually impossible for referees to determine who created the violation. 

Can anyone recall a match in which this made any type of difference? Seems to me they usually just stop them both. If someone is clearly initiating, fine, but otherwise...good change but kinda pointless. 

On 5/2/2025 at 11:26 AM, Idaho said:

• Establishing a protocol for schools to request a review of flagrant misconduct penalties. The school would have up to 48 hours to make the request to its conference. After reviewing the video, the conference could send it to be reviewed by a panel that would include the NCAA men's wrestling secretary-rules editor, the NCAA national coordinator of men's wrestling officials and an independent third party.
• Penalizing wrestlers for unsportsmanlike conduct for throwing, tossing, spiking or sliding any piece of equipment before, during or after the match. 

Again, is there are lot of wrongly penalized "flagrant misconduct" penalties? I'm asking, is that an issue?

And the penalizing Wrestlers for unsportsmanlike conduct for throwing, tossing, spiking or sliding any piece of equipment? "Sliding/Tossing?" That's...moronic. So if I toss my headgear to my coach(I'm still wrestling and make Bo Nickal's cut look like child's play in this scenario) I am penalized and...then I get 48 hours to review the stupid penalty?

 

 

It seems like the rules in place are sufficient. If you throw a fit, you'll cost your team AS IS. This is just looking to solve an issue that doesn't SEEM to exist in my opinion. I'll admit though... don't watch that many duels. Maybe 2-3 a week and I go to maybe 10 a year. So this could be a larger issue I suppose?

[BruceyB]

12 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

The standard for stalling is different.

This is the problem.

[okokzach]

4 hours ago, ugarles said:

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

I don't understand the rationale for hitting a guy for stalling on top. It is incongruous with the riding time point incentive. 

We already make it harder to ride with things like the locked hands rule. If you think it's still too easy, ban certain positions. 

Riding is controlling and isn't that what folkstyle is about?

[scourge165]

On 5/3/2025 at 10:48 AM, No BS Fan said:

Why not give a stall call for a lost challenge?

THIS is a really good idea...IMO. 

4 hours ago, ugarles said:

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

I don't like this at all. You're effectively reward the top guy. 

You eliminate that escape point. I'd propose offering the option. You can EITHER bring them up to their feet, or they can stay down to work for the 1. 

If you bring them up without giving a point...I guess it's situational, but it'd seem to benefit the top Wrestler. 

[scourge165]

44 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

This is the problem.

You really think the requirement during the 30 second tie breakers should be working for a fall?

The point of this sport is to control another man. I think a 30 second ride out where you're just trying to prevent them from escaping is fine. 

If I had my preference, you'd have OT go 1 minute neutral, each get 30 second goes and then repeat, but that takes too much time I guess. 

But I don't think you need to make the criteria for stalling the exact same in 30 second tie breakers. 

[BruceyB]

15 hours ago, scourge165 said:

You really think the requirement during the 30 second tie breakers should be working for a fall?

The point of this sport is to control another man. I think a 30 second ride out where you're just trying to prevent them from escaping is fine. 

If I had my preference, you'd have OT go 1 minute neutral, each get 30 second goes and then repeat, but that takes too much time I guess. 

But I don't think you need to make the criteria for stalling the exact same in 30 second tie breakers. 

I actually do. A controlling ride looking to break the bottom wrestler down.

The tactic of as soon as the bottom wrestler gets to their feet, you run them to the edge and "attempt" a return going out of bounds.. or dropping to a leg as soon as the bottom wrestler is about to escape.. should be called stalling more frequently, but the refs don't want to "decide" the match so the tactic is allowed. 

But I agree. Ride outs is about the worst way to decide a winner of a wrestling match that I could imagine. Getting a match to ride outs is the best way for an inferior wrestler to pull off an upset (Seymour over Lilledahl). Anything can happen in those 30 seconds, and choice is huge. It's not nearly as bad, but it's kind of like the old ball grab era in freestyle.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

21 hours ago, ugarles said:

my preference would be a top stall results in a return to neutral with no escape point

As a ref, I'm already seeing the ways this can be gamed. 

I'd love to let Bouzakis up to avoid the reversal and not even have to give up an escape point.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

17 hours ago, scourge165 said:

 

Again, is there are lot of wrongly penalized "flagrant misconduct" penalties? I'm asking, is that an issue?

And the penalizing Wrestlers for unsportsmanlike conduct for throwing, tossing, spiking or sliding any piece of equipment? "Sliding/Tossing?" That's...moronic. So if I toss my headgear to my coach(I'm still wrestling and make Bo Nickal's cut look like child's play in this scenario) I am penalized and...then I get 48 hours to review the stupid penalty?

 

I'm guessing they don't want some "bowling" style celebration, so they are covering all bases?

Flagrant misconduct would generally be a punch, a brutal headbutt, a bite, etc.  Not a thrown headgear.  I would imagine a situation came up last year where a ref thought a kid did something flagrant and it was a mistake.  I'll give an example: When a shrug first started becoming big in the 90s, I taught my team the technique.  My state champ 171 attempted one in a match.  The ref had not been evolving with the sport and thought my guy had thrown a forearm shiver.  He was penalized, thankfully not a flagrant.  It only takes one or two situations like this for a rule to be put into place.  

[okokzach]

1 hour ago, BruceyB said:

I actually do. A controlling ride looking to break the bottom wrestler down.

The tactic of as soon as the bottom wrestler gets to their feet, you run them to the edge and "attempt" a return going out of bounds.. or dropping to a leg as soon as the bottom wrestler is about to escape.. should be called stalling more frequently, but the refs don't want to "decide" the match so the tactic is allowed. 

But I agree. Ride outs is about the worst way to decide a winner of a wrestling match that I could imagine. Getting a match to ride outs is the best way for an inferior wrestler to pull off an upset (Seymour over Lilledahl). Anything can happen in those 30 seconds, and choice is huge. It's not nearly as bad, but it's kind of like the old ball grab era in freestyle.

I hate the matches where one guy gets 12 seconds and the other guy gets 15 seconds. I would change the rideout OT so that you can only win if you get the full 30 second rideout and your opponent does not. If neither does (and no other points are scored), continue to the next SV.

[BruceyB]

33 minutes ago, okokzach said:

I hate the matches where one guy gets 12 seconds and the other guy gets 15 seconds. I would change the rideout OT so that you can only win if you get the full 30 second rideout and your opponent does not. If neither does (and no other points are scored), continue to the next SV.

I do like the idea that you have to complete the rideout for the win. Like you said with the 12 vs 15 seconds of riding time, when the first guy on bottom escapes immediately, then the match just turns into the other wrestler having to choose neutral and try to get a TD while the other guys backs up and stalls for 30 seconds. If one guys escapes in 2 seconds and the other escapes in 5 seconds, is that really how we should be deciding the match?

I'm a bit surprised and think stalling needs to be adjusted to compensate for the three point takedown. After this years NCAA tournament, it really stuck out to me how easy it is to win if you score the first takedown. The tactic is simply to score the first takedown, then turn to wrestling a defensive match. Go into the third period up 4-2, wrestle just enough to only get called for stalling twice (it's pretty hard to get hit for stalling 3 times in 2 minutes), and win 4-3. 

I call it the Antrell Taylor special after he used it against both Bianchi in the quarters and Blaze in the finals. McGowan nearly pulled it off against Vincent Robinson, but blew it by getting taken down with 1 second left.

 

[scourge165]

On 5/7/2025 at 1:14 PM, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

I'm guessing they don't want some "bowling" style celebration, so they are covering all bases?

Flagrant misconduct would generally be a punch, a brutal headbutt, a bite, etc.  Not a thrown headgear.  I would imagine a situation came up last year where a ref thought a kid did something flagrant and it was a mistake.  I'll give an example: When a shrug first started becoming big in the 90s, I taught my team the technique.  My state champ 171 attempted one in a match.  The ref had not been evolving with the sport and thought my guy had thrown a forearm shiver.  He was penalized, thankfully not a flagrant.  It only takes one or two situations like this for a rule to be put into place.  

Yeah...just to be clear, I was talking about two different issues as they addressed BOTH throwing the headgear, etc...and then 48 hours to review(right?)...

I suppose thinking back, I used to ref kids Football...and I'd do it with HS officials. We were a good team, we played a top 10 team in the Country(there'd have gotten beaten by 4-5TDs by at least 15 teams in the big 3 states, Cali, Florida and Texas). Big Rivalry game... and our DE gets ejected. I was playing OLB. He was dumbfounded. They said he threw a punch.

 

So the next day, I'm doing a game with these two refs(it was a married couple that were comically bad at their job) and I did it with another guy on the team. They described it, he showed them a rip through and they said, "yes, that's exactly it," and then commented he "punched the RB on the game play."

So...rip move with a fist and trying to punch the ball out. We both told them how...common that was and legal and they disagreed. And I don't know what happened. I think he COULD have gotten another game, but maybe the post-game write up(the refs have to review the game) may have proven it was an awful call.

 

Anyway, down 16-0 at half, opening half 60 yard KR(would have been to the house, but our KR was slow as hell...damn good looking and brilliant when discussing Wrestling/Politics, but 4.80 speed...hand timed so..ya know, 4.85). Anyway, fun game, great comeback, clueless refs and...that's the story.