College Wrestling needs Tiebreaking Criteria for OT

[juniorvarsity]

I asked AI for a history of college OT rules, and apparently there used to be criteria back in the day for OT tiebreakers. Maybe an old timer can clarify for me...

but prior to 1993, tied matches used to go 1-1-1 overtime periods. If still tied after OT, "a sequential criteria system was used to determine the winner (e.g., penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, most near-fall points, most takedowns, most reversals, most escapes, riding time advantage of 15+ seconds, stalling penalties/warnings, and finally referee's judgment)." This criteria was only applied to the 1-1-1. It still had ref decision, which I think sucks, but wrestling has used criteria before. Just food for thought. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 hours ago, ionel said:

Do we need to do this again?  We had that war last decade ... plus it really gives @Interviewed_at_Weehawken nightmares.  

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

7 hours ago, juniorvarsity said:

I asked AI for a history of college OT rules, and apparently there used to be criteria back in the day for OT tiebreakers. Maybe an old timer can clarify for me...

but prior to 1993, tied matches used to go 1-1-1 overtime periods. If still tied after OT, "a sequential criteria system was used to determine the winner (e.g., penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, most near-fall points, most takedowns, most reversals, most escapes, riding time advantage of 15+ seconds, stalling penalties/warnings, and finally referee's judgment)." This criteria was only applied to the 1-1-1. It still had ref decision, which I think sucks, but wrestling has used criteria before. Just food for thought. 

I had a tie in high school and also witnessed referee's decisions- one in a tourney final.  The matches also used to be represented in box scores almost as if they were two matches (Smith def Jones 3-3, 1-0)

[Jim L]

20 hours ago, Nak21 said:

Ok fine. But what about tournaments? Can’t have ties there. Someone has to advance. And I’d like to have the same rules for duals and tourneys, duals giving you a chance to prep for what could happen in a tourney. 

I don't see a good reason for having the exact same rule in duals and tournaments. NFL and NHL have different rules. There is not a need an absolute need to determine a winner like  there is in a tournament. I also don't see a good reason to have teams score tiebreakers in dual meets, if after ten matches the score is even let it be a tie.

[Jim L]

13 hours ago, juniorvarsity said:

I asked AI for a history of college OT rules, and apparently there used to be criteria back in the day for OT tiebreakers. Maybe an old timer can clarify for me...

but prior to 1993, tied matches used to go 1-1-1 overtime periods. If still tied after OT, "a sequential criteria system was used to determine the winner (e.g., penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, most near-fall points, most takedowns, most reversals, most escapes, riding time advantage of 15+ seconds, stalling penalties/warnings, and finally referee's judgment)." This criteria was only applied to the 1-1-1. It still had ref decision, which I think sucks, but wrestling has used criteria before. Just food for thought. 

This tie breaking criteria was only used in tournaments. In dual meets, matches that ended in a tie score after time ran out would result in a tie.

[Jim L]

On 12/21/2025 at 3:55 PM, alex1fly said:

I liked when they wrestled until someone scored. 

Did this rule ever exist? I don't remember it.

Seems like a reasonable solution, but I don't think it will work well in practive.

Judo for about 10 years has had a rule for unlimited OT for a tiebreaker and it is not a good solution IMO. Too many matches end up being very conservative during regular and competitors just play to OT. Often OT periods are often  longer the the regulations time. And as it is hard to score against someone you are evenly matched with, a lot of OT matches (maybe most) are decided by a penalty point referee essentially calling the equivalent of stalling. I have not followed Judo closely in the last few years, so maybe they have changed the rules again.

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

2,  2minute standing SV periods, If still tied; Step on a scale, Whoever is the lightest wins!

[peanut]

There should absolutely be criteria instead of OT. It creates a strong incentive for offense. The only situation where I would hate to see criteria used is a 0-0 match or a 1-1 match with equal riding time. So maybe there could be OT for those two situations.

I think a step out rule would be great too.

[peanut]

17 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

the free rule is ... i d k

why does the last person to score get criteria?

i thought we wanted to incentivize action... isn't that the first guy to score? that we should reward?

oh, but then he must be stalling if there isn't more scoring...

First TD could be worth an extra point. 

[Gene Mills Fan]

15 minutes ago, peanut said:

First TD could be worth an extra point. 

In freestyle they should flip a coin after tie. red first score wins on criteria, green last score wins on criteria. That way each wrestler would strive for both to insure the win on a tie

Edited December 23, 2025 by Gene Mills Fan

[pmilk]

I don't think any sport jacks around with the rules more than wrestling, and if there is one, please let me know so I can avoid watching it. Personally, and this is food for thought and my observations; I don't think a match should go longer than 7 min if the score is tied. Criteria should be enough to determine the winner so that it would be very unusual to have an actual "tie." This is just an example of criteria/order, so don't jump down my throat. Most Unsportsmanlike loses, most stalling loses, most near falls 4, 3, 2 (tilts actually) wins, most TD's wins, reversals wins, escapes wins, and ultimately most RT. Maybe there's a different order or something else to add but you get the idea...As much as some of you dislike RT, dominating someone should be rewarded whether it's TD's, tilts, reversals, escapes, or RT. If, for some ungodly reason, all the criteria are equal, then the match should go no longer that a 1-1 OT. First score/wins or stall loses in 1st period from neutral. If still tied, flip the magic coin, winner chooses top/bottom. He gets out-it's over...he rides-it's over.

On a side note...I watched a high school wrestling meet recently and in one match it was 0-0 in the 1st. 2nd period, Kid A (choice) takes top, rides like a dog in heat, trying stuff to score, kid on bottom warned for stalling (2 min domination on top, close to scoring but didn't)...no score, still 0-0. In the 3rd period the other kid (B) takes down... more of the same, with no stall calls, until the last 5 secs he escapes..AND WINS 1-0.  This is one example of the injustice and irrationality of eliminating RT at the high school level. Worst case scenario, match should be tied and criteria applied and Kid A wins. Perhaps someone can elucidate for me just why was RT eliminated from HS and how it helps wrestling at the college level. I keep suggesting that 1pt for every :30 secs RT would make things pretty interesting. Perhaps that's another thread but...

[CHROMEBIRD]

1 hour ago, Jim L said:

Did this rule ever exist? I don't remember it.

Seems like a reasonable solution, but I don't think it will work well in practive.

Judo for about 10 years has had a rule for unlimited OT for a tiebreaker and it is not a good solution IMO. Too many matches end up being very conservative during regular and competitors just play to OT. Often OT periods are often  longer the the regulations time. And as it is hard to score against someone you are evenly matched with, a lot of OT matches (maybe most) are decided by a penalty point referee essentially calling the equivalent of stalling. I have not followed Judo closely in the last few years, so maybe they have changed the rules again.

I think it's the other way around? IIRC from the Olympics, had an OT period and if the score was still tied, the match would be decided by the referee + two matside judges. They said the action is much better now that the officials' decision has been removed. OT winner now is the first to score or get DQ'ed. 3 stall warnings = DQ.

[Dogbone]

I don't believe anyone said the 3 point TD and 4 NF would lead to less stalling. 

I thought the idea behind the 3pt TD was to increase the margin of victory.  People didn't like someone getting 3 TD to 0 in match and only winning by 1 or 2 points when they dominate the match.   

putting someone on their back is the ultimate goal and possibly the hardest thing to do so the points were increased accordingly. 

I don't know that it has changed much but it hasn't hurt it either.  

[Jim L]

1 hour ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I think it's the other way around? IIRC from the Olympics, had an OT period and if the score was still tied, the match would be decided by the referee + two matside judges. They said the action is much better now that the officials' decision has been removed. OT winner now is the first to score or get DQ'ed. 3 stall warnings = DQ.

That rule has been replaced with unlimited OT (maybe for the last two Olympic cycles?) Last Olympics, I saw a lot of strategy trying to get the third penalty for the DQ instead of trying  for a score to win. 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Dogbone said:

I don't believe anyone said the 3 point TD and 4 NF would lead to less stalling. 

I thought the idea behind the 3pt TD was to increase the margin of victory.  People didn't like someone getting 3 TD to 0 in match and only winning by 1 or 2 points when they dominate the match.   

putting someone on their back is the ultimate goal and possibly the hardest thing to do so the points were increased accordingly. 

I don't know that it has changed much but it hasn't hurt it either.  

The NCAA moved to 3-point takedowns (starting 2023-24) primarily 

to boost scoring, increase excitement, and reward offensive action/risk-taking, and encouraging more creative, aggressive wrestling, though some debate its actual impact on increasing action. 

Key Reasons for the Change:

• Incentivize Offense: To get wrestlers out of neutral and actively trying for takedowns, rather than stalling or riding for riding time.

[Husker]

20 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

lets just try a battle to the death sometime... (until someone scores, no stalling, keep refs out)

see how it plays out, hwo the fans react.

some tourney just do it.

Didn’t Greco wresting back at the first Olympics go until there was a fall? 

[Scouts Honor]

criteria is must making it so 'someones' point of view is rewarded.

there is more than one way to skin a cat. if the score is tied, it's tied. everyone has the same opportunities to score, but they use different methods.

the current OT allows for every type of wrestling.. IF someone can't score a takedown.

[alex1fly]

8 hours ago, Jim L said:

Did this rule ever exist? I don't remember it.

Seems like a reasonable solution, but I don't think it will work well in practive.

Judo for about 10 years has had a rule for unlimited OT for a tiebreaker and it is not a good solution IMO. Too many matches end up being very conservative during regular and competitors just play to OT. Often OT periods are often  longer the the regulations time. And as it is hard to score against someone you are evenly matched with, a lot of OT matches (maybe most) are decided by a penalty point referee essentially calling the equivalent of stalling. I have not followed Judo closely in the last few years, so maybe they have changed the rules again.

 

I think so back in the 90s. I was young but my brain tells me that’s what it was. Then they added criteria so OT wouldn’t take forever. 

[juniorvarsity]

On 12/23/2025 at 1:43 PM, pmilk said:

I don't think any sport jacks around with the rules more than wrestling, and if there is one, please let me know so I can avoid watching it. Personally, and this is food for thought and my observations; I don't think a match should go longer than 7 min if the score is tied. Criteria should be enough to determine the winner so that it would be very unusual to have an actual "tie." This is just an example of criteria/order, so don't jump down my throat. Most Unsportsmanlike loses, most stalling loses, most near falls 4, 3, 2 (tilts actually) wins, most TD's wins, reversals wins, escapes wins, and ultimately most RT. Maybe there's a different order or something else to add but you get the idea...As much as some of you dislike RT, dominating someone should be rewarded whether it's TD's, tilts, reversals, escapes, or RT. If, for some ungodly reason, all the criteria are equal, then the match should go no longer that a 1-1 OT. First score/wins or stall loses in 1st period from neutral. If still tied, flip the magic coin, winner chooses top/bottom. He gets out-it's over...he rides-it's over.

It's funny. The criteria you listed is essentially the same order of criteria I noted above was in effect in tournament matches only before 1993.  However, criteria only applied to what occurred in the overtime 1-1-1. And these rule only applied to tournaments, not duals. It's a bit different because we are talking about eliminating OT in favor of criteria.

I do think UWW has criteria well thought out. There nlis always an indication of who is winning at any point in the match. Criteria isn't applied only after the match. Even with the cascading order of criteria you mentioned ending with riding time as the last determining factor with all things equal, there is still a chance all things are still equal at the end of a match(likely rare). This is why my initial thoughts on this is that you need to use last point scored so criteria is applicable at all points in time during the match. (could use first point scored, but honestly that is retarded - 2nd period choice, you escape and that's the deciding factor).

Thinking through how last point scored would look in folkstyle, I'm not sure I like it. It's 3 to 4 and if the guy escapes at the end of a match, he wins? Everyone is going to defer if they win the coin toss. You're down 1-0 heading into third and you choose down and escape, you are in the lead. Or if last point scored isn't used, and instead it is riding time, then if it is 4-4, each wrestler has a TD and escape, then the criteria that will determine the match is a couple seconds of riding time. 

[pmilk]

Why would the last point scored carry more weight than the first point scored in a tie? Logic indicates that you can't have a last point if there isn't a first point in tie match regardless of how it is acquired. FWIW, I think duel meets could end with matches in a draw and save all the pomp and circumstance of criteria and OT for tournaments. Anticipating the rematch would create more excitement, imo. RT indicates a degree of control/dominance. All things equal, who had control of whom longer. Therefore, learn how to control/ride and learn how to escape/reverse efficiently and quickly for your advantage. Off topic...watched a freestyle match the other day and the bottom guy flattens out like a starfish for several seconds and then they go feet. Essentially, he stalls. Incredibly exciting...edge of your seat kind of stuff.

[ionel]

Enough!  There is nothing wrong with the current OT ... leave it alone!  

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Enough!  There is nothing wrong with the current OT ... leave it alone!  

Add an emoji as you are correct sir 

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, ionel said:

Enough!  There is nothing wrong with the current OT ... leave it alone!  

Never mind. 

[TexRef]

On 12/23/2025 at 12:57 PM, CHROMEBIRD said:

I think it's the other way around? IIRC from the Olympics, had an OT period and if the score was still tied, the match would be decided by the referee + two matside judges. They said the action is much better now that the officials' decision has been removed. OT winner now is the first to score or get DQ'ed. 3 stall warnings = DQ.

I can't even imagine the amount of corruption with the officials back in those days. 

[Scouts Honor]

On 12/25/2025 at 2:23 PM, ionel said:

Enough!  There is nothing wrong with the current OT ... leave it alone!  

stop. no, dont.

finally a voice of reason.