The objective of top position is to put your opponent on his back, not prevent him from scoring. If you aren't attempting to turn him it is stalling. Much more stalling needs to be call on the top position, when no attempts are may to turn your opponent.
Views on Ride Outs
- Thread starter NittanyChris
- Start date
how about this - OT stays cause it is exciting - more wrestling. So go into the 2min sudden death. If no TD, go into the 30 seconds for each person - top/bottom - riding time doesn't count but getting out does. If still tied - back to your feet unlimited time with the ref calling stalling appropriately.
How about this: If it’s tied at the end of SV, ref flips the red/green disc and whichever color comes up wins. I don’t see how this is any worse than current OT rules.
Not saying this because of sour grapes over PJ losing, but the easiest way to improve the sport would be to eliminate ride outs. Too many of the top matchups are guys just playing it safe to get to ride outs and seeing who can stall on top better to decide the match. If they know they’ll eventually need a takedown you’ll see more wide open wrestling.
For the record, I’d be in arms if there was ever a proposal to replace folkstyle with free in the US. I love the control aspect and how it better simulates combat, the importance of top and bottom, and how it gives our guys a conditioning edge on the world stage. I was just advocating for their criteria rule, which I think works very well.
I also enjoy freestyle for different reasons. I’m a fan of both styles.
So easy to break a regulation tie:
-most recent hike in the Rocky Mountains
-most recent hike in the High Sierra
-most recent hike in the Cascade Range
-most recent hike in the Canadian Rockies
-most recent grizzly sighting on hike
-most recent wolf sighting on hike
-Ultimate tiebreaker: Prettiest encountered hiker (pic required to ref before match, example below)
-most recent hike in the Rocky Mountains
-most recent hike in the High Sierra
-most recent hike in the Cascade Range
-most recent hike in the Canadian Rockies
-most recent grizzly sighting on hike
-most recent wolf sighting on hike
-Ultimate tiebreaker: Prettiest encountered hiker (pic required to ref before match, example below)
Top and bottom wrestling is folk style. Just call stalling appropriately during the match, including SV, and most matches will never get to TB.
I doubt they will ever switch to true freestyle, because many facilities don't support continuation of action thru out of bounds.
If freestyle is out, no need to bastardize the folk style rules to diminish the role of riding, including in TB of OT.
Afterall, it was tied after 9 minutes of wrestling with likely well over 5 minutes of neutral (wrestling action or uncalled stalling). So there seems no point to more of the neutral position.
A boring match is going to be a boring match, no matter how a winner is determined in OT. Selfishly, I just want the boring match to be over already. TB rideouts seem good enough for that.
I doubt that a meaningful criteria could exist for a zero takedown match that is tied at the end of regulation, so what'd be the point of it?
I doubt they will ever switch to true freestyle, because many facilities don't support continuation of action thru out of bounds.
If freestyle is out, no need to bastardize the folk style rules to diminish the role of riding, including in TB of OT.
Afterall, it was tied after 9 minutes of wrestling with likely well over 5 minutes of neutral (wrestling action or uncalled stalling). So there seems no point to more of the neutral position.
A boring match is going to be a boring match, no matter how a winner is determined in OT. Selfishly, I just want the boring match to be over already. TB rideouts seem good enough for that.
I doubt that a meaningful criteria could exist for a zero takedown match that is tied at the end of regulation, so what'd be the point of it?
I favor extending the sudden victory period for a reasonable time until a wrestler scores, say 5 minutes. But, and hear me out on this because it gives proper respect to the ride-out concept, if after that SV there's still a tie you roll out a mechanical bull and see which wrestler can ride it out longer while the ref turns up the intensity knob.
That would reward conditioning, grip strength, thigh strength, and balance, all important wrestling qualities. PLUS, it would be a real crowd pleaser and grow the sport! Ain't nobody leaving before the heavies wrestle.
That would reward conditioning, grip strength, thigh strength, and balance, all important wrestling qualities. PLUS, it would be a real crowd pleaser and grow the sport! Ain't nobody leaving before the heavies wrestle.
At one time, there were actually 2 riding points available…witnessed by those of us who were born in the Stoneage!
For anyone saying "this problem goes away if the refs call stalling" -- how many more decades are you willing to wait for that to happen?
Because the refs have proven for decades that they won't call stalling. That is the reason why the boundary call, the 5-sec ankle call, and the 5-sec mat return call (among others) exist -- because even the glacially-moving NCAA ran out of patience.
Because the refs have proven for decades that they won't call stalling. That is the reason why the boundary call, the 5-sec ankle call, and the 5-sec mat return call (among others) exist -- because even the glacially-moving NCAA ran out of patience.
How about a one minute SV from neutral? No scoring after one period requires a mandatory stall warning to one of the wrestlers. If that wrestler had a warning from regulation, he loses. If not, they go to a second SV from Neutral. After the second SV another stall call must be issued. If no point is awarded a third SV period from neutral is wrestled with a stall warning being issued at the conclusion of the third SV.
Points will be scored.
Points will be scored.
The problem is we've been waiting forever for refs to "just call stalling appropriately ", and it's not looking like that will ever happen.
I'm shocked at how many people just want OT to be wrestled in neutral. If that's the case my opinion is 1st step out wins if you guys want freestyle let's just go all the way
Your Iowa bias is showing. Push outs are not the offensive style we are trying to promote. Neutral wrestling is about takedowns not push outs.
Then wrestle SV2 and SV3 from the mat, but still make a mandatory stall call if there is no scoring. If you are ridden out for a minute in SV2 then a riding time point is awarded and that wrestler wins. The problem is 30 seconds is too short to ride out. You run someone out a couple times and you're there. Let's face it, if you choose down and get ridden for 60 seconds you deserve to lose.
After the 2 min neutral and only in a non-tournament setting leave it a tie. If you want to give no team points or two each, fine. In a tournament, SV neutral only until a takedown, stall call or penalty point wins it
This seems pretty good. But why not just require (at least one) stall at the end of each regulation period and skip OT altogether? We could eliminate choice for periods 2 & 3 (winner of toss gets to chose which period the go bottom) if we want to really emphasize all 3 aspects.
Would you require a stall call if the score after one period was 6-3? Or are you saying only if it is 0-0 after 1?
It's utterly absurd to make the horsecrap wrestlers are accumulating RT with more important than Neutral Offense. If you want to go your way, the NCAA needs to enforce a mandatory Stall Call after 45 seconds of Neutral Wrestling with no scoring (regardless of period) - the Stall Call is given to the wrestler deemed to be more passive (i.e., spent more time on defense.... less active offensively.... or however else you want to phrase it). If the wrestler's are engaged in a scramble when the 45 second non-scoring clock expires, the stall call is made at the time the Ref stalemates the scramble OR time expires on period with no scoring (if the scramble results in a TD, no call applies).
Anybody who watched Taylor vs Duke and calls what Taylor was doing "great wrestling" - doesn't know what "great wrestling" looks like because that was horsecrap wrestling. Beyond that, how the Ref claimed Duke didn't have a TD when he was fully behind Tayor and Taylor clearly had 3 points of contact with the mat (and you don't get "reaction time" on 3-points of contact) is utterly bizzare - this after he watched Taylor do nothing in Neutral but Stall, then he doublely screws Duke by not calling a very clear and obvious TD????
But wrestling has 3 positions why limit OT to just one. That's obviously sarcasm
with the push out comment 
by SV2 and SV3, do you mean tiebreaker 1&2? I thought it goes SV > TB 1 > TB 2 (then SV again if needed?)
The ref sucked. He'd have sucked no matter what the rules.
I didn't call it "great wrestling", so not sure what that is about.
I’m spitballing here: I’m sure people are ready to show me why my thinking is wrong. But I was thinking there’d always be a “least offensive wrestler” designation for each period. If the score was 6-3 after one, that should be an obvious call (& maybe it should be automatic tha the guy with the most points in a period gets rewarded in this way). But if the guy with 3 comes back to tie after the 3rd—while the guy with 6 sits on his lead—maybe he wins the bout.
It would likely make stalling more subjective again, but I think that’s what many in this thread (and Cael, it seems) want. And IMO, it’s the only way you’re going to get it.
Obviously ties can't happen in individual tournaments, but in duals I never minded them. Each team would get two points for a tied match. I also didn't mind team ties in dual meets.
Yes, they had what was called a “referee decision “when it was tied. I actually won a match with that.
We need an OT system with less ref discretion/judgment, not more. No one can agree on what is/isn’t stalling now. Injecting more of that uncertainty doesn’t help IMO.
One of the biggest knocks against freestyle is the refs’ seemingly arbitrary (or biased) selection of which wrestler is more passive.
And your hypothetical 6-3 1st period score doesn’t mean the guy with 6 was the more aggressive. Sometimes the score doesn’t reflect actual activity on the mat.
The only action this would create is on-mat coach aneurysms when their guys get called for stalling instead of the other guy. Which might be a plus.
Also a real good chance that the first call goes against the wrestler who has not yet been dinged, regardless of merit, because the ref doesn't want to decide the outcome.
My favorite is when the ref says "action, guys" about 7 or 8 times, but never calls stalling.
It's like shouting, "Stop, or I'll say stop again!"
It's like shouting, "Stop, or I'll say stop again!"
Lee Kemp would heartily disagree : ) Were it not for a split referees decision in the NCAA Finals his freshman year he would have been a four timer.We can just go back to the refs decision after 1 OT in neutral
Can you imagine how people would react today to a refs decision
. Many people dont understand that was actually a thing. I was a HS ref for a few years and I can't imagine having to pick the guy I thought should win a 3-3 match
I was born in 74 so as a kid until like 8th grade that was happening and nobody really had a problem with it . Try that today and refs would be assaulted
You are correct. Starting in 1941 or 1942 each team would get two points for a draw in a dual. Splitting the points was only a thing from 1928 - 1940 or 1941.
People understand it was a thing.Can you imagine how people would react today to a refs decision
Nobody understands why it was a thing, because it's inherently stupid. Great for bookies and crooked refs, awful for everyone else including honest refs.