Possible Rule Changes
- Thread starter cy4prez7
- Start date
I agree. You start on top, let them up, get a takedown, let them up again and it's tied? Good improvement here. Love the riding time rule change too.
Wrestling Rules Committee proposes 3-point takedown - NCAA.org
The NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week recommended making all takedowns worth 3 points, effective with the 2023-24 season.
www.ncaa.org
"All rule proposals must be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel. The panel is scheduled to discuss wrestling recommendations during a videoconference June 8."
Not many of the proposals really do anything. I could basically take or leave any of them. That said, the more I think about it, I dislike the 3 point takedown proposal more and more. I think it unnecessarily complicates things. I don’t see any benefit to it. Like I commented in my original takes, I actually think it will increase the focus on defensive wrestling, which is the exact opposite of the intent.
I originally liked the 3 point takedown and made still do, but think the required turn to get a riding time point may do the trick. Might not have as much boring top riding now and more releases.
With 8 points as a major decision yet, there is going to be a lot more MD with the 3 point takedown, I think. Also a point that was made was should a reversal have been changed to 3 points also. I can understand the logic.
It seems like the scores are going to be higher, but remains to be seen if the action is better.
With 8 points as a major decision yet, there is going to be a lot more MD with the 3 point takedown, I think. Also a point that was made was should a reversal have been changed to 3 points also. I can understand the logic.
It seems like the scores are going to be higher, but remains to be seen if the action is better.
I think these two rules (along with requiring back points to get the riding time point) will potentially be the biggest changes. It seems to go back to the old days where you can't simply ride parallel or ride to hang on. Requiring to work for the nearfall is how it always used to be and was a much better product to watch! Hopefully this passes and officials find common ground on how stalling would be called against the top man.
.......
— The rule which states top position wrestlers must only aggressively work to break down the opponent would change to also requiring him to pursue near-fall points and/or a pin.
“The way it’s (been) stated in the rulebook — and we changed that a little bit — it’s an attempt to break down,” Scott said. “That’s what guys were doing, so it wasn’t technically stalling. (But) that’s hard to watch for me. I’ve watched the sport for 30 years and I want guys to be viscous on top and want to turn. If you’re not incentivized to, why do it?”
— The current mandatory five-second count for waist and ankle rides would include all situations in which the top wrestler grasps the bottom wrestler’s ankle.
.......
— The rule which states top position wrestlers must only aggressively work to break down the opponent would change to also requiring him to pursue near-fall points and/or a pin.
“The way it’s (been) stated in the rulebook — and we changed that a little bit — it’s an attempt to break down,” Scott said. “That’s what guys were doing, so it wasn’t technically stalling. (But) that’s hard to watch for me. I’ve watched the sport for 30 years and I want guys to be viscous on top and want to turn. If you’re not incentivized to, why do it?”
— The current mandatory five-second count for waist and ankle rides would include all situations in which the top wrestler grasps the bottom wrestler’s ankle.
They've already inflated the scoring with the previous NF changes. Adding a point for a TD is just another step.
As for the RT point requiring NF, I think the goal is get rid of those 2-1 matches where it's just two escapes and RT. Because nobody wants to watch that dreck.
I'm skeptical of the 3 point takedown after taking some time to think about it and hear more opinions from others. I'm not sold on how many end of match results this "corrects", as some online I've read have alluded to being a big factor. If it wouldn't change many results then what is being fixed?
It seems entirely possible the rule change may simply remove late match drama in favor of bigger score gaps. It's a lot more fun having a punchers chance at the upset, even knowing the result almost always doesn't go that way. To me it removes a ton of potential drama whereas other sports making rule changes are trying to increase drama/excitement.
I'm on the fence, but with a lot of folks excited about the possible change just wanted to throw this thought out there.
It seems entirely possible the rule change may simply remove late match drama in favor of bigger score gaps. It's a lot more fun having a punchers chance at the upset, even knowing the result almost always doesn't go that way. To me it removes a ton of potential drama whereas other sports making rule changes are trying to increase drama/excitement.
I'm on the fence, but with a lot of folks excited about the possible change just wanted to throw this thought out there.
what enisthemenace said about accidentally creating less activity from neutral is worth considering too.
Good (but over the top) discussion yesterday on FRL. The penalty for missing a shot and getting countered becomes huge and like enis says, it may result in fewer shots & less neutral action instead of more as intended.
It seems to me we need to reward aggressiveness and shooting. I'm not sure how to do that but I don't think this is it. Quicker stall calls would solve a lot I think, if it could be enforced consistently. Other ideas?
I think the tightening of the riding time point and needing a turn would of been a good start. I would of been happy starting there and seeing what that got you and maybe leave the takedown at 2. Might at least take away the 3 minutes of parallel rides.
The 3 point TD comes into play for scenarios like Swiderski vs Woods. Swiderski wins this match 3-2. How many people were complaining that Swiderski was the only wrestler to score an offensive point but still loss 3-2. Bottom line is if you score more TDs than your opponent and the opponent doesn’t have more NF points than you, you should win. The new scoring will accomplish this 99% of the time.
Just take away the escape point then. Start each period at neutral. That would be more exciting anyway.
Would of been 3-3 and go to OT, Right?
Woods gets stalling point, escape early in the 3rd, so 2-0 Woods, then Swiderski gets takedown, makes it 3-2 Casey, then Woods escape makes it 3-3 and Riding time gets cancelled because of no nearfall.
