Discussion

Folkstyle

G-R and Freestyle

Teams

Rankings

2019 UWW Senior World Championships
2019 Final X
2019 Junior Greco-Roman National Duals
2019 Junior Boys' Freestyle National Duals
Division changes for 2019-2020 OHSAA Dual Championships
2019 AAU National Duals (Disney Duals)
2019 Yasar Dogu International Tournament
2019 Junior and 16U National Championships (Fargo)
Division changes for 2019-2020 OHSAA Individual Championships

Forum Home

Forum Search

Register

Log in

Log in to check your private messages

Profile

► Add to the Discussion

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Fred Feeney added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

Here are the rules questions the NCAA is asking about possibly changing for next year:

1. Making all takedowns worth three points.
2. Allowing the option of having a third-party registered official to serve as a person who executes a video review.
3. Mandating a specified amount of rest between matches at tournaments.
4. Eliminating the referee requirement to say the second "set" when starting wrestlers from the down position.
5. Changing the false start penalty sequence so that only one caution is given before awarding penalty points.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Ryan Mitchell added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

Quote from Fred Feeney's post:

"Here are the rules questions the NCAA is asking about possibly changing for next year:

1. Making all takedowns worth three points.
2. Allowing the option of having a third-party registered official to serve as a person who executes a video review.
3. Mandating a specified amount of rest between matches at tournaments.
4. Allowing the option of having a third-party registered official to serve as a person who executes a video review.
5. Eliminating the referee requirement to say the second "set" when starting wrestlers from the down position.
6. Changing the false start penalty sequence so that only one caution is given before awarding penalty points."



1- I don't think this rule creates more action, just more points.
2-If the funds are there, should be a no-brainer. The mat official has an inherent bias, as he made the call in the 1st place. Get a fresh set of eyes on the call from the start.
3- Meh
4- I think it would be best to just get some consistency. I like the second "set" because the wrestlers don't have to guess if there will be a pause or a whistle on the elbow touch.
5- if #4 happens and #5 happens, you are going to see a LOT of penalty points, which is not something we should be striving for. There are so many false starts now because there isn't a consistent procedure on re-starts.



Last edited by Ryan Mitchell on February 8, 2016; edited 1 time in total

Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Alex Creech added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

#1. Yes, but only if 4 point near fall is eliminated. (So I guess that's a no)
#2. Yes.
#3. No.
#4. No.
#5. No.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

Quote from Fred Feeney's post:

"Here are the rules questions the NCAA is asking about possibly changing for next year:

1. Making all takedowns worth three points.
2. Allowing the option of having a third-party registered official to serve as a person who executes a video review.
3. Mandating a specified amount of rest between matches at tournaments.
4. Eliminating the referee requirement to say the second "set" when starting wrestlers from the down position.
5. Changing the false start penalty sequence so that only one caution is given before awarding penalty points."



1) No, only the first TD of the match (I would add that a reversal should be adjusted as well, they are not easy to achieve)
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) YES!!!!
5) Yes



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

Ryan M - You skipped the real #4.

What do I win? (Because SURELY that was a test.)



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Jason Russell added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. absolutely yes
5. no



Add to the discussion and quote this      

Discussion Topic: The NCAA rules survy
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 8, 2016

2. Allowing the option of having a third-party registered official to serve as a person who executes a video review.


more bureaucracy, more cost, Fred who is behind this, the Refs Union? (LOL) In the railroad industry this was called featherbedding.

whats the Asst Ref for, why do we need him, isn't he already supposed to be the guy who confirms or corrects the refs call? let the Asst review the video, his impartiality is supposedly beyond reproach, isn't it ?

OR maybe DO AWAY with videop review??? bigger question is video review overall beneficial? Theres so many areas it doesnt cover, DiJulius screwed out of backpoints vs Penn st, vid couldnt help.

Vid review is already slowing down a sport where STAMINA supposed to be integral-- some coaches are thought to call for review just to give their gassed wrestler a blow.



Add to the discussion and quote this      

► Add to the Discussion