Lets change OT in high school.
- Thread starter miketyson
- Start date
IF it's officiated correctly, it's fine the way it is. Just my opinion.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
"officiated correctly"?? WTH does that mean?
BTW, the original poster must be a short timer. We had a 1 minute SV followed by a 30 second ride out for many years and people did nothing but complain about the unfairness of it.
1:30 on your feet.
Another change to add. In the 1:30 only a takedown immediately ends the match. A penalty point does not immediately end the match. It can win the match but only after the 90 seconds if still winning.
No one wants to see a penalty point end the match in the 1st OT.
Another change to add. In the 1:30 only a takedown immediately ends the match. A penalty point does not immediately end the match. It can win the match but only after the 90 seconds if still winning.
No one wants to see a penalty point end the match in the 1st OT.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
You mean like a punch (for a penalty point) should not end it? IOW, it should be a penalty all throughout a match but now it doesn't count?? You need to think this through a little more.
TopBottomNeutralDefer
Member
100% agree with the penalty point scenario. I'd break down the OT to 1min, 30sec top/30sec bottom, 1 minute. Or introduce riding time in Ohio.
Jim, my interpretation of what he meant was, some bogus stall call because a Kid A half shoots Kid B out of bounds to get a restart and kid B gets hits for his second stalling call. Yes a lot of refs will let them wrestle, but some refs will call this a stall based on how the rule is written and interpreted. but Kid A initiated and had no intentions of scoring, just wanted to WIN on the stall call. I sure as hell do not want to see a good match ruined like that but since interpretation is subjective to how you understand the rule. i think a punch is 100% an agreeable offense to end a match and reward a penalty point on.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
Riding time?? God NO!!! It makes the college product unwatchable. Riding time needs to go away and never return.
If wrestler B is smart, they don't go near the OOB's.
You say that A had no intention of scoring. How is "intent"judged? I certainly have no idea what their "intent" might be. BTW, how do you know that B's intention wasn't to have safe haven in case things went south?
Again, it comes back to calling the match differently in OT vs in the regular match. IMO, a bad idea.
WishYouWereHere
Well-known member
If the official is smart, he recognizes that wrestler A is pushing B with no intention whatsoever of making a takedown attempt; only trying to get the stall call. He’s been doing it all match!!!
I like the 1:30 or 2:00 first OT.
Didn't want to specify the OT mistake made recently in Columbus.
TopBottomNeutralDefer
Member
You're right Jim, if Kid B was smart, heck even good at wrestling, he would just score in regulation and not let it get to OT....
Refs in NFL call playoff games differently than regular season. NBA officials ref differently in post season than in regular season i think they call it swallowing the whistle. It's not to officiate differently rather to let the talent actually playout in full speed to what the sport is supposed look like. And not to be so quick to make a decision that cannot be undone especially in wrestling.
Don't like ride time, learn how to wrestle on the mat so you don't get ridden out. Might as well make it Freestyle then. Its control.
you win in wrestling having control whether for a takedown or controlling the point of attack or controlling your opponent on the mat.
When you control 1 minute of a 6 minute match that is 16.67% of the match and in HS there is no value for it leaving points on the board.
Isn't that why college went to three point takedowns to reward the wrestler more for the work he did and widen the gap from getting an escape compared to a takedown. Well if you ride bottom guy out and over a minute and he doesn't escape, you get zero points for outworking your opponent.
ShootNation
Well-known member
Jim, a punch is a disqualification, it doesn't matter if a point is awarded or not....
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
It's an example, nothing more. Make it a poke in the eye. Feel better now?
The point is that changing rules to fit specific situations is a bad idea.
Let's hear your idea so we all know what the best solution might be.
On second thought, never mind.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
I have to admit that this makes your idea MUCH more clear. I would have zero issue with this as you propose.
Speaking only for myself, when we get to the two 30-30's, I have to tell the wrestlers to continue to wrestle and do not stop unless there is a fall (not very likely). This to make sure they know but just as importantly to remind myself not to blow the whistle upon the first score. That was a hard habit to break when we went to this method.
No OT for duals call it a tie. No team points or 1.5 each. For tourney use criteria, most back points, most takedowns, Then maybe last takedown like in freestyle. I hate OT just finish in the regulation. People will wrestle different without OT and this will produce more action and excitement.
Old&Grumpy142
Well-known member
Simplify it. Shut the clock off and the first point scored wins?
Last edited:
I can just see 2 heavy weights hand fighting for an hour haha
Old&Grumpy142
Well-known member
Do you seriously think two heavyweights could hand fight for an hour?
TopBottomNeutralDefer
Member
Jim, did you see Carr, VS Mesenbrink? That match is a great example of exactly what I am referring to. Carr got hit 3x for stalling which in fact put Mesenbrink back into the match with 2pts off of those calls with chance to tie it because of Ride Time which you want to eliminate. Seriously, want to know if you think Mesenbrink would have deserved that match based on the stall calls Carr received. Carr clearly outwrestled him, and had at one point over 2 mins of RT. The ref wanted to be apart of the match, instead of letting them wrestle..
Well we will call it handfighting
Point being with no time on the clock there is not an urgency to score, or it may take way longer to get a winner. With the current system it is a controlled time with ride outs being 30 seconds and there is a winner within that time.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
You are trying to change the direction of the thread from OT in HS to riding time in college.
I would have to go back to watch it closely in order to have meaningful thought about it.
The first thing I would ask is, is your view colored by the fact that Carr spent his prep career in Ohio? Only you know the answer and what you say on here doesn't change what you feel.
I don't remember the details of the match well enough to agree or disagree with the calls. Were they deserved? Apparently the man with the whistle thought so. I guess my feeling is that after you have been warned once, that should make you get going. If not, the first stalling point certainly should.
BTW, I don't agree that Carr "clearly outwrestled him". Even if the two stall calls were taken away, the final before riding time would have been 8-6. I don't really consider that as being outwrestled. Your opinion varies.
I have to admit that I am not clear on part of what you wrote. It was that the stalling calls put Mesenbrink back in the match with a chance to tie it because of riding time. Uh, the riding time advantage was with Carr so it would not have helped Mesenbrink at all. Right?
I understand that you are never going to change to my view on riding time (it is boring) and I am never going to change to your view. I can live with that as I am 100% sure that, in my remaining years, riding time will not return.
You'd be surprised. Have you been to the Tournament of Champions that was held in Columbus(now West Virginia)? That's what they do and I've worked tables there a few years and the unlimited OT isn't nearly that bad. I've had a few of each (lower, middle, and uppers) and honestly, it's the middle and lower guys that last longer. The big guys tend to say screw it, go big and call it a day.Well we will call it handfighting
Point being with no time on the clock there is not an urgency to score, or it may take way longer to get a winner. With the current system it is a controlled time with ride outs being 30 seconds and there is a winner within that time.
Fair point. That was my next thought, just tired of being there and say screw it try something. However, ToC doesn't have a state title on the line. So I don't think it would be an apples to apples comparison? Although maybe it would push them to train a little more knowing they may have to go for 10+ minutes and not 8:30 match?
You're right, and I did think of that when typing my response, that ToC is not the same intensity. For the younger (jh and some HS), they might think different. But from a strategy standpoint, would I rather get a takedown in regulation and try and ride them out or wait until that OT where I only need the takedown and match over? Personally, I rather end it in regulation, but I can see the appeal of pushing to OT if the guy is good on bottom.
Campolongo
Moderator
The only change I could get on board with the current OT procedures is allowing "neutral" to be chosen in the 30/30 periods.
No other change makes any sense to me.
No other change makes any sense to me.
Jim Behrens
Well-known member
That was tried at this year's tournament with (depending on your side) mixed results.
TopBottomNeutralDefer
Member
No I don't care about RT., I care about the stalling calls that Carr was hit with. Instead of letting them wrestle. the ref put himself into the match making those three stall calls. Ive been consistent on my stance. you flip flopped. i said to INTRODUCE RT as a change to avoid more OT and you missed the entire example I provided about winning a match in OT on a stall call.. Those stall calls are exactly what got Mesinbrink back into the match. Let the kids wrestle to the highest ability. not be petty and call a stall to get the kid back into the match. idk what you dont understand about that. Its pretty cut and dry.
CARR is lucky to have the RT locked up to win, not the same as winning a match on a stall call in OT which the match was heading towards., two separate things. You are trying to single the RT.... the focus is on letting them wrestle, not RT. where a Ref can interject himself into the match.