davenowa

just to be clear, NFHS Rule 4.5.1 states "...a MAXIMUM of 1 hour before the start of a dual meet." It does NOT state exactly 1 hr, and no minimum is listed. As the host school, coach could decree that the match will start at 6pm...and we are weighing in after warm-ups, after the anthem at 5:45. Now go put your shoes back on and let's wrestle.

rather than the exact tennis model (or ncaa golf), take the complete logically opposite approach. Make first two months of the season all essentially tournaments, but culminating in a DUAL MEET Championship weekend as the first semester ends (just before Christmas), with either 8 or 16 teams, wrestling for 1-8 placement (non-qualifiers could conduct similar dual event for 2nd and 3rd groups, if desired). Take a couple of weeks off, and start second semester with all the DUAL MEETS that determine regular season conference championships, maybe a quad or tri-meet sprinkled in on a weekend or 2 (no tournaments, other than some "opens" to get non-varsity more mat time) and then culminate that portion of the season with the INDIVIDUALLY BRACKETED TOURNEY (as it is now). To top it off, and to maintain the tradition of only 1 national champion per academic year, use the ordinal finish from each event to determine the champ (low combined score wins, and anyone not placing top 8 at the Duals is awarded a "9" to be added to their trny placement). Still torn on the tiebreaker being dual champ or trny champ (ie team A wins duals, 2nd trny while B is 2nd duals and 1st trny, or perhaps even the dreaded A wins duals, 3rd at trny while B is 2nd at both and C is 3rd duals 1st trny, all scoring a "4").

In trying to clarify language for high school state rule interpretations regarding forfeits and med forfeits to mirror NCAA, I have been unable to find an answer to the following scenario. While I understand that only the first loss by MF counts unless the preceding match was a loss by injury default, what about the situation when wrestler A, in the semis is called for an illegal move that results in his opponent (wrestler B) being unable to continue due to injury? This, by definition, is still recorded as an injury default (not a disqualification). 2 questions... First, if wrestler B cannot compete in the finals (broken arm, for instance), does that MF loss count as a loss on record, or does the rule only pertain to losses taken in prior match by injury default, perhaps keeping him undefeated (even though he does not win the tournament)? Second. if wrestler A drops to the consis and is inconsolable about his undefeated season being over, as the "injury default", although correctly ruled illegal by the official, resulted in, perhaps, the "winner" opting to not continue the match (maybe a little different scenario than the broken arm above, such as taking a dive). Wrestler A elects to NOT continue in the consi side of the tournament. Does he take a loss for his first MF in the consi semis, for although it was preceded by an injury default, it was NOT his injury that resulted in the match ending? I will qualify this by stating that his coach went to the head table and said the reason he was not continue was in fact due to an injury or illness sustained in the tournament (either he punched a locker room wall in despair...or he threw up due to his heartbreak). I guess it somewhat boils down to if the definition applies only to the wrestler who was INJURED in the match that ended by injury default. Thanks

could it be that some of those who oppose the dual format are fearful of a coin toss determining a national champion? while other sports have worked to minimize the impact of a coin toss (ie college football OT rules), wrestling continues to place a tremendous impact on the outcome of a toss. while this particular sub-topic has been discussed before, perhaps there would be greater acceptance by some if there were to be, just prior to the national anthem, after warm-ups, locked line-ups submitted to the scorer's table. no, this does not remove the potential strategy of perhaps bumping someone up...but it does require a coach to accurately predict what the other might do, as opposed to relying on hoping to lose a coin toss. While I fear invoking the wrath of Bob, here is a link to the prior discussion about how a coin toss can determine the outcome when all other factors are unchanged.

what if there were to become consistency between NFHS and NCAA with a modified 13 weights/10 weights, such that the lower weight class increments did not exceed 7, and slightly increased for upper weights: 107 114 121 (HS Only)...then 10 "similar" weight classes of 128 135 142 150 159 169 180 194 215 285 ??

Looks like the movement toward college rules is continuing. Favor most of these, but will mean more consideration for tight gym space and overlapping mats in terms of out of bounds. I do wish they had increased a major to 10 to accompany the increased scoring values, and since HS lacks replay, I would have preferred the NF progression to have greater differentials in time/swipes (ie 2 = 2, but make 3 pts require 4 swipes and 4 pts would need 6 seconds). NEWS RELEASE Participants Now Inbounds with One Point of Contact in High School Wrestling FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Elliot Hopkins INDIANAPOLIS, IN (April 25, 2024) — Beginning with the 2024-25 season, high school wrestlers will be inbounds with only one point of contact of either wrestler inside or on the boundary line. This fundamental change to high school wrestling was one of six major changes impacting almost 30 rules recommended by the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee at its April 1-3 meeting in Indianapolis. All recommended changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors. Previously, high school wrestlers were considered to be inbounds if a total of two supporting points of either wrestler were inside or on the boundary line. The two supporting points could be two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point of each wrestler inside or on the boundary line. “Without increasing risk, this change eliminates the subjectivity of the out-of-bounds call,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and student services and liaison to the Wrestling Rules Committee. “The change also helps officials to call ‘out of bounds’ more consistently, and it provides wrestlers, coaches and spectators a better understanding of out of bounds.” While the One Point of Contact change will be noted under the definition of Inbounds in Rule 5-15, it also impacts a number of other sections in Rule 5 on Definitions, as well as Rule 6-4-1 on Stopping and Starting the Match. In addition to the One Point of Contact change, points awarded for a Near-Fall have been revised in high school wrestling. Overall, the changes simplify the points awarded based on how long the wrestler is held in near-fall criteria. The change in Rule 5-11-3 is as follows: Two points will be awarded when near-fall criteria are held for two seconds, three points for three seconds, four points for four seconds and five points if the defensive wrestler is injured, indicates an injury or bleeding occurs after the four-point near-fall has been earned. These changes will affect other rules including individual match scoring in Rule 9. “The goal in wrestling is to pin the opponent,” Hopkins said. “Changing the near-fall points should motivate wrestlers to work for a fall.” In another change in scoring rules, opportunities to earn more points will also be available when executing a Takedown. Beginning next season, wrestlers will be awarded three match points instead of two when securing a takedown. The committee also approved a change regarding the Technical Fall. Rule 5-11-4a now states that “if a takedown or reversal, straight to a near-fall criteria creates a 15-point advantage, the match shall continue until the near-fall criteria is no longer met. Conclusion of the near-fall criteria is immediate.” The change clarifies when the technical fall has concluded in relation to the near-fall criteria being met. Hopkins said the offensive wrestler cannot be penalized appropriately after the technical fall has been earned. In another change, the 10-Foot Circle at the center of wrestling mats is now optional. Wrestlers now will be encouraged to “stay in the center of the mat” instead of “within the 10-foot circle.” “The committee determined that the starting lines of a mat indicate the center of the mat and the 10-foot circle is no longer needed,” Hopkins said. “With the new mat designs that have a large mascot or logos, it gives a refreshing look to the mats. Wrestlers and officials know where the center of the mat is located without the 10-foot circle.” Finally, the committee approved a new Referee’s Time-Out Signal. The signal, which is used in many other sports, is both hands/fingers pointing inward to the referee’s chest. A complete listing of the wrestling rules changes will be available on the NFHS website at www.nfhs.org. Click on “Activities & Sports” at the top of the home page and select “Wrestling.” According to the 2022-23 NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, wrestling is the sixth-most popular sport for boys with 259,431 participants in 10,962 schools. It also continues to gain popularity among girls with 50,016 participants in 6,545 schools nationwide. Online link to article: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/participants-now-inbounds-with-one-point-of-contact-in-high-school-wrestling/

guess I don't understand attacking the messenger when the message has such merit. while everyone wants to see more pins, there is still something inherently wrong with a pin being worth 4 x a decision, especially when most fans are at least used to scoring double (6 vs 3) in a dual format. both suggestions noted above could be implemented, whereby consi advancement matches HS and is worth 1 pt (half of topside) AND consi bonus points are worth half the topside as well. The current format also overly rewards forfeits on the consi side. For what it's worth, I would still prefer to revamp tourney scoring so that the average fan can easily follow, with it matching dual scoring. No advancement points, tweak place points and make consis just half of champ side. combined, of course, with margin of victory scoring.

thanks...we do always count injury defaults as losses, regardless of who was winning at the time. as we have transitioned to a fully non-subjective point methodology for seeding purposes, I prefer to also have an objective and non-disputable "yes or no" for all scenarios. since medical forfeits are sometimes legit and other times clearly ducks, it is best to offer consistency for each case, and it looks we will go with counting as a head to head win for purposes of seed swapping (unless I see a sudden contrary consensus from other states before Tues, which, based on the limited replies to date, seems unlikely). thanks again.

While NFHS does not recognize any forfeit (including med fft) as a LOSS on a wrestler's record, but does count as a win for the victor, the question about head to head came up in an earlier post, but was never specifically answered. I ask because in our state seedings, we allow wrestler B seeded 2nd to overtake wrestler A who is seeded first if he has beaten him head to head, and there has been some debate about how this applies to a medical forfeit (for instance, in the finals of a regular season tournament, where A knows he is sitting on the top seed for post-season and elects to not risk said seed in finals). Also hoping that next year NFHS follows NCAA lead regarding 1st loss counting, to minimize some of those scenarios.

while the "challenge" part of the statement was correct, it is that tricky "and beat" component that makes the sentence, in whole, therefore false, as seeds 1-6 placed 1-6 (albeit slightly out of order).

if this is going to become a weight class discussion, it may deserve a less misleading thread title. however, as much as I would prefer 13 consistent NFHS weight classes across all states, those listed here with their corresponding kilogramatic values are not reflective of the bell curve of high school wrestlers. even adding those bottom 3 weights, there are too many upper weights, too many lower weights and not enough in the middle (with too large increments). 75% of the kids would fall into less than 50% of the weights. that is the difficulty in trying to have HS classes, where kids are starting lighter and growing faster, mirror college or "grown up" weights.

which set of HS weights should they use? NFHS 12-13-14? or NY12 plus 101? or PA13? sooo many options... (12) 108 lbs., 116 lbs., 124 lbs., 131 lbs., 138 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 170 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (13) 107 lbs., 114 lbs., 121 lbs., 127 lbs., 133 lbs., 139 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 172 lbs., 189 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (14) 106 lbs., 113 lbs., 120 lbs., 126 lbs., 132 lbs. 138 lbs., 144 lbs., 150 lbs., 157 lbs., 165 lbs., 175 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs.

Not sure how often the coin toss is the deciding factor, as obviously inconsequential in a rout. However, I will compare it to the NFL situation, in which they have modified their overtime rules to minimize the impact of the coin toss, especially as is now in place for playoffs. Therefore, even if the toss only impacts a small percentage of close outcome matches, that is no reason to not seek improvement. Not to invoke too many other sports for comparative purposes, but tennis would be mayhem if wrestling coaches were in charge. Rather than putting their top player at #1 singles, and 2nd at #2 etc, Mr. Wrestling would send out a JV scrub at #1 singles against Rival HS, rationalizing that although we would be behind 4-0 after singles, since each of Rival schools' corresponding kids were slightly better than ours, by bumping our 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, we come out ahead 3-1 instead of down 4-0. Sounds genius to our wrestling coach, but in most tennis conferences, this would be an illegal substitution, unless the coach could provide written documentation showing the recent date and time that our JV Scrub beat our #1 singles player. Additionally, locked line-ups would also minimize the current prevalence of some coaches ducking good wrestlers when the outcome of the dual is not even remotely in question. Currently, the parents and family of the state champ expecting to see a decent match against the all-conference kid at that weight know that against some teams, the odds of the match taking place are 50/50. Lacking a significant change, I would offer an addendum that any bump/duck resulting in a forfeit must be accompanied by the coach who presents the forfeit immediately being required to walk (crawl?) to the opposing fan section with a cash refund for the admission fee handed back to those parents.

nothing against gamesmanship, which I would see as expecting you to submit your traditional line-up that you have used all season (and which was unchanged since your Kemp days...Jack, not Lee) and I surprise you and the still-standing crowd by moving my 126 to 132 when the locked line-up is announced after the anthem is played. otherwise, I call it for what it is...a coin toss determining the outcome of a dual when ALL OTHER RESULTS are exactly the same and the opposite outcome in terms of which team wins the match occurs when the other team wins the toss. Not sure of any other sport that would tolerate a coin toss determining which team wins (and I say that based on the evidence presented where the outcome only changes based on the result of said coin toss). still looking for someone to suggest a better method that is perhaps completely different than anything that has been used or proposed. enjoyed the recent collegiate line-up shift, but have not analyzed whether it was made possible by the coin toss or not, but I am sure someone could shed some light on that situation.

thanks SHP, and since I know you have given this topic some thought in the past, I was going to contact you directly, but figured maybe there was someone out there who could come up with a novel approach. I guess the college format could be an improvement, except for a couple of issues. First, in any multi-dual (ie quad of dual tourney), it would require a delay of up to 30 minutes to execute the new choice with each match, as opposed to the current NFHS rule that starts each subsequent round at the next higher weight class to eliminate the possibility of having to wait because you want to bump up the kid who wrestled last in the first round and would then be first in the next. Secondly, to achieve your desired outcome, NFHS could institute the NCAA style assigned weight classes as odd and even, as opposed to the first match in NFHS being odd and the second being even, although I don't think that change alters the scenarios presented below (just the nomenclature of what is odd and even). with those things in place, I guess that the NCAA plan would be better, because at least in that manner, every time I win the coin toss I would lose the dual in every scenario. However, if I LOSE the toss, I win the dual! I will try to explain, but might have missed something in translation. I will use the same weight classes noted in my prior example, as well as the same "status" of each team's entrant at 113 and 120. Situation 1: I win the coin toss and choose to start at 113. As that would be an "even" class under the NCAA format, the coach of team B would choose "odd" and force me to send first at 113. I send my stud, he forfeits and bumps up to 120 and wins by pin, so 6-6. Situation 2: I win the coin toss and choose odd, forcing him to send first at 113. He then opts to start at 120, where I must then send first. I send my original decent 120, he bumps up his better kid from 113 to 120, pins my kid and gets 6, while my stud at 113 ends of taking a forfeit to end the match, so still 6-6 net from those 2 bouts. Situation 3: I win the toss and choose even, so will need to send first at 113. Coach B chooses to start at 113, so same net result of 6-6. Situation 4: I win the toss and choose to start at 120. Coach B then selects even, forcing me to send first at 120. If I bump up my stud, he counters with his weaker kid. I get 6, but he gets 6 at 113 from his good guy pinning my JV 113. Net 6-6. Situation 5: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 113, so I choose odd. He must send first, so if he sends his good kid, I send my stud and get 3. I then also beat his JV kid at 120, so I am up 9-0. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 120, so I choose even. He must send first, so if he bumps up his 113, I bump up my 113, take 3 points, and then it comes down to a pair of JV kids meeting at 113. I guess I should have clarified in my original post the status of our JV 113 kids (if we have any), but had implied I had a JV 113 and Coach B did not, so would be up 9-0 from those 2 bouts. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to choose odd or even, and selects odd. Since I must send first at 113, I elect to start at 120, where he must send first. Same result as situation 6. Situation 7: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B selects even. I then opt to start at 113, where he must send first. Same result as situation 5. So...since 3.8.1 (NCAA version) does not allow me to defer choice if I win the coin toss, the only way I can win the match is by losing the coin toss. At least with this format, I would have a strategy, but can see some confusion on the faces of all others gathered at the coin toss as we celebrate losing! And if all involved are as aware of the possible outcomes, the end result still comes down to a coin toss. I guess I can only hope that Coach B does not know I have a dizzying intellect.