Step Out rule. MUST CHANGE THIS YEAR

[a_mshaffer]

I disagree. I'm not in favor of anything that incentives wrestlers to just try to push out their opponent, as opposed to trying to get a TD.

The mandatory stall call if the defensive wrestler backs off the mat to avoid a TD is, IMHO, a sufficient means of penalizing a wrestler that works the edge and then uses the edge to avoid a TD.

I may be in the minority on this (kind of impossible for me to know either way). To me, there are differences between folks and freestyle. Some seem to want to move folk more toward freestyle. While tweaking the rules in either style is fine to address problems that crop up over time, I don't think there is an issue here that a push-out rule would improve.

Just my 2 cents

I'm with you Tom. I hate sumo and the refs simply need to do their job. The tricky part is that each one evaluates stalling a bit differently. Some, it seems, is based on shot/no shot ratio. But backing up and staying next to the line keeps the opponent from scoring more often than not. Some like Star, Brooks, and few other of our guys have gotten really good at edge wrestling as a result. You know when someone is stalling - LL's match is a great example. Ref gave him multiple warnings, saw him grabbing fingers, feint shots... finally banged him. Same with Levi's match. Just need to do it sooner.
Oh yeah, I saw two instances of stalling called on the person pushing his opponent OB on Thursday! Don't recall seeing it on Fri or Sat.
I think it has been brought up before, but the step out rules will add some controversy to top/bottom wrestling. Final thought... mat isn't big enough in the first place

 

[a_mshaffer]

A decade of freestyle evidence says that the wrestlers will not automatically back up to the edge, and will work to stay off the edge and return action to center.

they ground themselves a lot...

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

We have enough counts we don't need more. You go out of bounds and it's a point.

Absolutely - there should be a specific "fleeing the mat" rule within the General Stalling/Passivity Rule (Stalling/Passivity should be it's own Rule with lots of subsections and objective definitions such as "Fleeing the Mat"). You voluntarily take yourself 100% OB unengaged with the other wrestler - it's an instant penalty "Fleeing the Mat", whistle blows, action stops, wrestlers returned to center and non-offending wrestler awarded a point (and I don't care why it happens whether you're pulling out of ankle hold, etc... - you take yourself 100% OB of your own power, it's "Fleeing the Mat").

Being first OB while engaged should also be a penalty point, but action should not be suspended immediately - action continues until Offensive wrestler goes OB, but takedown criteria are reduced given the Defensive Wrestler's action of voluntarily taking himself all, or partially, OB. Takedown awarded instantaneously as soon as Offensive Wrestler merely touches the Defender's far leg or hip with his free hand.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

they ground themselves a lot...

UWW recently took away the Grounding rule. If you go out while grounded it is now a point.

 

[a_mshaffer]

UWW recently took away the Grounding rule. If you go out while grounded it is now a point.

yes, I heard. Anxious to see how it applies

 

[IoffendwithTruth1]

Same thing.

The thing is: NCAA has had a "pushout rule" for years -- pushing the opponent straight out of bounds is stalling on the guy doing the pushing. It doesn't get called that way consistently, and upsets everybody regardless of call or non-call.

It was a sop to the folk purists who resisted the freestyle stepout, and a bad one. Time to end that experiment in favor some something more black and white, and with years of evidence showing it works.

I was being sarcastic in my original post.

 

[IoffendwithTruth1]

That's his point - the wrestler taking ground in ties, or who can control this equation, is almost always the better Free wrestler because you can "set-up" way more moves if you are the party that controls the "power" dynamic (ankle pick, throw by, duck under, super-duck, lat-throw.... and many more are all set up by controlling this dynamic... applying it and then exploiting it when your opponent responds and attempts to resist giving ground). Again, the party able to control this dynamic is almost always the better Neutral/Free wrestler but you have not seen all these Iowa wrestlers thriving in Free.

I was being sarcastic in my original post.

 

[Corby2]

Absolutely - there should be a specific "fleeing the mat" rule within the General Stalling/Passivity Rule (Stalling/Passivity should be it's own Rule with lots of subsections and objective definitions such as "Fleeing the Mat"). You voluntarily take yourself 100% OB unengaged with the other wrestler - it's an instant penalty "Fleeing the Mat", whistle blows, action stops, wrestlers returned to center and non-offending wrestler awarded a point (and I don't care why it happens whether you're pulling out of ankle hold, etc... - you take yourself 100% OB of your own power, it's "Fleeing the Mat").

Being first OB while engaged should also be a penalty point, but action should not be suspended immediately - action continues until Offensive wrestler goes OB, but takedown criteria are reduced given the Defensive Wrestler's action of voluntarily taking himself all, or partially, OB. Takedown awarded instantaneously as soon as Offensive Wrestler merely touches the Defender's far leg or hip with his free hand.

The sport has involved with scrambling which has made guys play the edge knowing they can scramble the action out of bounds. The edge game is being played way to much and it's ruining the product. Nothing will happen this year with the rules they're every 2 years and on odd years summers of 27 , 29, 31 ......

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

yes, I heard. Anxious to see how it applies

I also like the UWW's terminology for going OB while engaged (now standing or grounded) - it's a violation of the "Step Out Rule", not the "Push Out" Rule as many like to call it (IOW, it is the party "stepping out" first that is violating the rule and it is that party's responsibility to remain inbounds). I also like that they have a rule for going OB voluntarily unengaged - "Fleeing the Mat". A wrestler should not have the choice of going OB whenever they decide it benefits them - both wrestlers should have to stay inbounds and if they "Flee the Mat" under their own power unengaged - automatic 1 Point Penalty.

 

[AgSurfer]

We have enough counts we don't need more. You go out of bounds and it's a point.

How about if you go out of bounds, it's a DQ. Bet you that would put a stop to it.

 

[CowbellMan]

I'm with you Tom. I hate sumo and the refs simply need to do their job. The tricky part is that each one evaluates stalling a bit differently. Some, it seems, is based on shot/no shot ratio. But backing up and staying next to the line keeps the opponent from scoring more often than not. Some like Star, Brooks, and few other of our guys have gotten really good at edge wrestling as a result. You know when someone is stalling - LL's match is a great example. Ref gave him multiple warnings, saw him grabbing fingers, feint shots... finally banged him. Same with Levi's match. Just need to do it sooner.
Oh yeah, I saw two instances of stalling called on the person pushing his opponent OB on Thursday! Don't recall seeing it on Fri or Sat.
I think it has been brought up before, but the step out rules will add some controversy to top/bottom wrestling. Final thought... mat isn't big enough in the first place

Well…..one ref did it sooner. 5 times and DQ’d him. That the re-match was the finals shouldn’t make a difference. Should have done the same as the rules say it should have.

Should have dinged Robideau a couple of times too.

 

[CarolinaFan1]

I think a fleeing penalty point and a push out point should become mandatory with very limited exceptions. These aren’t actually new changes to rules just mandatory enforcement. If a wrestler backs up to the edge and goes out of bounds either on their own or because the are “shot of of bounds”, etc. then mandatory fleeing penalty (Princeton 125lber, Angelo). Likewise, if a wrestler has a collar tie and marches the other wrestler out of bounds (Iowa’s PK) or a wrestler walks another out of bounds holding a single leg, then mandatory push out penalty against that wrestler.

I would also like to see as someone above suggested, a 5 count when defensive wrestler dives and grabs an ankle to prevent a TD. After 5 seconds, stalling point and restart neutral. Same for wrestler going to a knee when not fully engaged with opponent - stalling and restart at neutral. I would also like to see all 5 counts for stalling to be reduced to 3 seconds.

I would be in favor of eliminating rideouts in OT and make it criteria after 3 minutes of SV in order something like (1) most backpoints, (2) most takedowns, (3) first takedown, (4) least stall calls, (5) first point scored. If 0-0 at end of SV with no criteria met, then tie and no team points awarded. For those saying wrestling is more than neutral, you could also make OT a full 3 minutes rather than SV — 1 min neutral, 1 min each top/bottom. If tied at end of OT then criteria decides.

 

[Kingslayer]

Well…..one ref did it sooner. 5 times and DQ’d him. That the re-match was the finals shouldn’t make a difference. Should have done the same as the rules say it should have.

Should have dinged Robideau a couple of times too.

I think it is Robideau whose first move from neutral is take 3 steps back.

 

[tullfan68]

backing up or getting pushed can be stalling both ways when a guy locks and just pushes not trying to get a TD is stalling

 

[Still in State Colllege]

I think about the Warner ride. Warner would get a guy to his feet and then just push/ride him out of bounds. He would do that in 15 second increments and end up with 1+ minutes of riding time. I would have to see you add 4 points to that ride. Sio now you have to change how that is handled as well.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

backing up or getting pushed can be stalling both ways when a guy locks and just pushes not trying to get a TD is stalling

Well that is not true on its face. The party being pushed from a head or shoulder clench does not lose the obligation to attempt to remain inbounds - the party in the superior position is merely forcing the party backing up to expose themselves in their effort to stay inbounds (i.e., your notion that the party being pressured from a front clench of some sort, has only one option - to continue to back pedal straight backwards is just not true. He can fight to circle one direction or the other - yes, it will expose him to an angle of attack and almost certain danger, but it is his obligation to stay inbounds.). These parties being pushed OB that you complain about never make an effort to stay inbounds because they are in an inferior, vulnerable position - so they allow themselves to be pushed straight backwards out-of-bounds. Claiming that taking ground is not a legitimate offensive maneuver to set up a takedown is just not true - yes if the party being dominated refuses to fight to stay inbounds and just weakly backs straight out-of-bounds directly in the line they are being pushed, it is not the person taking ground that is stalling - it is the party who refuses to fight the position, attempt to wrestle their way out of the situation and weakly backpedals the way they are being pressured straight out-of-bounds to get a restart without having to extricate themselves from the inferior position in the clench or giving up points. How do you figure that the person in the inferior position (i.e., the Defensive Wrestler) has no obligation to try to stay inbounds even if it exposes them to almost certain demise? Just because someone is in a Defensive position, it does not obviate their responsibility to do everything within their physical ability to stay inbounds. Your notion that these parties have no choice but to lamely and weakly backpedal on the direct line they are being pushed is just not credible.

You create a rule where people give up a point for being first to step fully OB and you will quickly see none of what you are referring to because people will realize that allowing themselves to be pushed OB will only generate losses and not free restarts for stallers who want to use OB as a defensive crutch rather than wrestle out of the situations they put themselves in.

 

[Corby2]

We need to get rid of challenges or a lost challenge is 1 point.
Also when a guy puts himself in the rubber knee position himself to force the potentially dangerous call it should be 1 point.
Step out would change all the backing to the edge and hanging on the edge immediately. Next summer if a step out doesn't happen I have no hope

 

[District 4]

We need to get rid of challenges or a lost challenge is 1 point.
Also when a guy puts himself in the rubber knee position himself to force the potentially dangerous call it should be 1 point.
Step out would change all the backing to the edge and hanging on the edge immediately. Next summer if a step out doesn't happen I have no hope

Yes. Losing a challenge will definitely make people think twice and is a great idea

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

We need to get rid of challenges or a lost challenge is 1 point.
Also when a guy puts himself in the rubber knee position himself to force the potentially dangerous call it should be 1 point.
Step out would change all the backing to the edge and hanging on the edge immediately. Next summer if a step out doesn't happen I have no hope

Everyone is saying how great Okie State looked and 3 of their 4 finalists wrestled in an absolutely disgraceful manner in both their semi-final and finals matches. Complete stallers (backing up, hanging on heads/clenches, edge-wrestling, etc., etc., etc.) - zero neutral offense.

 

[psu0408]

Middle ground: if attacking wrestler shoots and has control of the opposing wrestler’s leg or ankle and the defensive wrestler goes off the mat, 1 point. Rewards those who attack edge wrestlers. Leg in the air and don’t want to burn energy in a split scramble - push them out and take the 1.

 

[Cali_Nittany1]

I think about the Warner ride. Warner would get a guy to his feet and then just push/ride him out of bounds. He would do that in 15 second increments and end up with 1+ minutes of riding time. I would have to see you add 4 points to that ride. Sio now you have to change how that is handled as well.

There have been suggestions for that. 30 seconds of RT with no near fall points, ref puts them back to neutral (no escape point to the bottom wrestler). Another TD and another 30 seconds of RT with no NF, neutral again and so on.

 

[El_Jefe]

I think about the Warner ride. Warner would get a guy to his feet and then just push/ride him out of bounds. He would do that in 15 second increments and end up with 1+ minutes of riding time. I would have to see you add 4 points to that ride. Sio now you have to change how that is handled as well.

Ditch riding time. It's an incemtive for top stalling like this.

 

[WV lion]

Ditch riding time. It's an incemtive for top stalling like this.

Or call stalling on top like it is supposed to be. I know that is a big ask though.

 

[Jim from Spicewood]

If a wrestler has a leg and has to drag an opponent in bounds to try to get a takedown, award a point.

 

[El_Jefe]

Or call stalling on top like it is supposed to be. I know that is a big ask though.

 

[El_Jefe]

If a wrestler has a leg and has to drag an opponent in bounds to try to get a takedown, award a point.

That's redundant with a stepout unless you're proposing continuation, allowing the shooter to get a stepout point and a takedown.

I think I could get behind continuation, as long as the defender is pulling the shooter to the edge with his leg held. Don't want the shooter to both force a stepout and get continuation.

That's an interesting idea.

 

[Efejle]

If they can't actually change anything this summer they better start calling it in November

 

[FlyingLion]

I agree with the step out rule. It solves a lot of problems.

One thing that also doesn't make sense to me - 2 points for a reversal? Shouldn't that be at least 3 points?

Agree, I have always felt a reversal was undervalued. 3 points would lead to more action on bottom and more exciting matches in general. I had hoped they would have changed it when they increased the takedown points but that didn't happen unfortunately.

 

[tullfan68]

Well that is not true on its face. The party being pushed from a head or shoulder clench does not lose the obligation to attempt to remain inbounds - the party in the superior position is merely forcing the party backing up to expose themselves in their effort to stay inbounds (i.e., your notion that the party being pressured from a front clench of some sort, has only one option - to continue to back pedal straight backwards is just not true. He can fight to circle one direction or the other - yes, it will expose him to an angle of attack and almost certain danger, but it is his obligation to stay inbounds.). These parties being pushed OB that you complain about never make an effort to stay inbounds because they are in an inferior, vulnerable position - so they allow themselves to be pushed straight backwards out-of-bounds. Claiming that taking ground is not a legitimate offensive maneuver to set up a takedown is just not true - yes if the party being dominated refuses to fight to stay inbounds and just weakly backs straight out-of-bounds directly in the line they are being pushed, it is not the person taking ground that is stalling - it is the party who refuses to fight the position, attempt to wrestle their way out of the situation and weakly backpedals the way they are being pressured straight out-of-bounds to get a restart without having to extricate themselves from the inferior position in the clench or giving up points. How do you figure that the person in the inferior position (i.e., the Defensive Wrestler) has no obligation to try to stay inbounds even if it exposes them to almost certain demise? Just because someone is in a Defensive position, it does not obviate their responsibility to do everything within their physical ability to stay inbounds. Your notion that these parties have no choice but to lamely and weakly backpedal on the direct line they are being pushed is just not credible.

You create a rule where people give up a point for being first to step fully OB and you will quickly see none of what you are referring to because people will realize that allowing themselves to be pushed OB will only generate losses and not free restarts for stallers who want to use OB as a defensive crutch rather than wrestle out of the situations they put themselves in.

agreed if you backing out free and easy but when your trying to stay in the refs can tell they have called stalling both ways but not enough on the pusher!if one or both are not trying to score why called one guy everytime?

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

agreed if you backing out free and easy but when your trying to stay in the refs can tell they have called stalling both ways but not enough on the pusher!if one or both are not trying to score why called one guy everytime?

Because, the guy winning the pushing battle is in a superior position and taking ground, while the guy giving ground is in an inferior, defensive position.... - iow, he is the party who is supposed to be penalized under the spirit of the rules.

 

[poorwrestler]

I’m thoroughly against any rules that require already proven incompetent refs to make more judgement calls. How do you draw the line when a wrestler is in neutral and stepping out versus when they’re in the mat and stepping out? Are both situations a point? Do we trust refs to make correct calls often enough to make this worth it? We need to fix our current broken officiating system before adding more rules. Hell, remove rules if anything. Make this easier for them.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I’m thoroughly against any rules that require already proven incompetent refs to make more judgement calls. How do you draw the line when a wrestler is in neutral and stepping out versus when they’re in the mat and stepping out? Are both situations a point? Do we trust refs to make correct calls often enough to make this worth it? We need to fix our current broken officiating system before adding more rules. Hell, remove rules if anything. Make this easier for them.

The problem is the diametric opposite of what you're saying. The problem is that Folk has one all-encompassing rule for stalling/passivity, which in fact is a "rule" that effectively says "we're going to leave this whole massive all-encompassing subject up to the Mat Official to apply however they so chose" - IOW, we're going to put each individual Mat Official in the "Rule-making" business - they can determine this whole massive, all-encompassing rule however they see fit including ignoring clear and pervasive stalling and passivity if they choose.

Officials are supposed to be applying objective, well-defined rules - not be making their own criteria for such a massive all-encompassing rule and then apply their own criteria (i.e., the rulebook differs from folk match to folk match as the mat Official changes.).

The solution is to make the Rulebook more objective and defined just like they do in Free and take Mat Officials out of the match by match Rule-Making Business for such an important all-encompassing rule.

First, they need to make "Stalling" a general rule with many subsets that define the various forms of stalling/passivity - of which there are many - and the penalties which apply to each when violated. For Example:

1. Step-Out Rule - first wrestler that is 100% OB while engaged is a penalty - 1 point awarded to opponent. However, action is continued until opponent is fully OB with reduced takedown criteria (opponent is awarded takedown as soon as one-leg is controlled and free hand merely touches uncontrolled leg or far hip associated with that leg). If takedown awarded to opponent using reduced takedown criteria, Step-Out 1-Point Penalty waived.
2. Fleeing The Mat - going 100% OB unengaged is an immediate 1-Point Penalty - point awarded to opponent. Match is stopped and restart at middle-circle.
3. Fleeing - refusing to engage and taking actions to continually maintain distance for a prolonged period of time (more than a 5 count) such as breaking ties and dancing backwards, using hands to keep pursuing wrestler at bay while wrestler dances backwards or side-to-side, continuous circling as maintain separation..... 1-Point Penalty awarded to opponent.
4. Passivity - acting in a continual defensive and/or passive manner by continually giving ground with no Offensive attacks (i.e., one or both can trigger the call - if your opponent has made 3 consecutive shots and you have made none, it's Passivity. If you're opponent has been the aggressor over and you have done nothingbut give ground, no offensive attacks, over a prolonged period (anything over 15 seconds begins to be considered a prolonged period). Offending Wrestler is immediately put on 30-Second Shot Clock 1st Offense (must complete takedown in 30 seconds) - if they do not complete takedown in 30 seconds, opponent awarded 1 Point. Opponent is subject to Fleeing Rule during 30 Second Shot Clock. Instant 1-Point Penalty awarded to opponent on 2nd Passivity call. 2-Point Penalty awarded to opponent for 3rd Passivity call. Disqualification for 4th Passivity call.

Etc.... The solution is to make the Rulebook better defined and more objective in application. If the Official fails to make a correct call, it can be corrected on review via the objective definitions. Having this huge all-encompassing topic placed in the hands of each individual Official to handle however they see fit IS THE PROBLEM and the root of all the inconsistency in the rules application. Making the Rulebook way more defined and objective is the SOLUTION, not the problem.

 

[Efejle]

My thing is; Obviously they don't meet this summer for rule changes but they absolutely CAN stress that officials emphasize and call a step out the warning/point it should be.

 

[Goggles Paisano]

I am not so sure everyone will be happy with the result and unintended consequences, changing the face of folk strategy with a step out.

If the friggin refs would simply get their heads out of their bums with the current rules we would all be happier. The outright blatant fleeing the mat everytime a defensive wrestler is battling a single leg near the boundary is mind numbing. It happens in almost every match yet is rarely called. Egregious. Fleeing the mat in it's many forms needs to be a 100% of the time mandatory call, and that would solve 80% of the problem.

As a compromise, I kind of like the idea of a step out in SV, but would like to see a trial somewhere first, maybe in an open tourney(s) first?

 

[SandBuff]

I‘m not a fan of the push outs that occur in freestyle wrestling so I would dislike its application in folkstyle. My preference would be to add a second outer circle to the mat. I would put the second circle at 5ish feet outside the current boundary circle. this outer circle would be a strict out of bounds and if a wrestlers goes beyond it during mat wrestling, he/she would receive a caution warning. That would force wrestlers to keep wrestling on the edge with less stopages because on wrestlers goes off the matt. Many takedown attempts fail because the defensive wrestler can keep moving outward taking the attacker with him. The outer boundary would prevent that.
When wrestling on feet, the current out of bounds circle would apply and there would be no push outs. Takedown attempts can easily takes wrestlers off the Matt and that shouldn‘t be punishished. Current stalling criteria would apply.
‘those are my thoughts. Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes. Im a pc guy using an iPad and I struggle to edit on this thing.

 

[Corby2]

I‘m not a fan of the push outs that occur in freestyle wrestling so I would dislike its application in folkstyle. My preference would be to add a second outer circle to the mat. I would put the second circle at 5ish feet outside the current boundary circle. this outer circle would be a strict out of bounds and if a wrestlers goes beyond it during mat wrestling, he/she would receive a caution warning. That would force wrestlers to keep wrestling on the edge with less stopages because on wrestlers goes off the matt. Many takedown attempts fail because the defensive wrestler can keep moving outward taking the attacker with him. The outer boundary would prevent that.
When wrestling on feet, the current out of bounds circle would apply and there would be no push outs. Takedown attempts can easily takes wrestlers off the Matt and that shouldn‘t be punishished. Current stalling criteria would apply.
‘those are my thoughts. Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes. Im a pc guy using an iPad and I struggle to edit on this thing.

The mat can't be any bigger space would become an issue. The tables at NCAA are already touching the mat. And they won't remove rows. I have said put a zone on the mat like freestyle. It could be tape around the mat for starters until everyone replaced the mats they had . Having everyone in wrestling have to buy new bigger mats would be a financial nightmare