The most famous of wrestler chants might soon become more objective. The NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee this week passed the first iteration of the pushout rule. In this version the referee will determine if a wrestler is being passive on his way out of bounds and should be called for stalling. In summary the referees can now call one of three ways when the wrestlers leave the competition area: They can call stalling on one or both wrestlers for leaving the mat; call stalling for pushing or pulling an opponent out of the competition circle; or not call anything because there is a wrestling action underway.
This probably won't be called too often. The reality is that the NCAA coaches and athletes will adapt to the calls, circle in and take a crappy shot on their way out of bounds. Also, NCAA referees are traditionally AWFUL at calling stall calls and unless the referee heads actively prompt their refs to make this call. I have a strong suspicion we won't see this called more than a dozen times in a weekend.
I still prefer one point every time no matter the circumstances, but this could be the first step to a more sensible and enforceable rule.
To your questions …
Q: How can the committee watch a college wrestling match and not say "Gee, this riding time might be an issue. We should look at that." Maybe it's too drastic of a change to include with the rest, but come on.
It's an easy fix. Track riding time for the entire match. Keep it as a tiebreaker. But you only award a point for riding time if the wrestler has scored another offensive point (takedown, near fall, or reversal -- no escapes. One can argue that earning a stall call is an offensive move, but I would debate that. Eliminate the matches that end 1-0 and 2-1 on riding time.
The other option is to incorporate a "riding clock." Something like, you get one minute to try and turn someone. After that, you go neutral, but no escape point.
I just don't get how the committee doesn't see this as an issue. I think the rule change in college might actually help out when the wrestlers get to the senior level.
-- Nick D.
Foley: You make valid points regarding riding time and the committee's oversight of the larger problem plaguing college wrestling. Riding time was NOT addressed even as it is the largest time consumer in college wrestling … all for ONE point.
The committee might have thought that adding a shorter count to gain more points -- four count for four points -- would help generate offense, but that's only the perception of offense. In terms of fan experience, there is almost nothing attractive about back-to-back cheap tilts for four points. In a matter of ten seconds a wrestler can accumulate eight points? For what? What wrestling action is on display that is so difficult as to warrant EIGHT POINTS.
When compared to a wrestler earning an inside trip for a takedown and a two count, or a set of two takedowns the action of two cheap tilts is FOUR TIMES as much when factoring in escapes. That's insane. Totally bonkers. Wrestling needs to promote action, not me trying to expose my opponent's back for eight seconds with the same move. Even in Olympic wrestling styles, where continuous gut wrenches have been disallowed in Greco-Roman, there was only ever two points given for the act of an exposure.
What we are learning to cheer for is the slightest, almost inconceivable advantages. Hold someone on their back for two counts (1-2 seconds) longer should in no way be worth twice as much as holding them there for a single two count. There is no new action!
The wrestling committee botched this rule change. More points will be 'scored' but there will, as seems to be the recent trend, less entertaining wrestling action.
To improve they should look at simple solutions to eliminate riding time -- anything more than a distance criteria for judging the winner. Even allowing riding time as a tiebreaker might be too too generous since coaches and athletes may just find a way to eliminate risk and game the system via the ride-time criteria. (This already happens in double overtime.)
The NCAA Committee seems to be hopeful that an adapted pushout might help generate action on the feet and keep wrestlers in-bounds, and I commend them for making the effort. However, the NCAA Wrestling Committee needs to find rules that disincentive inactivity on the mat. Doing so will help wrestling action, and hopefully continue to build the sport.
Q: What are the chances of the two non-Olympic weight classes being added in the future. New IOC member is wrestling-friendly I thought I read.
--@jeffsilveira75
Nenad Lalovic (Photo/T.R. Foley)That will mean more influence for wrestling, but I doubt he would wield that power in order to grab six more gold medals in the current styles. I don't know what role Lalovic will assume within the organization, but there is a thought that beach wrestling could be a well-watched, profitable new discipline.
Lalovic's most important role will be as someone in the room when it comes time to make a decision about the future of sport and how that might effect wrestling. Lalovic will have the voice of wrestling and that is an enormous advantage the sport has never before enjoyed.
Q: According to the new rules, "While officiating the drop-down rule, the referee will immediately begin a five-second count for stalling once the offensive wrestler positions himself with one or both hands below the buttocks of the defensive wrestler."
What happens if the top man is using a turk? Or bow-and-arrow to produce "improving" positions from top? Can these no longer be used?
Also, according to the rules, "When wrestlers interlock fingers in the neutral position, the referee will stop the action and call it stalemate, and any subsequent offenses would require the referee to call stalling on the wrestler who initiates the interlocking."
How is the referee supposed to determine which wrestler "initiates" the interlocking?
The first question can be answered. Speaking as a former referee, I have no idea how they are supposed to answer the second question. It is pretty difficult to "force" one's opponent into interlocking fingers.
-- Ronald M.
Foley: We talk about this all the time on the international scene and the best indicator of who is interlocking fingers seems based on score and momentum. Most of the time cautions have been called for interlocking fingers when one wrestler is trying to maintain their lead late in the match. Other times when a wrestler is pouring it on the defensive wrestler has been cautioned for gripping the fingers.
You're right, though. There is almost no way to decipher who is initiating the action. However, the problem was far from rampant this year and I think this type of correction should stop any burgeoning trend from becoming part of the NCAA wrestling aesthetic like it has at the international level.
As for turks, the rules state that if the offensive wrestler elevates the turk the count is stopped as it is considered action.
Q: Who is your USA World Team in men's freestyle?
-- Brian K.
Foley: My picks are below.
57 kilos: Tony Ramos
61 kilos: Reece Humphrey
65 kilos: Brent Metcalf
74 kilos: Jordan Burroughs
86 kilos: Ed Ruth (Pulling for Old Man Herbert)
97 kilos: Jake Varner
125 kilos: Tervel Dlagnev
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now