|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 7, 2008
|
1. The random draw shall take place immediately before or after weigh-ins.
(Currently the random draw can happen only immediately after weigh-ins.)
My $0.02: Maybe. The random draw is unnecessary and I don't like it. If it has to be there, it should always happen before weigh-ins.
2. A school may be represented by a second competitor in the 135, 140, 145, and 152 pound weight classes.
(Currently only one wrestler per weight class is allowed per school.)
My $0.02: No. This is varsity, not JV! I'd allow it in JV matches for sure, but we are not talking about JV.
3. No wrestler shall represent the school in more than one weight class in any meet or compete in more than five matches, including forfeits in any one day of any dual meet tournament. In individual tournament competition, the five match limit is waived and a 30 minute total time (excluding overtime) will be used to determine eligibility to continue to compete in the tournament. If a competitor enters a bout and time would run out (30 minute total) the competitor will be allowed to finish that bout.
(Currently the 5-match rule is in place for dual tournaments and individual tournaments. The 30 minute rule is not in place.)
My $0.02: No. Just let them finish the tournament. It's just one more, anyway.
4. [For duals] Coaches will be allowed to place two chairs in a restricted area at the corner of the mat.
(Currently all of a school's chairs are together during a dual, including the coaches' chairs.)
My $0.02: No. I'm a coach and I like to sit with my team.
5. During tournament competition, a minimum of one adult school representative and a maximum of two team personnel (Coaches and/or non-participating contestants) will be permitted on chairs at the edge of the mat.
(Currently there is no minimum.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
6. It is permissible to allow coaches on the corner of the mat in a restricted zone. This line shall be painted or taped on the mat at the appropriate locations.
(Currently there are no painted or taped markers for the coaching zone.)
My $0.02: No. Coaches have enough control to stay in their zone.
7. If no tights are worn, a suitable undergarment shall be worn.
(Currently the rule that a suitable undergarment is required when tights are not worn is not in the rulebook.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
8. A female wearing a male singlet must wear a tight-fitting, short sleeved undershirt under the singlet of single, solid color unadorned with no more than one manufacturer’s logo/trademark/reference.
(Currently some females wear only a sports bra under a male-designed singlet.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
9. The hair, in its natural state, shall not extend ... [below] the eyebrows in front.
(Currently the hair-length rule clarifies the side and back of the head, but not the front.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
10. If a participant is suspected by the referee of having a communicable skin disease...
(Currently a coach may also eliminate a wrestler at any time for having a communicable skin disease.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
11. This document shall be furnished at the weigh-in in the dual... The only exception would be if an on-site meet physician is present and able to examine the wrestler immediately after weigh-in.
(Currently a wrestler can be cleared if a coach submits a previously-signed doctor's note stating that the skin infection is no longer contagious.)
My $0.02: No. If we can't trust coaches, we've really sunk low.
12. If a participant is suspected by the referee or certified athletic trainer coach of having a communicable skin disease or any other condition...
(Currently a coach may eliminate a wrestler at any time for having a communicable skin disease, while a certified athletic trainer may not.)
My $0.02: Yes. Athletic trainers know should know all about this stuff, right?
13. This document shall be furnished at the weigh-in or prior to competition in the dual meet or tournament time of the medical inspection.
(Currently a wrestler can leave the tournament and come back and be allowed to wrestle if he comes back before he's scheduled to be up.)
My $0.02: I'm not sure.
14. A wrestler with a suspicious skin condition/lesion or scars that are not a communicable skin disease. With written documentation from a physician and approval from the state association may be given an “indefinite” clearance form.
(Currently wrestlers with these types of conditions are required to get a new physician’s release form signed every so many days as determined by each state association.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
15. If an on-site meet physician is present, he/she may overrule the diagnosis of the physician signing the physician's release form for a wrestler to participate with a particular skin condition. If a skin lesion that has been identified on the “Physician Release for Wrestler to Participate with Skin Lesion” form has been diagnosed as noncontagious by an off-site physician, but the skin lesion is obviously oozing or discharging material and is not completely scabbed over and an on-site physician is not available, the
head official or tournament director may overrule the diagnosis on the release form and preclude a wrestler from wrestling.
(Currently an on-site meet physician may overrule the diagnosis of skin infections but not skin lesions.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
16. A contestant may have documentation from a physician only indicating a specific condition such as a birthmark or other skin conditions such as psoriasis is not communicable and that documentation is valid for the duration of the season.
(Currently some states validate documentation for shorter time periods.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
17. The taping of fingers and thumb is not a violation, but must be for a specific medical reason. Any taping for gripping purposes is prohibited.
(Currently there is no rule prohibiting taping.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
18. Weight Classes shall be in competition for boys: 106, 115, 124, 131, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 180, 190, 215, 255, 295.
(Currently the weight classes are 103, 112, 119, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 152, 160, 171, 189, 215, 285.)
My $0.02: No, but it's a start on the way we should be going. 215, 255, and 295 is too many and too big. I could see 200, 225, and 300 though.
19. Weight classes shall be in competition for boys and girls...
(Currently these weight classes are only madatory for boys' competition.)
My $0.02: I'm not sure.
20. Any activities that promote weight loss by a contestant at the competition’s site prior to and including the weigh in period are prohibited and shall disqualify an individual from competition.
(Currently the rule is more lenient.)
My $0.02: I'm very skeptical about this one. What if one of my wrestlers that doesn't need to drop weight just needs to use the restroom?
21. Wrestling tournaments involving multiple days of competition, at the discretion of the tournament manager, will have the option of allowing wrestlers to weigh-in immediately following the last match of the day/evening for the following day of competition.
(Currently weigh-ins for multiple days of wrestling must happen prior to wrestling on each day.)
My $0.02: YES. DEFINITELY!!!
22. Tournament weigh-ins may proceed by teams with the lowest weight class to the highest and end immediately upon the completion of the highest weight class.
(Currently weigh-ins are not allowed to proceed by teams, only by weights.)
My $0.02: YES. DEFINITELY!!!
23. During time off the scale(s), activities that promote dehydration or hydration are prohibited.
(Currently activities that promote hydration are not prohibited.)
My $0.02: No. I wasn't aware there were health problems caused by EXTRA hydration...
24. When there are consecutive days of team competition, there shall be a 1-pound additional allowance granted each day for all wrestlers up to a maximum of two pounds, except for state association championships where the consecutive day scale allowance may exceed a maximum of two pounds, if approved by the state association.
(Currently state association championships are not allowed to give an allowance of over 2 pounds.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
25. Competitions that are postponed for one calendar day or more, for reasons beyond the control of the participating school(s), or practices that cannot be held in these situations due to school policy shall be treated the same as competitions when there are consecutive days of competition in terms of the 1-pound scale allowance, with the exception of the required 48-hour notice.
(Currently there is no such rule in place.)
My $0.02: Yes, I guess, but I'd make it one pound per day of no practice regardless of anything else.
26. The acceptable person(s) to receive that notice shall be the head coach, principal or athletic director.
(Currently, who the coaches must notify is not in writing.)
My $0.02: Thanks for that... haha.
27. The disqualified (withdrawn) wrestler will get a loss on his/her record and the opponent will get a win over the disqualified wrestler.
(Currently this is not a rule. ???)
My $0.02: Yes. How is this not already a rule?
28. When awarding a fall at the edge of the wrestling area, a fall may be awarded when any part of the pinning area is inbounds.
(Currently the criteria is more strict.)
My $0.02: Yes, this helps but it should be when ANY part of either wrestler is inbounds!
29. In any pinning situation, a near fall may occur if any part of the defensive wrestler’s pinning area remains inbounds.
(Currently the criteria is more strict.)
My $0.02: Yes, this helps but it should be when ANY part of either wrestler is inbounds!
30. Whenever an imminent or near-fall situation is stopped, whether to prevent injury or simply to award the penalty point(s) after the near-fall situation ends, due to a defensive wrestler committing a technical violation, applying an illegal hold, committing unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike act. The penalty point(s) and an additional near fall point will be awarded as
described in f-h.
(Currently it is still very confusing to officials that they should be awarding an additional near fall point beyond what has been earned in addition to all penalty points whenever the defensive wrestler commits an illegal hold, technical violation, unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike act when a near-fall is imminent or has occurred. Hopefully this wording will make all officials realize that additional near-fall point has been earned no matter when the match is stopped to award the penalty points.)
My $0.02: Yes, I think.
31. More clear definitions for forfeit, medical forfeit, and default.
(Currently the definitions aren't as clear.)
My $0.02: Alright.
32. When the defensive wrestler’s back is exposed to the mat in a pinning situation while at least the supporting point(s) of either wrestler is inbounds, wrestling shall continue as long as there is a possibility of the offensive wrestler bringing the opponent back inbounds. In this situation the defensive wrestler’s shoulder(s) or scapulae is a supporting point(s). ... Near fall points may be earned or a fall called if any part of the defensive wrestler’s pinning area is in-bounds.
(Currently the rules are more strict.)
My $0.02: Yes, this helps but it should be when ANY part of either wrestler is inbounds!
33. For the purpose of awarding a point(s) at the edge of the wrestling area, a point(s) shall be awarded when control is established or lost while any part of a supporting point or any part of a foot of either wrestler finishes on the mat inbounds.
(Currently the rules are more strict.)
My $0.02: Yes, this helps but it should be when ANY part of either wrestler is inbounds!
34. For the purpose of awarding a point(s) at the edge of the wrestling area, a point(s) shall be awarded when control is established or lost while any part of a supporting point or any part of a foot of either wrestler finishes on the mat inbounds.
(Currently the rule isn't as clear.)
My $0.02: Yes, this helps but it should be when ANY part of either wrestler is inbounds!
35. Once a proper wrestler reports to the scorer’s table that wrestler must remain at the scorer’s table or report on the mat. The violation would be leaving the wrestling area without first receiving permission.
(Currently wrestlers may go to their coaches at tournaments.)
My $0.02: No. I like the wrestler going to the coach for a last-second pump-up.
36. When starting in the referee's position, the top wrestler must put his far arm on the bottom wrestler's navel first, then put his near arm on the bottom wrestler's elbow.
(Currently that order is not mandatory.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
37. NOTE: The time sequence to be followed in assuming the offensive starting position is to:
1. Set the knee(s) and feet
2. Place the palm of one hand on the naval
3. Place the palm of the other hand on or over the near elbow
4. The referee shall pause momentarily before starting wrestling
(Currently the rule is not clearly explained like this, the NCAA rule.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
38. repeatedly creates a stalemate situation to prevent an opponent from scoring.
(??? Looks to be about stalling.)
My $0.02: I think I'd go for it but I'm not sure I understand it correctly.
39. It is a 3-point takedown when, from the neutral position, a wrestler gains control over the opponent down on the mat and any part of the hips of the defensive wrestler are within the boundary of the 10-foot center circle. (Additional rule changes required to support the new rule. Rule 5-16-1 add: …In awarding a 3-point takedown in the 10-foot circle, any part of the hips of the defending wrestler must be within the line of the 10-foot circle. Rule 9-1-2 add: …or three points when secured in the 10-foot circle.
Rule 9-1 – Summary of Scoring, add Takedown… 2 or 3 points. Page 56, Scoring Abbreviations T3 – takedown 10’ circle.)
(Currently there are no 3-point takedowns.)
My $0.02: No. All takedowns should be worth 3 points.
40. The following rule will be eliminated: "The head coach shall be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct if wrestlers report to the scorer’s table not in proper uniform, not properly groomed, not properly equipped or not ready to wrestle."
(Currently that rule is in place.)
My $0.02: Team point? Yes. Unsportsmanlike on the head coach? No way!
41. If the wrong wrestler is given the choice of position at the start of the second period or at the start of the first 30 second tiebreaker in overtime, no re-wrestling is necessary.
(Currently the rule is only for the second period, not overtime.)
My $0.02: No! (But please do it right the first time!)
42. The opponent could have the choice at the start of the third period.
(Currently the rule is not clarified for a second period choice to defer.)
My $0.02: Alright.
43. The wrestler whose opponent has received an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty at anytime during the match to have choice. The unsportsmanlike conduct penalty is to supersede any prior match points.
(Currently the choice goes to the wrestler who scored first.)
My $0.02: Yes. Great rule.
44. Chin-whip from the standing position.
(Not sure what they mean to do with this move...)
My $0.02: I don't know.
45. Body scissors.
(Not sure what they mean to do with this move...)
My $0.02: I don't know.
46. A back flip from the standing position is illegal.
(Currently there is no rule prohibiting a back flip from the standing position.)
My $0.02: I'm not sure.
47. ...a forceful slap to the head or face, and/or gouging or poking the eyes…
(Clarifying unecessary roughness.)
My $0.02: Yes. I agree.
48. Wrestler Misconduct Penalty (Tournaments Only): Any action by a wrestler that the referee considers to be serious enough to
eject a contestant, but not considered a flagrant action, will be penalized by deducting 2 team points and removal from the event, but will retain all previous points earned during a tournament.
(Currently all of the wrestlers' points are removed from his team's score.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule.
49. A stalling penalty will be given to a wrestler who notifies the official of a choice for a neutral or optional starting position after the bottom wrestler is set.
(Currently this rule is in place only for the choice of a neutral start, not an optional start.)
My $0.02: No! It makes sense to choose optional at that point.
50. The following rule shall be eliminated: "Any contestant disqualified in tournament competition is not entitled to any points earned in the tournament. All advancement points, fall points, placement points, etc. are negated. All vacancies created in the tournament pairing shall be scored as forfeits. In dual-meet competition, any team points earned shall be negated."
(Currently this rule is in place.)
My $0.02: Yes. Good rule to get rid of.
51. When a takedown is secured, the wrestler shall be awarded two match points for the first takedown and three match points for each additional takedown.
(Currently all takedowns are worth 2 points.)
My $0.02: No. All takedowns should be worth 3 points.
52. For each match won by fall, seven points shall be added to the team’s total.
(Currently a pin is worth 6 team points in a dual.)
My $0.02: I'm not sure. That means a forfeit is better for your team than a pin... That's not good...
53. If a contestant is determined to have a communicable skin disease after the start of a tournament, the contestant shall not be allowed to compete further in the tournament. All team points earned up to the time in which the communicable skin disease was detected would remain with the team and the individual would be eligible to accept an individual placement award if applicable.
(I'm not sure how this is different than the current rules.)
My $0.02: How is this any different than the current rules?
54. No rule change.
(Clarification)
My $0.02: Alright.
55. In the case of double disqualification where the loser could advance, a coin toss would decide which wrestler would advance to the loser’s bracket. No wrestler would advance to the winners bracket.
(Currently the rulebook has nothing clarifying what should happen in this situation.)
My $0.02: At least give it to the wrestler winning the bout at the time. If it was tied, then do a coin flip.
|
Last edited by Dan Cosimi on April 7, 2008; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Todd Vennis added to this discussion on April 7, 2008
|
#39 and #51 are gimmicks to artificially increase scoring.
This is to much like an idea for a made for tv sport.
I say no no and no again to this.
I think it would be much better to do something I have been advocating for the past few years.
award choice of position on every stalling call/making every stalling call meaningful
Or even a 1 pt NF for a 1 second exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 7, 2008
|
Todd, we think a lot alike:
1. I agree with you that they're going about changing the worth of a takedown the wrong way BUT I do agree with making a takedown (EVERY takedown) worth 3 points!
2. I agree with your suggestion about giving the aggressive wrestler his choice of position as a penalty for a defensive wrestler stalling. I have been saying that too for a while.
3. I'm not sure if I agree with 1 point for 1 second of back exposure. Part of me likes the idea but I also think there would be too many "judgement calls" for that to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on April 7, 2008
|
A 3 pt takedown is ridiculous. What's needed is to allow a ref to call a stalemate when neither top nor bottom can improve and put the wrestlers back on their feet. That way, wrestlers wouldn't kick out their opponents. I do agree that the value of a takedown is diminished if a wrestler keeps getting two and giving one. Stop allowing wrestlers to kick guys out but put them back on their feet when no improvement is taking place on the mat by either wrestler.
And the weight class changes being proposed are beyond ludicrous. Why is there a need for another 285 class (255 lbs)? Esp. when the highest collegiate wt is 197?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 7, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"I do agree that the value of a takedown is diminished if a wrestler keeps getting two and giving one."
|
That's exactly why a takedown should be worth three points. And putting wrestlers back on their feet only hurts the mat wrestlers... I'm not a fan of that option.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Scott Shaw added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
Scoring is one of the hardest things to teach a non-wrestling minded person when they come to watch a match. A 3pt. takedown for earning that takedown in a certain area is just going to make it more difficult for that person to understand the rules. If their goal is to increase scoring then the other rules concerning scoring on the boundary will do the trick. If a wrestler knows that he is still going to give up points, even if he gets out of bounds, then he is going to do more wrestling in the center and there will be no need for a 10 ft. circle bonus point. All a three point takedown will do is make it harder for a better conditioned athlete to comeback on a quick score artist that secured two first period bonus takedowns and is winning 6-1. They will see more stalling from the kid with a 5 point lead then they would have with a 3 point lead that goes to 2 after an escape.
Weight class will probably need to change, but I agree with most that these weights should just be a starting point for discussion, not the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
" 18. Weight Classes shall be in competition for boys: 106, 115, 124, 131, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 180, 190, 215, 255, 295. "
this proposal is
so stupid
i can barely comment on it with a straight face. Having been a Seeding director for a couple of well known tourn i can say with certainty that the 285 class is already very hard--
impossible really
-- to fill compared to 112 thru 171. So why would we eliminate a very popular weight class like 119 in order to establish another 285 class (255 and 295) that cant be filled ???
This is beyond absurd
. ----We have a great sport, so why do they always want to mess with it ??? this is becoming like Freestyle & Greco Roman where constant rules changes have coaches and fans and officials confused and shaking their heads.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
Scott:
I think ALL takedowns being worth 3 points is a very good rule, but making only some (center) takedowns being worth 3 points is not a bad rule.
Bob:
I agree that 215, 255, 295 is way too much for the heavyweights. I think 200, 225, and 300 is feasible though.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Mike Taylor added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
One rule change I'd like to see is the reinstatement of riding time in the high school ranks. I think we'd be better preparing our wrestlers for what they will face in college if we did that. There shouldn't be such a difference in rules between high school and college. A takedown in college should be a takedown in high school (that is primarily due to the difference in the judgement call of the refs). If college has riding time, so should high school. I like the quick pace of the college matches and would like to see that adopted in high school (no real pause from when the hand goes on the elbow to the whistle blowing).
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
" I think 200, 225, and 300 is feasible though."
thats crazy--- anyone who has been a Seeding director or Boutmaster for a major tourn knows u get alot more entries at 112 thru 171 and alot less at wts above that,
esp above 189
.
exactly which lower wt would u eliminate to implement the 3rd wt at 200 or more ??? if we have to stay at 14 wts, which one do u sacrifice for the extra big weight class ??? crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Mike Taylor added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
|
Quote from Bob Preusse's post:
|
|
"" 18. Weight Classes shall be in competition for boys: 106, 115, 124, 131, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 180, 190, 215, 255, 295. "
this proposal is
so stupid
I can barely comment on it with a straight face. Having been a Seeding director for a couple of well known tourn I can say with certainty that the 285 class is already very hard--
impossible really
-- to fill compared to 112 thru 171. So why would we eliminate a very popular weight class like 119 in order to establish another 285 class (255 and 295) that cant be filled ???
This is beyond absurd
. ----We have a great sport, so why do they always want to mess with it ??? this is becoming like Freestyle & Greco Roman where constant rules changes have coaches and fans and officials confused and shaking their heads."
|
Bob, one other weight class that is effectively eliminated is 140 lbs. Right in the heart of the weight class order!!! The most populated weight classes are 140, 145, 145 (by seniors anyways). Sure, it is only 2 more pounds to drop, but tell that to the guy who is struggling to make 140. I don't like messing with the weight classes that have the greatest population. If they really want to do some good, restructure it to add some middle/upper middle weights like: 150, 158, 165, 171. As was said earlier, adding another heavyweight class only adds another forfeit to the lineup. I do like the 3 pt takedown for takedowns completed in the center of the mat. Would encourage wrestlers to avoid wrestling on the edge of the mat.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
NFHS proposal would eliminate or stretch the current 119 class, bad bad idea--- does the Federation have too much time on its hands ??
140 is
among the most populated
among 9th thru 12th grades --- 119 thru 145 is the most populated from my experience as Seeding director, esp 119 & 125. And this proposal eliminates or stretches 112, 119, 125 replacing it with a proposed 115 then 124, not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Scott Shaw added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
I had typed up a long, but eloquent, post about the evils of rule changes and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. I decided not to post it.
Instead, I will just say that the weights will change in the near future but I agree with most of you that a another weight above 189 is not the answer. I will also add that a 3 pt. takedown (regardless of when or where it is earned) is just plain dumb. It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING toward keeping wrestler's in the center of the mat. In fact, I would be for eliminating the 10 ft. circle all together in favor of a warning boundary similar to freestyle along with the changes to scoring opportunities on the edge.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Mike Taylor added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
|
Quote from Scott Shaw's post:
|
|
"I had typed up a long, but eloquent, post about the evils of rule changes and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. I decided not to post it.
Instead, I will just say that the weights will change in the near future but I agree with most of you that a another weight above 189 is not the answer. I will also add that a 3 pt. takedown (regardless of when or where it is earned) is just plain dumb. It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING toward keeping wrestler's in the center of the mat. In fact, I would be for eliminating the 10 ft. circle all together in favor of a warning boundary similar to freestyle along with the changes to scoring opportunities on the edge."
|
I typically don't do this, but after further consideration I must back off of my stance that a 3 pt takedown in the middle would encourage wrestling at the center of the mat. In fact, it would do just the opposite. Think about who it benefits the most...the one superior on their feet. Nobody will want to be the one with their back to the center, so you will have a constant fight to the edge. In fact, a 3pt takedown would only ENCOURAGE edge wrestling as a means of damage control. Give up the 2 but don't get caught in the middle for 3. The aggressor would try to force action back to the center but the opponent would keep working the edge....just like it is now. So, changing the value of a takedown doesn't help keep the wrestling in the center. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NFHS Proposed Rule Changes
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on April 8, 2008
|
Concerning points...I like the dual meet change for the pin. My whole point is that the act of pinning someone should be rewarded more than the other team not having someone for a weight class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
