2 Freestyle rule changes suggested

[fullnelson]

 1. The 'grounded' situation has been abused and is currently quite arbitrary. Make it simpler, if opponent is standing and then drops to assume 'grounded' position and then goes out, point should be awarded.

2. How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock. Look at J'den Cox's lone win and tell me he deserved the victory. Happens too often especially in Greco. And the sad thing is that most often the first guy put on the clock is the main Staller, but obligatory shot call to the other guy comes in the 2nd pd, and he loses even when he's more active.

Side note- ugliest win in the tournament McKenna vs Bartlett (must watch)

[Scouts Honor]

the two rules that most people want to add to folk to make it.... 'better'

[Hammerlock3]

id be very curious to know what it would be like if you could push someone out who is grounded, but no TD or exposure had occurred...

[Husker_Du]

3 hours ago, fullnelson said:

 1. The 'grounded' situation has been abused and is currently quite arbitrary. Make it simpler, if opponent is standing and then drops to assume 'grounded' position and then goes out, point should be awarded.

Agree. especially if the 'drops to knees' comes when foot is already in the zone.

however, i think the officials have been doing a fairly better job and calling for '1' when it's blatantly gamed. almost like a 'continuation' situation.

3 hours ago, fullnelson said:

2. How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock. Look at J'den Cox's lone win and tell me he deserved the victory. Happens too often especially in Greco. And the sad thing is that most often the first guy put on the clock is the main Staller, but obligatory shot call to the other guy comes in the 2nd pd, and he loses even when he's more active.

Side note- ugliest win in the tournament McKenna vs Bartlett (must watch)

here's my take on it

"How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock"

How can any wrestler blame anyone but themselves when they did absolutely nothing to score?

if you lose a shot clock match, that's a you problem. 

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

 

"How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock"

How can any wrestler blame anyone but themselves when they did absolutely nothing to score?

if you lose a shot clock match, that's a you problem. 

Sure its smart to be the first staller.  

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

id be very curious to know what it would be like if you could push someone out who is grounded, but no TD or exposure had occurred...

I think Lee did it to Gilman in the first period of Match #1.   Mid to late ish in the first iirc.   

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I think Lee did it to Gilman in the first period of Match #1.   Mid to late ish in the first iirc.   

Did you miss that I was talking about a rule change, or were you implying the call you referenced was incorrect?

[Hammerlock3]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I think Lee did it to Gilman in the first period of Match #1.   Mid to late ish in the first iirc.   

now i see what you meant. yeah what if that scenario was an obvious 1.

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Did you miss that I was talking about a rule change, or were you implying the call you referenced was incorrect?

Neither ?   Just that I saw one in ott.   I saw it in one of the other mfs finals.  Brooks or dake I just didn’t want to look it up to reference.     Edit.  Brooks match or dake match.  It don’t remember who did it. 

Edited April 23 by Caveira

[Spladle08]

 1. The 'grounded' situation has been abused and is currently quite arbitrary. Make it simpler, if opponent is standing and then drops to assume 'grounded' position and then goes out, point should be awarded.
2. How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock. Look at J'den Cox's lone win and tell me he deserved the victory. Happens too often especially in Greco. And the sad thing is that most often the first guy put on the clock is the main Staller, but obligatory shot call to the other guy comes in the 2nd pd, and he loses even when he's more active.
Side note- ugliest win in the tournament McKenna vs Bartlett (must watch)

1: agree, officials just need to make judgement calls when it's clearly abused.

2: There's like one 1-1 match per tournament with both points coming from shot clock. Not common at all. This is one of those boogey-man tales of freestyle.
-Jason Bryant broke down the exact numbers from the worlds and I think there may have been 1 with no points other than shot clock.
I agree it sucks when it happens but it just hardly happens.

Like was said earlier "you know you're losing, go score"

[Jim L]

12 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

the two rules that most people want to add to folk to make it.... 'better'

Not true. The grounding rule is a detail in the pushout rule. The part of the rtules can be tweaked and improved. 

I don't think I have see anyone saying criteria decision is great. Some posters accept it and understand why the rule is the way it is. No one loves it. Folkstyle OT rules are also a mess. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

13 hours ago, ionel said:

Sure its smart to be the first staller.  

This seemed to be at least part of Zhan Beleniuk's strategy in his gold medal performance last Olympics.

[Eagle26]

I also agree with #1 and I always thought that it should be a caution and 1 for intentionally dropping to your knees in the zone. To me that already fits the definition of what a caution is because it is essentially fleeing the hold. It would be a bit more subjective but I think if they make clearly defined, it would be ok. 
 

As others have said I think #2 is very rare and I will also add that in most cases the better wrestler still wins. For example, if J’den needed a point to win, I think he could’ve gotten it against Carrol. He wasn’t in that position at the end of the match so we will never know but Carrol had his opportunity to win

[1032004]

How common is it for the same guy to get put on the clock twice in a row?  Regardless of how many matches end 1-1, I still think it’s dumb that it mostly seems to be “well one guy got put on the clock first now it’s the other guy’s turn”

[wrestle87]

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

here's my take on it

"How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock"

How can any wrestler blame anyone but themselves when they did absolutely nothing to score?

if you lose a shot clock match, that's a you problem. 

I love the first half of what you said, but this half I gotta disagree with, only because the exact same thing happens, and it's ENTIRELY IN THE REFEREES HANDS who they put on the shot clock first.  If we admit that "you losing a one point match is a you problem", that means that somebody is taking down an equally low quality win which they had handed to them. 

That is gross, and bad, and everything that wrestling is not about.  

[wrestle87]

6 hours ago, Jim L said:

Not true. The grounding rule is a detail in the pushout rule. The part of the rtules can be tweaked and improved. 

I don't think I have see anyone saying criteria decision is great. Some posters accept it and understand why the rule is the way it is. No one loves it. Folkstyle OT rules are also a mess. 

They are getting better, and they are definitely better than a 1-1 criteria situation. 

[WrestlingRasta]

22 hours ago, fullnelson said:

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

here's my take on it

"How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock"

How can any wrestler blame anyone but themselves when they did absolutely nothing to score?

if you lose a shot clock match, that's a you problem. 

2. How can anyone justify a win by criteria with a 1-1 score, both scores coming via the shot clock. Look at J'den Cox's lone win and tell me he deserved the victory. Happens too often especially in Greco. And the sad thing is that most often the first guy put on the clock is the main Staller, but obligatory shot call to the other guy comes in the 2nd pd, and he loses even when he's more active.

Side note- ugliest win in the tournament McKenna vs Bartlett (must watch)

We used to have 1-1 matches at the end of nine minutes, and then the three officials get together, burn a spliff, and decide who wins.  

As soon as there is a point on the board, you know (or should know) you are winning or losing.  You know (or should know) whether you need to hold or whether you need to score.  There's no its not fair here.

 

(PS- passivity is not judged based on activity, it is based on holding center)

 

Edited April 23 by WrestlingRasta

[Jim L]

22 minutes ago, wrestle87 said:

They are getting better, and they are definitely better than a 1-1 criteria situation. 

There was a small improvement this year.

My personal preference is to have 2 min on the feet and then back to the old rules where there was only one period of a ride outs and bottom would win with an escape and top would win with a ride out. Too dependent on a coin flip but better than pretending that a few seconds of riding time determines who the better wrestler is

[1032004]

One advantage criteria has over overtime is the time savings. People were already complaining about how late the sessions were ending this weekend, imagine if there were also overtime matches in there…

[1032004]

19 hours ago, ionel said:

Sure its smart to be the first staller.  

Too bad Will Lewan wasn’t qualified for trials

[ionel]

9 hours ago, 1032004 said:

“well one guy got put on the clock first now it’s the other guy’s turn”

thems the rules.  If only one guy would've pushed out or grounded we'd have excitement.