Cael was correct and they absolutely need a step out rule RIGHT NOW. Everyone agrees by the way.
Except of course Merrill.and Robideau
Except of course Merrill.and Robideau
Step Out rule. MUST CHANGE THIS YEAR
- Thread starter Efejle
- Start date
Just watched kosko and Tirapelle today and they absolutely say a step out penalty is necessary. They went on for a half hour on the topic.
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
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
Last edited:
You made a formatting error in your thread title. Any statement that is written in all caps must be ended with multiple exclamation points.
Yeah we don’t want it to become a Sumo contest… but we’re seeing the other extreme lately… no matter the rule change, the race will be on to exploit it!
You made a formatting error in your thread title. Any statement that is written in all caps must be ended with multiple exclamation points.
HE NEEDS TO HIT THE WEIGHTS HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Step out with continued wrestling, I might support if all mats are the same size and a zone is made mandatory.
I hear what you're saying in your earlier post, but Pyles is absolutely correct about this. Folk and Folk Officials reward the diametrically wrong wrestler on a constant basis (this includes the failure to make calls against clear stallers looking to do nothing offensive but looking to do anything-&-everything to shorten matches and mute scoring - the backer-uppers, the flee-&-dancers, the habitual dive-for-an-ankle stalematers, the clench-hangers.... etc.... anything to keep the clock running in Neutral and thwart opponents' Offensive attempts, but never any Offensive of their own). How many matches did we see in the Championships with 6+ minutes of Neutral wrestling in regulation and no scoring?
If you institute a first fully OB rule mandatory penalty, you will not see pushouts as wrestlers will stop wrestling the edge (most of the defensive wrestlers that went 100% OB - and it happened repeatedly both engaged and not engaged [i.e., they were 100% OB by themselves and they took thenselves there] did not happen via pushout. Action was not stopped because the more aggressive wrestler remained inbounds so the clock continued to burn precious time which is ridiculous as it favors the staller, 100% defensive wrestler. ). Just as Jordan Burroughs said, edge wrestling will stop as the edge wrester will understand it is a losing strategy every time and will learn that he has to win matches in the center off the mat.
They should also change the takedown criteria for fleeing wrestlers (defensive wrestler either partially or 100% OB and within the grasp of the offensive wrestler). Criteria should become instantaneous takedown as soon as the offensive wrestler's free-hand merely touches the any part of defensive wrestler's far leg or hip. If they want to use OB as part of their defense, than they expose themselves to the lower takedown criteria for attempting to flee the mat and illegally stop the match (you are not allowed to intentionally leave the mat in any form of wrestling - this "continuing action" call is utter horsecrap - the defensive wrestler is INTENTIONALLY moving themselves Out-of-Bounds, the diametric opposite of "continuing the action", but leave it to Folk to come up with a bs name for a bs action by a DEFENSIVE wrestler.).
It's time Folk stopped bastardizing the spirit of the rules of the fundamental and seminal sport and STOPPED rewarding the actions of the Defensive Wrestler and started rewarding the wrestler they are supposed to reward - the actions of the more aggressive and Offensive Wrestler.
Last edited:
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?
One thing that also doesn't make sense to me - 2 points for a reversal? Shouldn't that be at least 3 points?
With current rules, a reversal is only preferable over a simple escape in certain situations. Doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't know that making a reversal 3pts is the answer and I have no alternatives.
I'm against the step out rule. Wrestlers just circle before the OB rather than after it. You might as well just make the mat smaller.
A rule I am for is treating grabbing the ankle while someone has the legs the same as grabbing the ankle on top. Five seconds is a stall. A defensive wrestler still would have plenty of options.
A rule I am for is treating grabbing the ankle while someone has the legs the same as grabbing the ankle on top. Five seconds is a stall. A defensive wrestler still would have plenty of options.
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.
We hear this complaint a lot. Which version of wrestling that has a stepout rule, has turned into sumo matches?
Though one thing sumo has over folk: the guys work really hard to stay off the edge. As opposed to folk, where many guys work really hard to get themselves out of bounds.
It's now been 4 years since Trent Hidlay wrestled Aaron Brooks from out of bounds, and we're still arguing about a stepout?
As an old school coach who still thinks a TD should be two not three, I do not want to see a push out rule which is what it would become. Just an entire match of trying to push or force your opponent out of bounds. In my years, I have see a lot of rules change but not a lot of changes that actually helped the sport. The implementation of things like 2 tie breakers, multiple bricks, upstairs reviews and the three point take down have not really improved things much.For every change there is a reaction, for example, the three point take down has almost eliminated going for a reversal. The tie breakers have lead to a "circle and stall until the TB" strategy. I saw a lot of great wrestling this weekend but saw far too many uncalled stalls, long reviews and matches in TB.
In addition, I'd be in favor of the current rule that action doesn't stop until both are fully OB, but when action is stopped, the point is awarded to the 2nd man out.
Wrestlers need to start being penalized for "Fleeing the Mat" in Folk - it is not legal under the seminal and fundamental rules of the sport - it is supposed to be penalized. How can you call the intentions of a wrestler who is moving and dragging themselves Out-of-Bounds on a perpendicular line to the tangent line on the outer circle looking to "Continue the Action" while their opponent is attempting to drag them back inbounds??? Their intention is one thing, and one thing only - flee the mat area and get a restart by taking the pursuing wrestler OB with them OR touching some portion of their body off the entire mat to gain a restart and thwart their opponent's scoring attempt. There is no intent to "Continue the Action" - quite the opposite, they are quite clearly attempting to "flee the mat" to thwart their opponent's superior and near-takedown position. That is not supposed to be legal and is an embarrassment for Folk to continue to encourage this type of wrestling and maneuver.
I'm still not certain how I actually feel about the step out rule. One thing I don't like about the step out in freestyle is the number of times someone gets a single leg and walks the opponent out of bounds to get a point. It always seemed like a cheap way to get a point, but.....I am starting to think the guy who took the risk and attempted a leg attack deserves to get some reward for his risk. In folkstyle we might see more leg attacks just to take advantage of the step out point verses taking risk only to not get any points. I don't see it turning into sumo. Just like freestyle, wrestlers adjust and become very proficient at circling back in to avoid the step out point. The thing I do foresee happening is we see even more dive rolls to avoid going out of bounds when the opponent has a single leg elevated. I'm not sure whether that makes it a positive or negative. I also wonder if they implement the step out should we go back to a two-point takedown??
I would like to see an inner circle on the mat maybe 4 feet in from the out of bounds. If you are the wrestler that backs into that area between the two circles and goes out of bounds for any reason it's an automatic stall call. No stall warning on the wrestler that goes into the section going forward no matter what happens.
OK - how about this. The rules were changed for a wrestler hanging onto a leg so that the ref now initiates a 5 count after which a stall call is given. Why not make the same rule for any time even part of a wrestler's body goes outside the outer circle? As soon as part of his body moves outside the line, the ref starts counting out loud. The wrestler will have 5 seconds to get all of his body inside the circle or he will draw a stall call. If the other wrestler prevents him from coming back in, so be it. There is your pushout rule except that the point doesn't go up instantaneously. The 5 count will dissuade guys like Ferrari who automatically gravitate towards the edge so they can prevent their opponent from executing a clean takedown. It will also allow some latitude for guys who temporarily go outside the circle but immediately move to return to the inside area of the mat.
Until the last few years I was Keep your freestyle away from my folk style...
They refuse to call stalling and it doesn't seem like they are going to change that.
I like Zains take, push out rules once you hit tie breakers.
Something does need done, it's not fair to punish the wrestlers pushing the pace.. We won't always be the ones benefitting from this.
They refuse to call stalling and it doesn't seem like they are going to change that.
I like Zains take, push out rules once you hit tie breakers.
Something does need done, it's not fair to punish the wrestlers pushing the pace.. We won't always be the ones benefitting from this.
Incentives matter. Guys are more likely to finish T3 inbounds than T2.
Folk, and Fok Officials, continually (and embarassingly) rewards the diametrically wrong wrestler - the passive/defensive wrestler. This whole subjective "defensive wrestler reaction time" placed entirely in the hands of Folk Officials is nothing but a new extension of this "teward the diametrically wrong wrestler" bs by Folk Officials (i.e., completely subjective and the "rule" is literally being made by each individual official - it is not an objective rule or criteria being applied by the Officials. Folk needs to get these lame Officials out of the rulemaking business and limit them to applying the rules [i.e., objective criteria] which can be reviewed.).
I don't like Zain's idea because it creates different sets of rules for the same activity in regulation vs OT.
In the heat of the moment, guys are not gonna start processing the action differently just because the clock says 7:10 instead of 6:50.
Freestyle doesn't become Sumo. If we go to a step out they gotta say it can't be reviewed. We have enough stoppages and the reviews to see who stepped out 1st would happen often. The mat would need a zone like freestyle as well so we could say if you escape from your opponent in the zone no step out can happen. Otherwise guys will release on the edge and shoot them out
Pure bulldozing would probably not become widespread, but I can picture someone like Alex Marinelli having a hayday with it!
The problem is that too many guys are gaming the current rules. Ferrari in particular comes to mind, maybe because he just rubs me the wrong way. But when you let guys do splits on the outer circle where most of their body is out of bounds, it restricts the ability of the offensive wrestler to finish. Most of his options will result in an out of bounds call by the ref. It's a defensive tactic that is really just stalling. If there were rules in place that would really compel the wrestler to come back inside the outer circle line, you would eliminate the automatic backing towards the outside every time a wrestler makes a leg attack.
Mostly out-of-bounds? Tons of occasions where the defensive wrestler is 100% OB and the only reason clock keeps ticking is because the Offensive Wrestler is still inbounds. There were examples this weekend where one wrestler voluntarily went completely out-of-bounds unengaged and continued to maintain his space 100% OB and the clock only continued to tick because the offensive wrestler was still inbounds.
Fleeing the mat is supposed to be illegal and all of these are absolute examples of one of the wrestlers fleeing the mat to avoid being scored on - none are legal. Folk claiming that Defensive wrestlers intentionally dragging themselves out-of-bounds should be viewed as the Defensive wrestler attempting to "continue the action" rather than "fleeing the mat" is beyond ridiculously laughable.
Folk favors the Defensive/Passive wrestler all over the place and now they have extended the bs even further with this nonsense about subjective "Defensive Reaction Time" rather than objective, easily measured/quantified and reviewable criteria for a takedown. Just another example of Folk rewarding the diametric opposite wrestler that they are supposed to - it's beyond ridiculous.
For clarification, Folk does not reward the defensive wrestler, the referees do. They have plenty of stalling rules to eliminate the retreat to the circle and continue to fail to enforce them.
the easiest one virtually never gets called. Wrestler outside the circle, not engaged with a wrestler and not even attempting to get back in. The rules make it like the Hot Lava Game in the living room and refs simply do nothing.
How has Iowa fared in freestyle where the stepout rule is in effect?
The powers that be are equally complicit and guilty as the mat officials as they have literally made the Folk Officials the defacto rulebook by putting all the power in the mat Officials' hands via all the subjectively and how all-encompassing a single subjective rule is to how the match is called and which wrestlers actions are rewarded. Officials are empowered to call a match and thereby "write the rule" any way they choose.... and reward whichever wrestler they chose (and most Folk Officials reward the passive/defensive wrestler over and over and over - the diametric opposite wrestler the diametric opposite wrestler that is supposed to be rewarded - and they're doing it again with this "Defensive Reaction Time" bs).
Officials are supposed to be enforcing objective rules - not be the creator of the rules as they see fit. Folk Officials need to be taken out of the rule-making business by objectifying the rules as they do in Free. You flee the mat - penalty.... you're the first one 100% OB - penalty.... etc....
All fair enough, but I am not so sure that we "really" want to be so binary about it. While defensive wrestling has its problems and should not be incented, it has its place and certainly shouldn't be eliminated. Lots of ways to incent action - including by injecting subjective uncertainty and risk - that don't have to fundamentally change the nature of folk.
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.
Last edited:
That's why I think the idea of adding a count to the OOB defensive wrestler makes sense. He still has the ability to use defensive tactics, but he can't just sit on the edge of the circle like Taylor, Minto and Ferrari and burn up 30 - 40 seconds of clock time while the offensive wrestler is trying to drag him back into the circle. That's not wrestling anyway. It's more like a tug of war contest.
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.
Last edited:
We have enough counts we don't need more. You go out of bounds and it's a point.