davenowa

Looks like the movement toward college rules is continuing. Favor most of these, but will mean more consideration for tight gym space and overlapping mats in terms of out of bounds. I do wish they had increased a major to 10 to accompany the increased scoring values, and since HS lacks replay, I would have preferred the NF progression to have greater differentials in time/swipes (ie 2 = 2, but make 3 pts require 4 swipes and 4 pts would need 6 seconds). NEWS RELEASE Participants Now Inbounds with One Point of Contact in High School Wrestling FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Elliot Hopkins INDIANAPOLIS, IN (April 25, 2024) — Beginning with the 2024-25 season, high school wrestlers will be inbounds with only one point of contact of either wrestler inside or on the boundary line. This fundamental change to high school wrestling was one of six major changes impacting almost 30 rules recommended by the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee at its April 1-3 meeting in Indianapolis. All recommended changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors. Previously, high school wrestlers were considered to be inbounds if a total of two supporting points of either wrestler were inside or on the boundary line. The two supporting points could be two supporting points of one wrestler or one supporting point of each wrestler inside or on the boundary line. “Without increasing risk, this change eliminates the subjectivity of the out-of-bounds call,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and student services and liaison to the Wrestling Rules Committee. “The change also helps officials to call ‘out of bounds’ more consistently, and it provides wrestlers, coaches and spectators a better understanding of out of bounds.” While the One Point of Contact change will be noted under the definition of Inbounds in Rule 5-15, it also impacts a number of other sections in Rule 5 on Definitions, as well as Rule 6-4-1 on Stopping and Starting the Match. In addition to the One Point of Contact change, points awarded for a Near-Fall have been revised in high school wrestling. Overall, the changes simplify the points awarded based on how long the wrestler is held in near-fall criteria. The change in Rule 5-11-3 is as follows: Two points will be awarded when near-fall criteria are held for two seconds, three points for three seconds, four points for four seconds and five points if the defensive wrestler is injured, indicates an injury or bleeding occurs after the four-point near-fall has been earned. These changes will affect other rules including individual match scoring in Rule 9. “The goal in wrestling is to pin the opponent,” Hopkins said. “Changing the near-fall points should motivate wrestlers to work for a fall.” In another change in scoring rules, opportunities to earn more points will also be available when executing a Takedown. Beginning next season, wrestlers will be awarded three match points instead of two when securing a takedown. The committee also approved a change regarding the Technical Fall. Rule 5-11-4a now states that “if a takedown or reversal, straight to a near-fall criteria creates a 15-point advantage, the match shall continue until the near-fall criteria is no longer met. Conclusion of the near-fall criteria is immediate.” The change clarifies when the technical fall has concluded in relation to the near-fall criteria being met. Hopkins said the offensive wrestler cannot be penalized appropriately after the technical fall has been earned. In another change, the 10-Foot Circle at the center of wrestling mats is now optional. Wrestlers now will be encouraged to “stay in the center of the mat” instead of “within the 10-foot circle.” “The committee determined that the starting lines of a mat indicate the center of the mat and the 10-foot circle is no longer needed,” Hopkins said. “With the new mat designs that have a large mascot or logos, it gives a refreshing look to the mats. Wrestlers and officials know where the center of the mat is located without the 10-foot circle.” Finally, the committee approved a new Referee’s Time-Out Signal. The signal, which is used in many other sports, is both hands/fingers pointing inward to the referee’s chest. A complete listing of the wrestling rules changes will be available on the NFHS website at www.nfhs.org. Click on “Activities & Sports” at the top of the home page and select “Wrestling.” According to the 2022-23 NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, wrestling is the sixth-most popular sport for boys with 259,431 participants in 10,962 schools. It also continues to gain popularity among girls with 50,016 participants in 6,545 schools nationwide. Online link to article: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/participants-now-inbounds-with-one-point-of-contact-in-high-school-wrestling/

guess I don't understand attacking the messenger when the message has such merit. while everyone wants to see more pins, there is still something inherently wrong with a pin being worth 4 x a decision, especially when most fans are at least used to scoring double (6 vs 3) in a dual format. both suggestions noted above could be implemented, whereby consi advancement matches HS and is worth 1 pt (half of topside) AND consi bonus points are worth half the topside as well. The current format also overly rewards forfeits on the consi side. For what it's worth, I would still prefer to revamp tourney scoring so that the average fan can easily follow, with it matching dual scoring. No advancement points, tweak place points and make consis just half of champ side. combined, of course, with margin of victory scoring.

thanks...we do always count injury defaults as losses, regardless of who was winning at the time. as we have transitioned to a fully non-subjective point methodology for seeding purposes, I prefer to also have an objective and non-disputable "yes or no" for all scenarios. since medical forfeits are sometimes legit and other times clearly ducks, it is best to offer consistency for each case, and it looks we will go with counting as a head to head win for purposes of seed swapping (unless I see a sudden contrary consensus from other states before Tues, which, based on the limited replies to date, seems unlikely). thanks again.

While NFHS does not recognize any forfeit (including med fft) as a LOSS on a wrestler's record, but does count as a win for the victor, the question about head to head came up in an earlier post, but was never specifically answered. I ask because in our state seedings, we allow wrestler B seeded 2nd to overtake wrestler A who is seeded first if he has beaten him head to head, and there has been some debate about how this applies to a medical forfeit (for instance, in the finals of a regular season tournament, where A knows he is sitting on the top seed for post-season and elects to not risk said seed in finals). Also hoping that next year NFHS follows NCAA lead regarding 1st loss counting, to minimize some of those scenarios.

while the "challenge" part of the statement was correct, it is that tricky "and beat" component that makes the sentence, in whole, therefore false, as seeds 1-6 placed 1-6 (albeit slightly out of order).

if this is going to become a weight class discussion, it may deserve a less misleading thread title. however, as much as I would prefer 13 consistent NFHS weight classes across all states, those listed here with their corresponding kilogramatic values are not reflective of the bell curve of high school wrestlers. even adding those bottom 3 weights, there are too many upper weights, too many lower weights and not enough in the middle (with too large increments). 75% of the kids would fall into less than 50% of the weights. that is the difficulty in trying to have HS classes, where kids are starting lighter and growing faster, mirror college or "grown up" weights.

which set of HS weights should they use? NFHS 12-13-14? or NY12 plus 101? or PA13? sooo many options... (12) 108 lbs., 116 lbs., 124 lbs., 131 lbs., 138 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 170 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (13) 107 lbs., 114 lbs., 121 lbs., 127 lbs., 133 lbs., 139 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 172 lbs., 189 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (14) 106 lbs., 113 lbs., 120 lbs., 126 lbs., 132 lbs. 138 lbs., 144 lbs., 150 lbs., 157 lbs., 165 lbs., 175 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs.

Not sure how often the coin toss is the deciding factor, as obviously inconsequential in a rout. However, I will compare it to the NFL situation, in which they have modified their overtime rules to minimize the impact of the coin toss, especially as is now in place for playoffs. Therefore, even if the toss only impacts a small percentage of close outcome matches, that is no reason to not seek improvement. Not to invoke too many other sports for comparative purposes, but tennis would be mayhem if wrestling coaches were in charge. Rather than putting their top player at #1 singles, and 2nd at #2 etc, Mr. Wrestling would send out a JV scrub at #1 singles against Rival HS, rationalizing that although we would be behind 4-0 after singles, since each of Rival schools' corresponding kids were slightly better than ours, by bumping our 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, we come out ahead 3-1 instead of down 4-0. Sounds genius to our wrestling coach, but in most tennis conferences, this would be an illegal substitution, unless the coach could provide written documentation showing the recent date and time that our JV Scrub beat our #1 singles player. Additionally, locked line-ups would also minimize the current prevalence of some coaches ducking good wrestlers when the outcome of the dual is not even remotely in question. Currently, the parents and family of the state champ expecting to see a decent match against the all-conference kid at that weight know that against some teams, the odds of the match taking place are 50/50. Lacking a significant change, I would offer an addendum that any bump/duck resulting in a forfeit must be accompanied by the coach who presents the forfeit immediately being required to walk (crawl?) to the opposing fan section with a cash refund for the admission fee handed back to those parents.

nothing against gamesmanship, which I would see as expecting you to submit your traditional line-up that you have used all season (and which was unchanged since your Kemp days...Jack, not Lee) and I surprise you and the still-standing crowd by moving my 126 to 132 when the locked line-up is announced after the anthem is played. otherwise, I call it for what it is...a coin toss determining the outcome of a dual when ALL OTHER RESULTS are exactly the same and the opposite outcome in terms of which team wins the match occurs when the other team wins the toss. Not sure of any other sport that would tolerate a coin toss determining which team wins (and I say that based on the evidence presented where the outcome only changes based on the result of said coin toss). still looking for someone to suggest a better method that is perhaps completely different than anything that has been used or proposed. enjoyed the recent collegiate line-up shift, but have not analyzed whether it was made possible by the coin toss or not, but I am sure someone could shed some light on that situation.

thanks SHP, and since I know you have given this topic some thought in the past, I was going to contact you directly, but figured maybe there was someone out there who could come up with a novel approach. I guess the college format could be an improvement, except for a couple of issues. First, in any multi-dual (ie quad of dual tourney), it would require a delay of up to 30 minutes to execute the new choice with each match, as opposed to the current NFHS rule that starts each subsequent round at the next higher weight class to eliminate the possibility of having to wait because you want to bump up the kid who wrestled last in the first round and would then be first in the next. Secondly, to achieve your desired outcome, NFHS could institute the NCAA style assigned weight classes as odd and even, as opposed to the first match in NFHS being odd and the second being even, although I don't think that change alters the scenarios presented below (just the nomenclature of what is odd and even). with those things in place, I guess that the NCAA plan would be better, because at least in that manner, every time I win the coin toss I would lose the dual in every scenario. However, if I LOSE the toss, I win the dual! I will try to explain, but might have missed something in translation. I will use the same weight classes noted in my prior example, as well as the same "status" of each team's entrant at 113 and 120. Situation 1: I win the coin toss and choose to start at 113. As that would be an "even" class under the NCAA format, the coach of team B would choose "odd" and force me to send first at 113. I send my stud, he forfeits and bumps up to 120 and wins by pin, so 6-6. Situation 2: I win the coin toss and choose odd, forcing him to send first at 113. He then opts to start at 120, where I must then send first. I send my original decent 120, he bumps up his better kid from 113 to 120, pins my kid and gets 6, while my stud at 113 ends of taking a forfeit to end the match, so still 6-6 net from those 2 bouts. Situation 3: I win the toss and choose even, so will need to send first at 113. Coach B chooses to start at 113, so same net result of 6-6. Situation 4: I win the toss and choose to start at 120. Coach B then selects even, forcing me to send first at 120. If I bump up my stud, he counters with his weaker kid. I get 6, but he gets 6 at 113 from his good guy pinning my JV 113. Net 6-6. Situation 5: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 113, so I choose odd. He must send first, so if he sends his good kid, I send my stud and get 3. I then also beat his JV kid at 120, so I am up 9-0. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 120, so I choose even. He must send first, so if he bumps up his 113, I bump up my 113, take 3 points, and then it comes down to a pair of JV kids meeting at 113. I guess I should have clarified in my original post the status of our JV 113 kids (if we have any), but had implied I had a JV 113 and Coach B did not, so would be up 9-0 from those 2 bouts. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to choose odd or even, and selects odd. Since I must send first at 113, I elect to start at 120, where he must send first. Same result as situation 6. Situation 7: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B selects even. I then opt to start at 113, where he must send first. Same result as situation 5. So...since 3.8.1 (NCAA version) does not allow me to defer choice if I win the coin toss, the only way I can win the match is by losing the coin toss. At least with this format, I would have a strategy, but can see some confusion on the faces of all others gathered at the coin toss as we celebrate losing! And if all involved are as aware of the possible outcomes, the end result still comes down to a coin toss. I guess I can only hope that Coach B does not know I have a dizzying intellect.

Looking to those who may be able to think outside the box in seeking an alternative to having the pre-match coin toss hold so much value. In the past, I had advocated for locked line-ups (presented to scoretable just prior to the national anthem), with the inability to alter your submitted entrant at each weight (much like in an individual tournament, or in other sports). This would prevent ducking (perhaps accompanied by a change making a forfeit being worth 7 points in any weight class for which you submitted a wrestler and then withdrew), as well as preventing the coin toss from holding so much value. This proposal met some resistance from traditionalists, so I am seeking any viable options. I am not sure the college format would solve the issue for high school. Here is the scenario I am seeking to avoid: If I have a state champ at 113 and a decent kid at 120, and you have a really good kid at 113 (but not beating my state champ on your best day) and a JV-level kid at 120, the coin toss can be a 9 point swing or more. If I win the toss, and force you to send first at 113, I am winning 2 matches, with at least a decision and a very likely pin against your JV-level, putting me ahead 9-0 (and if you bump your kid to 120, I would send out my JV 113 to take the forfeit and still have our 113's meet at 120, still leading 9-0 after 2 matches). If you win the toss, and I must send first at 113, and you bump up your kid at 113 to 120, giving me a forfeit against my state champ, and then earning a pin at 120 against my decent kid, we have traded sixes and the score is 6-6. In scenario A, my team goes on to win 37-32. In scenario B, with all 12 other matches being exactly the same, your team wins 38-34. So if we meet in a regular season dual, and I win the coin toss, I win 37-32. We meet again a month later for the state title, and you win the toss, and the results of the other 12 matches are exactly the same, and you win 38-34. Nothing at all changed except the outcome of the coin toss. In my opinion, that places too much value on a pre-match toss of the coin. Other sports (ie football) have made changes to minimize the impact of the coin toss. Yes, I know that some senators will insist that I improve my decent 120's ability to not get pinned, or you will tell Team B to get better at 120, or a stronger back-up at 113...but my point here is that the outcome of the match was ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY A COIN TOSS with all other results being equal. This noted scenario has been an impediment in attempting to create a dual meet state championship, as opposed to being determined by individually bracketed tournament. I don't have a perfect solution, but would welcome any thoughts that minimize the value of the pre-match coin toss...without, apparently, detracting from a Wile E Coyote genius-level coach having the ability to out-strategize their opposition (which, in reality, is simply trying to win the toss next time). Or could perhaps this could be done when submitting a locked line-up, based on what you know of the opposing coach. Is he the kind of coach who would put the poison in his own goblet or his enemy's?

Just a few idea, to facilitate debate/discussion.., 1. Increase all NFHS weight classes by 2 pounds to allow for shoes, headgear etc. 2. Procedures will vary slightly based on dual meet (or multi dual) and for individually bracketed tournaments 3. Dual Meet Procedure A. Consider locked line ups (but that's a whole different argument for another day and thread...) B. Weigh in when reporting to table ready to wrestle (scale available prior, including during warm-ups, to check weight) C. For a dual-meet team tourney or multi dual (ie quad meet), a wrestler can’t compete in more than 2 different weight classes for the event. Wrestler may compete in class for which qualifies OR may wrestle up 1 (one weight class) above which initial weigh in of the event allows. Ex: Wrestler A makes 132 for first dual. This allows him to wrestle 132 or 138 during event, provided he makes weight for subsequent rounds. If he does not make 132, he may still wrestle 138, but MAY NOT wrestle 145. Also, a wrestler may not “go down a weight class” during the course of the dual meet tourney (for instance, if over by a half pound for initial dual weigh-in, can’t proceed to lose weight for subsequent rounds). D. Weigh ins will be held prior to each round of the dual tourney/multi meet. Scratch weight for round one, with one additional pound for round #2 and a second additional pound for round #3, up to a 3rd pound for the 4th, 5th and 6th round (maximum number of matches in 1 day per NFHS). In a bracketed team dual, weigh ins on all championship side matches, with 1 extra pound per round (up to a max of 3 pounds), with consi side weigh-ins for rounds that correspond with the quarters/semis/finals, with comparable allowances. E. If wrestler who is listed on lineup for that dual does not make weight when called matside, it is a forfeit and that wrestler may not wrestle at a higher weight class in that same dual. That wrestler may not be replaced by a teammate--it is a forfeit. If a team lists a wrestler on their match line-up and proceeds to forfeit that weight class (either by failure to make weight or by electing to not wrestle), that forfeit will be worth 7 points (forfeits at weight classes where no wrestler was listed remain 6 points) 4. Individually Bracketed Tournament Procedure A. Initial matside weigh in prior to each first round match, conducted by the ref. This includes all wrestlers receiving first round byes, who are handled by a tournament official at 1-2 mats, conducted while the first few matches on those mats are taking place. B. One pound allowance for each subsequent round on the championship side (and the corresponding consolation rounds) such that a 16-man bracket would have 1 extra pound in quarters, another extra pound in semis and 1 more for finals (total of 3), while consi weigh-ins would be required in alternating rounds, with an extra pound, until consi semis and consi finals, each of which requires a weigh in with 1 extra pound (such that 3rd and 5th would be at the same allowance as the finalists). These incremental increases remove the necessity of adding a pound for the 2nd day of a tournament (such that the round of 64 and round of 32 would provide an extra pound or 2). No more than 3 additional pounds in any 1 day event, nor more than 5 for any 2-day tournament. C. Weigh in to take place matside. Scales at each mat if possible, or between 2 adjacent mats if not enough scales available, as matches rarely end at the same moment in time. Wrestler failing to make weight on designated scale may make 1 attempt at each other available scale. D. Any wrestler failing to make weight for first round is considered a scratched forfeit, and is not permitted to continue in the tournament. E. Any wrestler failing to make weight for a subsequent championship round match (ie semifinals) or corresponding consi round is considered a forfeit. Team does not lose all placement points earned for that wrestler (unlike current rules regarding 2nd day weigh in), and wrestler may continue in the tournament if the same “missed weight” is made for next round. Ex: Wrestler B fails to make weight for the semifinals. He drops down to the consi semis, and must make the same weight he was required to make for the championship semis in order to compete in the consi semi round.

yes, CT (as does NY this year) currently allows a minimum weight certification to permit a weight class after the Dec 25 growth allowance (ie descent allows athlete to reach 115 but not 113...they may go 115 after Dec 25). however, CT still requires 1/3 of weigh-ins at min wt class attempting to compete in post-season (such that it prevents a descent plan from allowing a kid to reach 115 for the last dual of the season...and then entering that weight for state series).

regarding state HS weigh in procedures varying almost as much as the new 12/13/14 weight classes, 2023-24 is the first year that NY is not permitting morning "honor" weigh ins (see https://nysphsaa.org/documents/2023/10/16//HandbookAndAutoQualifierChanges_2023_24.pdf?id=3284. ) While MA has moved away from those as well, they do continue to afford an extra 2 pounds for school-day matches. MA also does not require dehydration/body fat analysis (body fat test encouraged, but not required, as physician can circle any minimum weight class after checking for a pulse). see https://miaa.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-24-MIAA-Minimum-Weight-Control-Certificate.pdf I am guessing other states have some of their own quirky variances that circumvent the intent of the certification process and descent rules (ie average weekly weight loss vs monitored weekly descent). I also believe that the current "growth allowance" rule often works against the descent rule, and would encourage standardization of states allowing a minimum weight class to be based on scratch weights prior to the 2-lb growth (and would also therefore suggest that growth allowance be such that 2 pounds is added after Christmas, another pound around Jan 15 and yet another at start of post-season.

there are still states that don't require hydration testing and body fat analysis to determine minimum weight classes (a physician can sign off on any weight class they want). there are still states that allow additional weight allowances for mid-week matches (after school days), which is an improvement (I guess) from morning "honor" weigh-ins. since the rule in HS sets a maximum time prior to competition, and not a minimum, nothing in the rules currently prevents a HS coach from stating that their weigh in will be immediately prior to the match starting (after warm ups, even after the anthem is played). not quite matside, but close. with some 2-day tournaments not doing 2nd day weigh ins (or granting greater allowances) and most top seeds getting byes or easy early matches (and often not for 3-4 hours after weighing in), there remains significant incentive to cut as much weight as possible, within the existing guidelines of your state. until you get finalists to agree to just step on a scale for curiosity sake, it will remain anecdotal evidence of one kid weighing 12-15 pounds more than his opponent. matside weigh in would self govern excessive weight loss. it would not increase overall time of a dual (would actually save a school money, since the bus need not arrive 75 minutes before start time). we already weigh in wearing singlets, so simply add 1-2 pounds for shoes to all weight classes...and allow the needed 10-15 seconds to put on a headgear after getting off the scale and heading onto the mat. as noted, a plan for tournaments could include alternate round weigh-ins with additional weight granted, such that a finalist could gain 2-4 pounds...but not 8-12. I know I am in the minority here, but would also prefer, in conjunction with matside, locked line-ups for duals and greater value awarded for forfeits. as with most proposals, if you allow ONLY coaches to provide the guidance, nothing will ever change.