|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: 2009 NCAA Wrestling Rules Survey
Fred Feeney added to this discussion on January 13, 2009
|
This just got sent out:
* Do you agree with the rule that makes all matches seven minutes in duration?
* Do you agree that in the offensive starting position, the rule change that requires both wrestlers to be stationary (motionless) has improved the starting sequence?
* Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been an effective rules change?
* Do you agree that the rule that states "a medical forfeit must be declared before the forfeiting wrestler is called to the mat in tournaments" has simplified the medical forfeit reporting process?
* Do you agree that establishing the February date for reaching a wrestler's lowest certified weight class, instead of a December date, has been an improvement to the Weight-Management Program?
* Do you agree that the new required NCAA Skin Evaluation and Participation Status Treatment Form has improved the documentation process and increased the accuracy and reliability of reporting skin infections?
7. Do you agree that the change in the starting sequence has been effective in reducing false starts?
For questions 11, 12, 13 and 14, please refer to the following language from Rules 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9:
"any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds"
8. Do you agree that the language referenced above effectively expanded the wrestling area, making it harder for a wrestler to avoid wrestling by going out-of-bounds?
9.Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in increased scoring near the boundary of the wrestling area?
10. Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in positive change?
11.Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been effectively called?
New rule proposals
1.Rule 2.5 Out of Bounds
Would you favor a rule that awards one point to the opponent of a wrestler who steps out of bounds?
Rationale: To encourage wrestlers to make every effort to stay in bounds.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period.
2.Would you be in favor of a rule that makes the side headlock (near side head and arm) from the top position a stalling maneuver?
Rationale: This maneuver is often used for stalling purposes.
3.Would you favor a rule that would place a time limit on a match that is frequently interrupted or stopped for extended periods of time for continuous bleeding?
Rationale: Such situations delay the normal progression of a match, become a possible safety factor for the injured wrestler, and often are not appealing to spectators. High school rules have a time limit on bleeding injuries.
4.Wrestler A takes his or her first time out. Would you favor granting Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period?
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling an injury timeout for other than an injury.
5.Wrestler A takes a second injury timeout. Would you be in favor of allowing Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period or choice of position?
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling a second injury timeout for other than an injury
6.Would you favor adding to this rule a requirement that all contestants weighing-in shall do so in shorts?
Rationale: Would remove privacy issues and allow weigh-ins to be conducted in suitable areas rather than, as often is the case, in areas less than suitable in order to protect privacy.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: 2009 NCAA Wrestling Rules Survey
Mike Taylor added to this discussion on January 13, 2009
|
|
Quote from Fred Feeney's post:
|
|
"This just got sent out:
* Do you agree with the rule that makes all matches seven minutes in duration?
Yes
* Do you agree that in the offensive starting position, the rule change that requires both wrestlers to be stationary (motionless) has improved the starting sequence?
Not really. No difference noted
* Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been an effective rules change?
Yes...somewhat.
* Do you agree that the rule that states "a medical forfeit must be declared before the forfeiting wrestler is called to the mat in tournaments" has simplified the medical forfeit reporting process?
Unsure
* Do you agree that establishing the February date for reaching a wrestler's lowest certified weight class, instead of a December date, has been an improvement to the Weight-Management Program?
Unsure
* Do you agree that the new required NCAA Skin Evaluation and Participation Status Treatment Form has improved the documentation process and increased the accuracy and reliability of reporting skin infections?
Unsure
7. Do you agree that the change in the starting sequence has been effective in reducing false starts?
No. I feel there are more as the wrestlers are more antsy to get going.
For questions 11, 12, 13 and 14, please refer to the following language from Rules 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9:
"any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds"
8. Do you agree that the language referenced above effectively expanded the wrestling area, making it harder for a wrestler to avoid wrestling by going out-of-bounds?
Yes
9.Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in increased scoring near the boundary of the wrestling area?
Not really
10. Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in positive change?
Yes.
11.Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been effectively called?
For the most part
New rule proposals
1.Rule 2.5 Out of Bounds
Would you favor a rule that awards one point to the opponent of a wrestler who steps out of bounds?
No. This isn't freestyle or greco. We don't need to make it so. What we would see is less offense and more pushing and shoving.
Rationale: To encourage wrestlers to make every effort to stay in bounds.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period.
2.Would you be in favor of a rule that makes the side headlock (near side head and arm) from the top position a stalling maneuver?
If used repeatedly w/ no attempt at a turn (like leg riding).
Rationale: This maneuver is often used for stalling purposes.
3.Would you favor a rule that would place a time limit on a match that is frequently interrupted or stopped for extended periods of time for continuous bleeding?
Yes
Rationale: Such situations delay the normal progression of a match, become a possible safety factor for the injured wrestler, and often are not appealing to spectators. High school rules have a time limit on bleeding injuries.
4.Wrestler A takes his or her first time out. Would you favor granting Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period?
No
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling an injury timeout for other than an injury.
5.Wrestler A takes a second injury timeout. Would you be in favor of allowing Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period or choice of position?
Choice of position like in high school
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling a second injury timeout for other than an injury
6.Would you favor adding to this rule a requirement that all contestants weighing-in shall do so in shorts?
No
Rationale: Would remove privacy issues and allow weigh-ins to be conducted in suitable areas rather than, as often is the case, in areas less than suitable in order to protect privacy.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: 2009 NCAA Wrestling Rules Survey
Don Stocum added to this discussion on January 13, 2009
|
|
Quote from Fred Feeney's post:
|
|
"This just got sent out:
* Do you agree with the rule that makes all matches seven minutes in duration?
YES
* Do you agree that in the offensive starting position, the rule change that requires both wrestlers to be stationary (motionless) has improved the starting sequence?
YES
* Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been an effective rules change?
YES
* Do you agree that the rule that states "a medical forfeit must be declared before the forfeiting wrestler is called to the mat in tournaments" has simplified the medical forfeit reporting process?
UNSURE
* Do you agree that establishing the February date for reaching a wrestler's lowest certified weight class, instead of a December date, has been an improvement to the Weight-Management Program?
YES
* Do you agree that the new required NCAA Skin Evaluation and Participation Status Treatment Form has improved the documentation process and increased the accuracy and reliability of reporting skin infections?
UNSURE
7. Do you agree that the change in the starting sequence has been effective in reducing false starts?
NO
For questions 11, 12, 13 and 14, please refer to the following language from Rules 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9:
"any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds"
8. Do you agree that the language referenced above effectively expanded the wrestling area, making it harder for a wrestler to avoid wrestling by going out-of-bounds?
UNSURE
9.Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in increased scoring near the boundary of the wrestling area?
UNSURE
10. Do you agree that the language referenced above has resulted in positive change?
UNSURE
11.Do you agree that the rules that state "any part of either wrestler on or inside the boundary line is in bounds" have been effectively called?
YES
New rule proposals
1.Rule 2.5 Out of Bounds
Would you favor a rule that awards one point to the opponent of a wrestler who steps out of bounds?
NO
Rationale: To encourage wrestlers to make every effort to stay in bounds.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period.
2.Would you be in favor of a rule that makes the side headlock (near side head and arm) from the top position a stalling maneuver?
DEPENDS
Rationale: This maneuver is often used for stalling purposes.
3.Would you favor a rule that would place a time limit on a match that is frequently interrupted or stopped for extended periods of time for continuous bleeding?
Perhaps
Rationale: Such situations delay the normal progression of a match, become a possible safety factor for the injured wrestler, and often are not appealing to spectators. High school rules have a time limit on bleeding injuries.
4.Wrestler A takes his or her first time out. Would you favor granting Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period?
HECK NO
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling an injury timeout for other than an injury.
5.Wrestler A takes a second injury timeout. Would you be in favor of allowing Wrestler B the option to add time equal to the amount of the injury timeout to that period or choice of position?
LET'S NOT COMPLICATE THINGS
Rationale: To deter a wrestler from calling a second injury timeout for other than an injury
6.Would you favor adding to this rule a requirement that all contestants weighing-in shall do so in shorts?
NO
Rationale: Would remove privacy issues and allow weigh-ins to be conducted in suitable areas rather than, as often is the case, in areas less than suitable in order to protect privacy.
NOTE: This question was asked on last year's questionnaire. The Rules Committee wishes to compile results over a two-year period."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
