There are a lot of edge of the mat scores that are blown dead because of a supporting point stepping out. Many of those holds would score, open up the match, lessen the stalling issue etc. It would reward action more.

I don't think you will ever see the change to the college out of bounds rule due to safety concerns.

When was the last time anyone saw someone get a rib broken from a straight-scissor on the body? I would argue that I've seen many, many more injuries from hammers, wings, et cetera. Removing this technique would remove a lot of offense from a lot of wrestlers. I'm not even in favor of the wording in the book now. Some moves aren't very comfortable to be in....that's kind of the nature of this sport. The figure four on the head should be legal as well. If you're good enough to get there you should be allowed to use it.

I am all for the college out of bounds if we can figure out how. Much more wrestling!

At first I thought the same thing, but I am liking the scoring idea more and more. The goal in wrestling is to get the pin. I would like to see the 1st takedown be worth more, reward the wrestler that scores first. More back points rewards the wrestler who is being aggressive, but makes it so they need to be working for the Fall or a Technical Fall will occur sooner. It also rewards a kid that was aggressive and got some back points but then they are negated by a reversal. Backpoints should be worth more than a reversal. The goal is to put your opponent on their back. I personally like the new points idea.

I'm in full support too and agree with everything in your post.

Our rules and approach for KS wrestling should align with that of collegiate wrestling and wrestlers should be awarded for riding time. Getting a guy on his back and riding both require a degree of technique.

i see your point on nearfall- i can still see old lay and pray stategy involved...... maybe riding time rule- combined with higher rewards for nearfall

i don't read the takedown rule the same as how you stated it- the way you explained it would be great! (maybe then the kids we coach would really believe us that "the first takedown is most important)- but the way i interpret the change is that the first take down is only worth 2 for either wrestler on their first awarded takedown, the each subsequent takedown is worth 3, it doesn't really award the wrestler who gets the first takedown.

you may have done enough to sway me- but i still think riding time would improve the sport at all levels- quicker than anything else.

Ok, here is my Christmas list for rule changes.

#1 definitely is continuation rule on the edge like college. If I start my takedown in the circle, why am I punished because the combat area is small? Wouldn't have to worry about fleeing, bad/questionable/judgement calls on the edge, etc. I would even be in favor of the push out rule. If it is good enough for the whole planet and Olympic wrestling, why is it not good enough for high wrestling in America?

#2 is riding time. I say yes to that. Riding does indeed take technique, effort, practice, etc. and exhibits a form of domination/control over your opponent. Isn't that kind of what wrestling is about anyway? And once again, if it is good enough for college wrestling, why is it not good enough for high school wrestling?

#3 is points for cheap tilt/tilt without mandatory count. Tilting takes skill, technique, effort and practice. It certainly exhibits a form of domination/control and isn't that what wrestling is kind of about anyway? If it is good enough for every country on the planet and Olympic wrestling, why is it not good enough for folkstyle wrestling? I would be in favor of keeping the near fall system as is but adding a 1 point move for a tilt with no three count. The effort that it takes to tilt someone even without a three count should be rewarded. I would not be in favor of a cheap tilt from neutral without control though.

All three rules I believe would provide a more clear winner in more cases and avoid a lot of what I consider "unnecessary" overtimes although overtime is kind of cool.

#4 is stalling. I hate stalling, that is the stalling call. Get rid of it I say. It is never called consistently or fairly anyway. It's about the most subjective call that we have. Stalling to me should be called strategy although running or fleeing should be punished I agree. People would still work for the fall, etc. I believe but they wouldn't have to take unnecessary risky chances. And if I have out wrestled someone for a certain amount of time to build a lead, why should I have to continue to out wrestle someone the whole match with the risk of compromising my victory. That really doesn't make sense. I know that many won't agree with me on this one though and that is ok and I understand why.

The out of bounds rule has had me somewhat confused this year. It is less about the rule, but the interpretation of the rule and how it has been called has not been consistent. I saw a lot of wrestlers this year score two when the other wrestler was off the mat and the one that scored two had his tip toes in and hanging on the ankles. Other matches, I have seen both wrestlers half on and half off while still scrambling, and then it is blown OOB.

If a ref believes that supporting points for both wrestlers are OOB then they will call it. Even if they are half on half off. Some refs will reset faster than other too and not let the kids wrestle on the edge very much. For the situation where a takedown was awarded if the kid taking the shot is supporting himself with his toes (which from how you describe it they were) then he is still in bounds and should get the two for the takedown.

I get what you are saying about resetting if it was consistent. It has not been consistent. As far as the take down being awarded in the second scenario, the control aspect of the call has been suspect. I understand that times have changed, and rules have changed, but if takedowns were being called more consistently, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Basically what you are describing is freestyle wrestling, and if you are so in favor of the rules being as such we might as well not have folkstyle wrestling in high school, and just have everyone wrestler freestyle.

If you are calling what X wants freestyle, I say you need to spend a few summer afternoons in a hot gym and see what it is all about. The so called cheap tilt is a little like freestyle, but that is it.

I saw that I had my name on the top two posts and decided to get the top three for a few minutes. Leave the rules as they are except for out of bounds and the 6 match rule. I am getting too old to learn much new stuff.

Thanks Johnson, you are totally right.
No Spectator, what I am describing is nothing like freestyle, you are totally wrong, with all due respect but thanks for the input.

Why we don't do FS in America is a separate issue that I am not really interested in discussing right now but obviously if we did just FS like everyone else we would be much better in international competition.

There is no riding in FS. Stalling is not an issue in FS although there is passivity. Even my tilt is not really a FS tilt per say. I didn't say you could do gut wrenches or leg laces or anything because I certainly never said I was for locking hands. I said you couldn't score from a neutral position so you must first establish control which is not FS. What I am talking about is any standard folkstyle tilt where you work to set it up and turn the guy but you just don't hold him for a 2 count. That is still folkstyle, it is just rewarding a guy for turning another guy and since you don't hold him for a 2 count, you just get 1 point instead of 2. Setting up a pin hold and turning a guy takes technique and effort and I believe you should be rewarded for that because you are working for the fall. Why should you get nothing for your effort because you have turned a guy for 1 second instead of 2? You should be rewarded for working for the fall and turning a guy regardless of how long you hold him there. The other guy is rewarded for his effort of getting off his back because he only gives up 1 point instead of 2 or 3. Sounds like a great arrangement to me that rewards both wrestlers and preserves the integrity of folkstyle wrestling. I am really not a proponent of the push out rule, I just threw that out that I wasn't necessarily opposed to that.


Now let me restate my Christmas list so it's easier to follow and handle.

#1 Continuation on edge in HS like we have in college. Rewards aggressiveness, technique and effort.

#2 Riding time in HS like we have in college and used to have in HS. Rewards technique, effort and control.

#3 1 point near fall for no 2 count to reward wrestlers that are working to turn guys and are working for the fall. Rewards their skill, technique and effort.

#4 Reevaluation of stalling call and more official training so the call is made consistently and fairly, or do away with it all together. Doesn't punish kids when they shouldn't be punished.

Is that better?
Still don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with my Christmas list but it is my list isn't it. My parents didn't always agree with my Christmas list either so its ok.

XGHSWC,
I would agree with the first 3 of your list. But as far as #4 this would just make the match boring, as you would have kids winning 2-0 and lay on bottom for 2 minutes in a freestyle position, and win the match 2-1. And with today's new rules that you can not make a move painful the top wrestler would not have much of a chance to score. I would be for the no stalling if there is no action stand them back up, just like freestyle. But if we are going to go to more freestyle rules, maybe we should just change our style to freestyle/greco. This is what most of the world is doing besides us.

Since we are talking about rules here is the one I hate most. Do not inflict pain. (i know there is specifics for this to be called), But I remember reading an article on the great coach Rocky Welton he states "if it doesnt hurt you are doing it wrong". JMO

Lance Geyer

2 count = 2 near fall
5 count = 3 near fall

i don't think we need a score for a 1 count.

Yes, my bad. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the heads up.
It's early and I haven't had enough of my secret elixir yet.

My point is still the same. My point is that if you work to set up a turn/pin hold and you turn the guy which is good wrestling, you should be rewarded for that. This would also avoid the slow 2 count/out of position count/etc. count. Why should you have to necessarily hold him for a 2 count to be rewarded. I see nothing wrong with rewarding a 1 count. Like I said, it also rewards the other guy for getting off his back quicker by giving up only 1 point instead of 2. I am tired of seeing matches where a guy turns another guy multiple times and has nothing to show for his practice, hard work, technique and effort.

10-4 to that Geyer, I hear what you are saying.

I certainly don't want to do anything that makes wrestling "boring". I would not though just associate no stalling with boring low scoring matches. A lot of kids just don't wrestle that way, it is not in them but I understand what you are saying. But definitely none of my suggestions are insuating that we should go to more freestyle like wrestling and/or scoring, that is a separate issue.

What I am saying specifically is that officials need to make the call more consistently and fairly because when not doing so they are unjustly punishing kids that should not be punished. I do realize that it is easier said than done and officials have a tough job and making the call is not that easy, I get it. I do not want to pass judgement on them because like I said, I am trying to get to heaven. I am saying that if the call cannot consistently be made fairly, then maybe we should just do away with it. But obviously it is a somewhat good call or we wouldn't be using it in high school and college across the nation.

the very first part of your statement sums it up in my opinion. Make the call. Too many officials don't view "no attempts to score" as stalling, they view "prevent defense" as stalling.

i feel the college OOB rules would help with the backing up to the line "stalling" technique"

i think adopting a passivity type guideline would help officials make a stalling call earlier in the match, rather than waiting until 10 second left in the 3rd period