Defining Reaction Time Once and For All - A Rule Proposal

[cl415]

Alright, since the next couple days will be excruciating to wait, I have an idea for how to officially define reaction time in the rules. 

Here is my rule proposal:

Reaction time is satisfied when the defensive wrestler has three points of contact with the mat and the offensive wrestler maintains takedown criteria following one identifiable wrestling action.

———

Feel free to suggest some changes to the language if you think it’s warranted. The inspiration is the rule for the NFL on a catch, 2 feet and a football move. It’s simple and allows for there to be a definition for something that is currently undefined.

Thoughts?

[dragit]

I'm concerned that this places the result into what "maintains" means, and that it essentially places that question in the referee's discretion, thus leaving us where we started, because asking the referee to determine whether the attacker has maintained takedown criteria is the same grey area that any non-touch-takedown (i.e., reaction time) system will suffer from.

[cl415]

20 minutes ago, dragit said:

I'm concerned that this places the result into what "maintains" means, and that it essentially places that question in the referee's discretion, thus leaving us where we started, because asking the referee to determine whether the attacker has maintained takedown criteria is the same grey area that any non-touch-takedown (i.e., reaction time) system will suffer from.

Good point. Do you think this works better?

“Reaction time is satisfied when the defensive wrestler has three points of contact with the mat and the offensive wrestler retains control following one identifiable wrestling action.”

There is still some subjectivity on retains control but at least it defines the reaction to being one identifiable wrestling action.
 

For example, if you take the Welsh/McEnelly controversy, it would become moot that Welsh took his hand off the mat because that was not his first identifiable wrestling action. The first was his attempt to reach back for the whizzer which he failed. 

[dragit]

I think if you asked the ref in that match he would still say McEneley didn't "retain control" because he never had control. 

Not trying to be difficult, I admire what you're trying to do.

I just think that where you're going is going to have substantial subjectivity and I have zero confidence that can be applied by human refs in a satisfying way. 

That's why I prefer as much objectivity as possible.  Push out rules to address the inconsistency (diplomatic way to put the current disaster) in stalling calls, and automatic touch/no reaction takedowns (because I think this is just too hard for even most good refs).

[cl415]

Ok. This is helpful. Removing the word control to avoid that rabbit hole.

New wording:

When the offensive wrestler establishes takedown criteria and the defensive wrestler has three points of contact with the mat, the defensive wrestler is allowed one identifiable wrestling action to break takedown criteria. If that action is unsuccessful, reaction time is satisfied and the takedown is awarded. If successful, the offensive wrestler must re-establish takedown criteria and reaction time restarts.

[dragit]

5 minutes ago, cl415 said:

Ok. This is helpful. Removing the word control to avoid that rabbit hole.

New wording:

When the offensive wrestler establishes takedown criteria and the defensive wrestler has three points of contact with the mat, the defensive wrestler is allowed one identifiable wrestling action to break takedown criteria. If that action is unsuccessful, reaction time is satisfied and the takedown is awarded. If successful, the offensive wrestler must re-establish takedown criteria and reaction time restarts.

I think this is well done.  Though I'm not a ref so my ability to comment on the details only goes so far. 

I'm still skeptical that this can be done in a manner that inspires confidence so I would vote for no reaction time, automatic touch takedowns as the rule. 

But I'd settle for a pushout rule combined with your proposal.  I think that the stalling problems are unaddressable without the pushout rule, whereas I think your proposal could possibly work.

[cl415]

Post NCAA bump. 
 

Thoughts in this definition?

When the offensive wrestler establishes takedown criteria and the defensive wrestler has three points of contact with the mat, the defensive wrestler is allowed one identifiable wrestling action to break takedown criteria. If that action is unsuccessful, reaction time is satisfied and the takedown is awarded. If successful, the offensive wrestler must re-establish takedown criteria and reaction time restarts.