|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on June 27, 2019
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on June 28, 2019
|
So why does the ref have the flexibility to warn for hands to face yet instantly stops the action and awards a point when a 5 year old accidentally puts a hand under each armpit? Can we stop awarding a point for a full nelson and instead warn the wrestler? Such an awful rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on June 28, 2019
|
I am not exactly sure where you want to go with this but I will take a stab at it. I want to stress that I addressing HS rules only (not for 5 year olds).
Per Rule 7-1-6, "whenever possible, an illegal hold/maneuver shall be prevented rather than penalized.â€
I would guess the logic regarding hands in the face is that the official can see it once and caution the wrestler that it was observed and not to do it again. In other words, he gets a freebie. If the offending wrestler does it again, IMO, he should be penalized as he knows exactly what he is doing.
Regarding the full nelson, it has been illegal longer than most of us have been alive. I can't think of a way that an official could stop it before it occurs. It is there or it isn't. Sure, I can usually tell when an inexperienced wrestler is likely to screw up and apply it. When they start jumping side to side, you can just about bet that it is going to happen. However, as an official, I am not permitted to tell the wrestler to be careful regarding a full nelson. That is coaching (which we are not permitted to do) and is the responsibility of the coach.
By the way, having a hand under each armpit is not a full nelson (but you know that).
The one sure thing, in every full nelson, is that the coach of the offended wrestler will help me see the infraction and make the call.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jeff Streu added to this discussion on June 29, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jim Behrens's post:
|
|
"I would guess the logic regarding hands in the face is that the official can see it once and caution the wrestler that it was observed and not to do it again. In other words, he gets a freebie. If the offending wrestler does it again, IMO, he should be penalized as he knows exactly what he is doing.
Regarding the full nelson, I can't think of a way that an official could stop it before it occurs. It is there or it isn't."
|
The same could be said for hands to the face. The hand is either in the "Bermuda Triangle" formed by the eyebrows and chin or it isn't. I think what Hank might be hoping for is the same rule change applied to a full nelson, giving the wrestler a freebie for the first one. Still stop the action each time but just give a warning for the first infraction.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jeff Streu added to this discussion on June 29, 2019
|
I'm really bummed that they tossed out the proposal to give a stalling warning for a failed challenge. There were way too many challenges/reviews the past couple years -- and a couple were blatant tactics to give the wrestler a breather.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on June 29, 2019
|
While I understand what you (and maybe Hank) mean, IMO, making hands to the face an "illegal hold (it is not a hold)/maneuver" instead of unnecessary roughness (which it is), is a cop-out on the part of the rules committee. The change was a means to give choices of enforcement to the official. For us, it is much easier if something is to be called a certain way or it isn't. With this in mind, I suspect you will see hands to the face called very little this year.
While you say that an official could not stop a hands to the face from occurring (which is true), isn't this change what you wanted? At least some sort of warning before a penalty is imposed?
Bringing the full nelson into the discussion just muddies the waters. What other infractions should be a warning before being penalized? As I wrote above, this change is probably for the good but the way it was handled could have been better.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on June 29, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jeff Streu's post:
|
|
"I'm really bummed that they tossed out the proposal to give a stalling warning for a failed challenge. There were way too many challenges/reviews the past couple years -- and a couple were blatant tactics to give the wrestler a breather."
|
The only proper way to do that would be if the wrestler has to agree with the challenge. Otherwise the wrestler is penalized for the coach's action. That doesn't seem like a good idea.
If the challenge fails, they no longer have that challenge, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jeff Streu added to this discussion on June 30, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jim Behrens's post:
|
|
"The only proper way to do that would be if the wrestler has to agree with the challenge. Otherwise the wrestler is penalized for the coach's action. That doesn't seem like a good idea.
If the challenge fails, they no longer have that challenge, right?"
|
I guess I should have specified, but yes, what I'm envisioning is having the wrestler confirm if they want to challenge, just like they do in FS/GR.
But there has to be some sort of penalty aside from not being able to challenge again, otherwise there will continue to be just as many challenges this year as there were last year. It drags things on too long, completely alters the momentum of the match, and has clearly been used as a stalling tactic in some instances.
If coaches don't like that, the simple solution is to only challenge if you're sure it will be overturned.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on June 30, 2019
|
On hands to the face and a full nelson...
I would make both illegal maneuvers with a warning, stoppage, and explanation for the first infraction and a penalty point for the opposing wrestler for any repeat of the same infraction.
Kids as young as four years old wrestle in the youth league Hank and I coach in. They're so young, so inexperienced, etc. I'd be shocked if any one of them would ever intentionally get into a full nelson, let alone crank on it. I believe that's where Hank is coming from and I agree with him.
Jim was talking about the infraction happening at the high school level and above. For the older wrestlers, the only thing I might alter from what I listed above is: if the wrestler cranks on the full nelson or if they jab with their hand to the face, I would definitely consider giving penalty point for the first one. I'm not sure if that would be easy for officials or not. (Also the cranking or jabbing might be a moot point because it might turn it into a different type of infraction. Jim would know better than I would.)
On failed challenges/video reviews...
Part of coaching is making those difficult decisions. Part of being a wrestler is trusting your coach to make those difficult decisions. In my opinion, a failed challenge should result in an in-match stalling infraction.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on June 30, 2019
|
|
Quote from Dan Cosimi's post:
|
|
"On failed challenges/video reviews...
Part of coaching is making those difficult decisions. Part of being a wrestler is trusting your coach to make those difficult decisions. In my opinion, a failed challenge should result in an in-match stalling infraction."
|
This is such an easy fix. Very disappointing the rules committee didn't do so. And you can make it like international where the athlete could decline the challenge as well -- but either way, leaving it as is was, in my opinion, the wrong decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on July 3, 2019
|
I did not know that both you and Hank coached in the same youth league. Glad to hear that.
The solution for you is very easy. Make your league rules reflect what YOU want. The same as rule variations like having all starts in the neutral position, your league rules can be made to reflect this. The issue might come when the kids are wrestling an event out of your league but part of your job as a coach is to show them where they erred and try to correct it.
I doubt that in 37 years on the mat, I don't think have ever seen a full nelson applied on purpose. It is always a mistake.
The problem with waiting until one "cranks" on a full nelson is that, by that time, the damage is done. Additionally you can bet that the coach would argue that his wrestler did not apply force. By HS age, they should know the rules and there should be a penalty the first time.
I can't recall that I have ever seen a full nelson in a college match. They might happen but it would be really rare.
I understand your last point but I have a different take on it. IMO, as I stated, I don't think it is right for the wrestler to suffer a penalty because of a coach. How about making the penalty for a failed challenge an unsportsmanlike call on the coach? He should suffer a penalty for a nonsense review. They would quickly learn the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on July 3, 2019
|
related, from May AmWrNews
Conversation On Review Process
This is basically a high school column, but if something has value we wander occasionally to spice things up, as we are now in the high school off-season. Here is my 2-cents on the controversial subject of “Review†during a college match.
Now if a coach has a challenge left he throws the brick, the match is stopped, and both refs review the video, but is this process worth the harm it does to the integrity of the match; rewarding the wrestler who needs a blow and penalizing the wrestler who has the momentum?
After the recent NCAA tournament we are left wondering. Here is the conversation I had recently with a top college coach. I won’t reveal his name because I don’t want to upstage him. ...He may propose his plan at the Coaches Convention in Florida in August.
“Hi Coach, any merit to my idea to do away with ‘Review’ unless it occurs in the last one minute of the third period? Then a coach could use his brick once, but the call wouldn’t be reviewed until the match is completed. If the call is overturned then re-wrestle the dead-time, otherwise final score stands.
Reviews are killing college wrestling, it changes the flow and pace and energy of action- we are becoming the (yawning) worst part of the NFL. Fans I’ve surveyed many like the idea btw, what do you think, any merit to the general idea?â€
Coach: “I think if we are searching for “truth†then we have to be able to review a call at any time. That idea isn’t going to work. We could charge a point for a review that was lost.â€
Preusse: “Well, lol, i bet (Tom) Brands would like it- imo review stoppages are ruining the integrity of the match more than a possible wrong call. With a minute or more on the clock a bad call can be overcome by a wrestler. But you can't rectify ruining the pace and stamina and pressure of the moment with a stoppage. According to (writer) Andy Hamilton only 18% of Reviews are being overturned now, 18% !â€
Coach: “Agree. Process stinks. And sometimes reviews are still wrong. Some are not overturned and should be. Some are and shouldn’t be. Must refine accuracy.â€
Preusse: “So how does accuracy improve to the point that it makes the Review worthwhile, because now it is not worthwhile? I know you are in favor of third party review, what makes you think it will improve accuracy enough to warrant long stoppages? And there will still be debate on review decisions. After all we still have a second official on the mat as our first review right at the time of the call, why isn't that enough?
Coach: “It should be enough. A lot going on these days in matches. The second official is looking at different things than the head official. Also, there is great nueroscience on changing one’s mind. Once we make up our minds on what we saw, we are predisposed to thinking it was right. Cameras need to be better and more precise. Have to be sure to catch every angle. ...(Need) outside reviewer. Outside review should help that. I would vote for 3 outside reviewers on each mat. They don’t get to collaborate with each other before decision.â€
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Britt Malinsky added to this discussion on July 3, 2019
|
Just curious, and I'm going to use this as an example: What if Chuck Barbee, Tim Shiels, and Matt Valenti (Secretary-Rules Editor, Supervisor of Officials, and Chairperson of the Rules Committee) all come up with different answers, assuming their quarantined in separate rooms reviewing the video?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on July 4, 2019
|
Good point, Britt... Coach I interviewed means 3 for each mat, so he wants a bureaucracy, lol. Where they would sit, I don't know. For the record I don't like his proposal at all but I think it will be a huge topic at the convention. Something will change but will it be better or just more complicated?
I thought my idea was better, simplify this review thing as much as possible, don't make it more complicated. It's already messing the sport up.
Btw who in the hell would want to sit in a three man committee by each mat -- or in a review room all day long? Would have a nice hospitality table I'm sure, lots of coffee, plenty of donuts and pizza, a nearby latrine.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA approves wrestling rules changes
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on July 4, 2019
|
Bob: Your work in this issue of AWN was outstanding. You have a knack for finding angles on topics that are both relevant and easily overlooked. Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
