Top 3 (in order)
Push out point
Reversal = 3 points
Lose challenge lose a point and your brick
Push out point
Reversal = 3 points
Lose challenge lose a point and your brick
Disagree on 3 but I love 1 and 2Top 3 (in order)
Push out point
Reversal = 3 points
Lose challenge lose a point and your brick
I love all 3 and especially 3. Too many bricks are thrown as lungers.Disagree on 3 but I love 1 and 2
Especially in tournamentsI love all 3 and especially 3. Too many bricks are thrown as lungers.
It's not so much attacking stalling as it is attacking edge wrestling which is a form of stalling.I don’t love rewarding just pushing a guy and trying to score by pushing someone.
You should score on an offensive move IMO but I understand needing to get action and penalize inactive wrestlers. I think the currently stall rules aren’t bad in college.
Love 1 and 2, but what if instead of a lost point with a lost challenge it was something like giving opponent choice of position?Top 3 (in order)
Push out point
Reversal = 3 points
Lose challenge lose a point and your brick
Don’t hate it.Love 1 and 2, but what if instead of a lost point with a lost challenge it was something like giving opponent choice of position?
It's not so much attacking stalling as it is attacking edge wrestling which is a form of stalling.
Top 3 (in order)
Push out point
Reversal = 3 points
Lose challenge lose a point and your brick
I agree on the idea, but honestly it’s still too subjective and has too much variance depending on the ref.I think the currently stall rules aren’t bad in college.
So why forever were takedowns and reversals the same value?3 point options from bottom shouldn’t exist.
If you wanted 3 points, should’ve executed a TD.
I like the push out and challenge deal.
Why was it changed?So why forever were takedowns and reversals the same value?
to create more offense which actually didn't happen. It actually allowed the first guy to get a TD to coast more.Why was it changed?
Agreed. A point is just too big of an edge. If I trusted refs to get it right on review then that would be one thing but I don’t. Coaches could be right on the review and still lose the challenge. That would put the kid at an huge disadvantage and could lose him the match.Don’t hate it.
That was the point of my post.to create more offense which actually didn't happen. It actually allowed the first guy to get a TD to coast more.
The law of unintended consequences.
Because they wanted scores higher all I can think of . Reversal should be 3 as well I think.Why was it changed?
No, they wanted to promote offensive Wrestling that promotes a little more resemblance to FS.Because they wanted scores higher all I can think of . Reversal should be 3 as well I think.
Hahaha if that was the goal we would just change to freestyle. Haven't even added a step out yetNo, they wanted to promote offensive Wrestling that promotes a little more resemblance to FS.
Promoting bottom Wrestling hurts us internationally.
Changing to freestyle isn’t likely to ever happen.Hahaha if that was the goal we would just change to freestyle. Haven't even added a step out yet
Agree with thatChanging to freestyle isn’t likely to ever happen.
Feet to back in freestyle is 4A Freestyle rule I have never understood is when you take someone down to their back, it’s only 2 points, why not 4? 2 for the takedown and 2 for the back exposure.
Right, so blend the rules as best you can to give our athletes the best shot?Agree with that
We have been good at freestyle for years now and a takedown and a reversal were worth the same amount of points 🤷Right, so blend the rules as best you can to give our athletes the best shot?
NCAA has more viewers for the sport, bar none. It’s a great model for growing the sport and should be maximized.
The better the sport gets, here, is the reason to blend into FS AND Greco…which neither really favors the bottom Wrestler.
All that to say, a reverse needs to stay at 2.
You’re right and you winWe have been good at freestyle for years now and a takedown and a reversal were worth the same amount of points 🤷
Yeah, but if you take someone down, and they go directly to their back, it’s only 2 points. It could be that it’s not a throw, or the defender doesn’t leave his feet.Feet to back in freestyle is 4
If someone hits a double leg and takes you from your feet to your back it's 4 . Feet to back in freestyle is 4Yeah, but if you take someone down, and they go directly to their back, it’s only 2 points. It could be that it’s not a throw, or the defender doesn’t leave his feet.
Every time I see it, I don’t understand how the offensive wrestler only gets 2 points. Not 2 for the takedown and 2 for the pack exposure. I could be wrong and maybe I miss-see it. In fact, I have thought that very thing, because I don’t hear other people bring it up.
Agreed; I don't like the push out. It would embrace the "Iowa Style" of wrestling which I detest. Pushing is not wrestling. We already have stalling rule and a fleeing the mat rule. Those rules just need to be called correctly and consistently by the refs.I get not constantly backing up but when a guy is just constantly pushing forward yet not really setting anything up I don’t think that is being more offensive either. This is not Sumo.
There is no reason that a mandatory stall call happens in a scoreless period. Keeping the guys guessing if it will be them will cause more action and more points. I am so tired of guys "holding position" and waiting to score off an opponents shot.1 point for momentary back exposure could be a fun way to experiment with freestyle rules. Not into the pushout - agree with folks that edge wrestling is exciting.
Stalling is still so inconsistent though. There should be some kind of objective rule. Like if you don't take a shot in 30 seconds. I don't know the answer.
We don't need rule changes for that, just consistent refs and application of current rules.I don't want to see guys like 165lb from Utah Valley get a victory for doing jack squat.
But if they won't call per new rule it won't change anything.I think rule changes would be easier than finding consistent refs.