NCAA Rule Change Proposals

[ionel]

I personally don't see a problem with our current folkstyle rules.  What i do see is a problem with the consistency in refs calling the rules ... see this year NCAA finals as example.

I do think there is a problem with the brick.  We have coaches that are gaming the match with their brick throw.  It might be a tournament and they know they have plenty of bricks remaining or might be a dual and they know they really shouldn't need one for remaining matches. 

Current guy might be gassed or flat on stomach and needs a reset so throw a brick for locked hands or something.  No downside in that match even if lose the brick cause they get the reset.

I propose if you lose the call then lose the brick and your wrestler also receives a stall call.  Thus it impacts the current match and wrestler.

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. 

 

[alex1fly]

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

 

[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.

[Coastal]

25 minutes 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.

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.

[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 Sunday at 03:58 PM 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.