|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
Bob, so this is all about you and the Ironman?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
Don't be absurd, other people brought it up and I answered.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
|
Quote from Bob Preusse's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Roe Fox's post:
|
|
"I just don't find the team scoring as exciting, particularly with the Ironman which allows partial teams."
|
Hmm, Mr. Fox, well, to each their own, but that statement is hard for me to understand. So much is roll of the dice anyway - where you are seeded, who is injured, who gets upset.
Every team has to navigate the brackets, whoever is in them.
-- No. 1 kids in the nation lose every year at the Ironman, that's not exciting?
Ironman is usually
for the mythical national title
, plus it's the only tournament where Blair Academy gets any competition at all for the team title -- and the last 4 years we've had super team races among the nation's best teams, with Blair actually losing the last 2 Ironman tournaments. --
You say that's not exciting to you?
WIN magazine editor Mike Finn came for the first time this season and wrote glowingly of the team race, the high school atmosphere, the level of comp. Ironman was on the cover of WIN and several articles inside. -- But everyone has their own opinion."
|
This sure seems that way to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
The smartest thing that any coaches assn. could do would be to help establish youth wrestling in as many areas as possible. The more youth programs, the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
Gary:
Roe brought up the Ironman. Bob was defending the Ironman's "excitement factor."
The Ironman is his experience which he's basing his opinion off of
, so of course he's going to support tournaments in this debate.
Re Bob/Roe's debate:
I think the Ironman is very exciting, individual and team. There's nothing like having your own kids in a tournament, but if it isn't my own kids then the Ironman is as exciting as it gets for a regular season tournament.
Re the Tournament/Dual debate:
I can see both sides having great points. I think it is a natural progression to want to be the best athlete you can be in a sport (+1 for tournaments such as the Ironman) but it is also great for kids to have time for a life (+1 for duals).
|
Quote from Pat Costilow's post:
|
|
"Dan, to put this simply, do you watch college wrestling? Watch a few matches, what I described happens a lot; mostly with one wrestler trying to get the riding time advantage point. This slows down the match, decreases action. If each minute of riding time would be rewarded, this would only be heightened.
To put it simply, college wrestling doesn't need to move any slower."
|
"To put it simply" ... Calling stalling properly (IMO) fixes all that! Does that mean we need to call stalling more in those situations? Quite possibly. And you know I watch college wrestling.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Roe Fox added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
|
Quote from Bob Preusse's post:
|
|
"Ironman is usually
for the mythical national title
, plus it's the only tournament where Blair Academy gets any competition at all for the team title -- and the last 4 years we've had super team races among the nation's best teams, with Blair actually losing the last 2 Ironman tournaments. --
You say that's not exciting to you?
"
|
Um, yes, thats what I'm saying. I don't think it is a difficult thing to understand. You can keep the team standings all you want but many of the number 1s you speak of aren't from full teams (Welch. Murphy, Lewnes, etc.). So whether they win or lose really isn't a team issue.
It's still my favorite tournament. You take compliments poorly.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Pat Costilow added to this discussion on April 11, 2008
|
|
Quote from Dan Cosimi's post:
|
|
""To put it simply" ... Calling stalling properly (IMO) fixes all that! Does that mean we need to call stalling more in those situations? Quite possibly. And you know I watch college wrestling."
|
Yes, Dan, I know you watch college wrestling, that was hyperbole. To me, just saying that we should call stalling properly is like saying that if I won the lottery, my retirement fund would be taken care of. It is true, but it isn't going to happen. There is more to it than that, IMO. Refs aren't magically one day going to decide to call stalling more stringently, something else needs to happen. I am all for eliminating the riding time point in college.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 12, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"The smartest thing that any coaches assn. could do would be to help establish youth wrestling in as many areas as possible. The more youth programs, the better."
|
(Hank actually said a lot more than that but in trying to edit my post just below his, I accidentally edited over his. Sorry Hank!)
<badcomputer>
Hank:
I completely agree. I couldn't have said it better myself!
|
Quote from Pat Costilow's post:
|
|
"To me, just saying that we should call stalling properly is like saying that if I won the lottery, my retirement fund would be taken care of. It is true, but it isn't going to happen. There is more to it than that, IMO. Refs aren't magically one day going to decide to call stalling more stringently, something else needs to happen. I am all for eliminating the riding time point in college."
|
Quality top and bottom wrestling in Folkstyle is too essential to lose by going to Freestyle-like rules. Just like many other changes in our sport that they've dealt with successfully, our referees would have to be trained to call stalling when the top wrestler is
not working to turn but only to ride
. It can and should happen. And it really doesn't take that much of a change to just call stalling on the mat more quickly.
I'd take the lottery ticket though.
<thumbsup>
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Maggie Lamantia added to this discussion on April 16, 2008
|
miss me? =) haven't posted in a while, and i've done plenty of reading on this topic, so here are my thoughts! tell me what you think. I need all the experience I can get!
if we have 3 point takedowns, we need to have 20 point tech falls. Yes. But why do we need it? What's the big deal with three points? I guess one can argue that a takedown is better than a reversal, since in a reversal you take over control, whereas in a takedown you gain initial control. So, maybe that one is necessary. But we've gone HOW long with 2-point takedowns, so why now?! and if ONE takedown is going to be worth 3 points then ALL should be..regardless to where it's scored. I don't think it'll make a difference to the wrestlers, who are barely ever concerned as to where they are. *another note, they suggest making the first takedown scored 2 points and the rest three....what would that accomplish? Isn't the first one the one worth getting??
I don't like the idea of having pins seven points and forfeits six points. If a coach has a lower caliber wrestler about to wrestle a higher caliber one, they would forfeit to save themselves. the pin...and no one would get experience. =(
letting more than one competitor wrestle in 135-152s...i'm going to contradict myself here a bit...but here goes. No. let's not go there. I know I just said that they'd get more experience by wresetling more matches, but having two people wrestle in the same weight class doesn't give the weight class, the Varsity Spot, so much of the desirability it has now.
I think they're getting too picky, frankly. Taping off sections where the coaches can stand? NO. Not letting the team sit in a row of chairs beside the mat at a dual? NO. I like the idea of adding more weight classes for the bigger guys/gals, but why do we have to mess with the lower weights as well? Iightening up on the "where nearfall occurs" is a good idea..any part of the defensive wrestler's pinning area remains inbounds..yes, good. But not letting wrestlers leave the mat after they've checked in but prior to match starting is silly. Like Dan said, that "last second pump up" is important.
Clarifying things like communicable diseases and trainers overriding dr. notes and things like that MAY be necessary, but let's get all the rules settled, and leave them!
#46? no backflips? Don't tell Collin that one...he's probably planning on taking after Big Brother Lance.
#49 is a terrible idea. I rarely see any wrestlers tell the referee before the bottom guy/gal gets set...
final thoughts:
I agree with the main consensus of the group: TOO MANY! We can't get people hooked on wrestling (like we are) if tehy have to learn 50 something rule changes every stinkin year!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Maggie Lamantia added to this discussion on April 28, 2008
|
am I that intimidating?! <smile>
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 28, 2008
|
Why 3 points for a takedown? Because a takedown (offense) should definitely be worth more than 2 escapes. Here's a good example...
Offensive Wrestler (Green) v. Defensive Wrestler (Red)
1st Period
T2 Green (Green leads 2-0)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (Green leads 2-1)
2nd Period
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (2-2 tie)
T2 Green (4-2 Green)
E1 Red (4-3 Green)
3rd Period
E1 Green (5-3 Green)
T2 Green (6-3 Green)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (6-4 Green)
Stalling-P1 Red (6-5 Green)
T2 for Red (7-6 Red)
Green controlled the whole match but Red won. And if Green doesn't get the stalling point against him, it still would go into overtime despite the fact that Red scored no offensive points and Green had a takedown and at least a minute riding in each period. This exact situation happens all too often in the higher-stakes matches...
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Maggie Lamantia added to this discussion on May 2, 2008
|
I'm confused...could you draw me a picture?! You think takedowns should be worth MORE than TWO escapes?! As in, FIVE points??
whoaaa now. Them's fightin' words, my friend... <crazy>
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on May 2, 2008
|
Maggie:
Escapes are worth 1 point each!!! haha.
Thus, two escapes equals two points. I proposed that a takedown should be worth THREE points, which is one point more than two escapes are worth.
I never said anything about a five-point takedown. I agree that five points for a takedown would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on May 2, 2008
|
Look at how different these three outcomes are!!!
Current Scoring:
1st Period
T2 Green (Green leads 2-0)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (Green leads 2-1)
2nd Period
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (2-2 tie)
T2 Green (4-2 Green)
E1 Red (4-3 Green)
3rd Period
E1 Green (5-3 Green)
T2 Green (6-3 Green)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (6-4 Green)
Stalling-P1 Red (6-5 Green)
T2 for Red (7-6 Red)
----------
Scoring with 3-point Takedown:
1st Period
T3 Green (Green leads 3-0)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (Green leads 3-1)
2nd Period
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (3-2 Green)
T3 Green (6-2 Green)
E1 Red (6-3 Green)
Period 3
E1 Green (7-3 Green)
T3 Green (10-3 Green)
Green rides for a minute.
E1 Red (10-4 Green)
Stalling-P1 Red (10-5 Green)
T2 for Red (10-8 Green)
----------
My proposed scoring:
1st Period
T3 Green (Green leads 3-0)
RT1 Green (Green leads 4-0)
E1 Red (Green leads 3-1)
2nd Period
RT1 Green (Green leads 5-1)
E1 Red (5-2 Green)
T3 Green (8-2 Green)
E1 Red (8-3 Green)
Period 3
E1 Green (9-3 Green)
T3 Green (12-3 Green)
RT1 Green (13-3 Green)
E1 Red (13-4 Green)
T3 Red (13-7 Green)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
