NFHS rule changes for 2024-25

 
"Finally, the committee approved a new Referee’s Time-Out Signal. The signal, which is used in many other sports, is both hands/fingers pointing inward to the referee’s chest."

I'm SO glad they changed this...I was always confused about when an official called timeout. Who called it? Was it a wrestler? A coach? Fate? Destiny? [/end sarcasm font] Was this REALLY needed? do we just put rules in the book to make it longer at this point?

"Wrestlers and officials know where the center of the mat is located without the 10-foot circle.”

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. I coached quite a few kids who would have needed a map to find the middle of the mat. Some of them couldn't find their headgear while they were wearing it.
 
Maybe someone should check up on Crimson 🤷‍♂️... he might have fell out reading the freestyle regime has now infiltrated our institutions at the high school level. Or even worse, maybe they got to him first before they broke the news. He knew too much. Watch what you Yappi people!
 
Not sure if I like the new scoring. Higher point values means less action and more stalling. 5 TD/moves = 10pts vs 3 TD/moves = 9pts. Looks like less action to me.


NEW: For your 3 takedowns you receive 9 points, if you choose to cut your opponent for each of those takedown, they get 3 points. 6 point gap for just 3 takedowns.
- Old: For your 3 takedowns you receive 6 points, if you choose to cut your opponent for each of those takedowns, they get 3 points. 3 point gap for your 3 takedowns.

OLD: For your 5 takedowns resulting in 10 points, again if you choose to cut your opponent, they get 5 points total.
- New: For your 5 takedowns, you receive 15 points, if you choose to cut your opponent for each takedown, they get 5 points total. For the same effort, you will now have a 10 point gap as opposed to just 5. With one more takedown, you'll have a 13 point gap and you're just a 2 point turn away from a tech. They escape? You're still just 1 takedown from a tech at that point.

A competitor's ability to fight back into matches is something else to consider. The point scoring adjustments is a win I think for anyone with a largely attacking mentality. I worry a tad about the one point in-bounds, but that is more about being able to utilize the rule properly due to spacing issues, as opposed to the rule creating some kind of safety issue, or creating more ambiguity. Im not an official, but I think like others have said the rule change could help them make more clear calls.
 
I think I like it.
Now the NFHS needs to change the weight classes to more closely align with the upper college weights.
College = … 174, 184, 197,
OHSAA = … 175, 190, 215,
If colleges are looking to fill their 184 or 197 spot, who are they recruiting?
 
Not sure if I like the new scoring. Higher point values means less action and more stalling. 5 TD/moves = 10pts vs 3 TD/moves = 9pts. Looks like less action to me.
That is a most excellent point! You know, when Great Britain controlled India they hated all their poisonous snakes. So they tried to fix it by paying a bounty on such snakes. So India created snake farms in order to make a good profit on all those poisonous snakes.
 
Just a random opinion that I have thought for many years - the real problem with the scoring is that an escape is worth way too much. For example: I’ve always thought it was illogical to say that two wrestler should be tied 4-4 going the 2nd period after wrestler A took down and let up wrestler B twice, while only giving up one cheap takedown right before time ran out.

With escapes only being worth a single point, making it a fraction is not a viable solution, but increasing the points for all the rest of the maneuvers would do the trick. Without anyone having said it, the rule changes this year - 3pt TDs and up to 4 points for nearfall is essentially solving the REAL problem - the over-valued escape point.

With that being said, I am concerned about the following, in no particular order:

1. I’m worried that the reversal staying at only 2 points might be problematic. I’ve thought of a million different scenarios but after gaming it all out I’m not sure if this is going hurt mat wrestling or not. On the surface it looks like a shift in emphasis from “control” to takedowns. Ohio wrestlers will be happy that’s for sure. I wonder if “ride time” was even relevant in college this year? Any fans want to weigh in?

2. In context of increasing the value of a takedown I don’t think back exposure is worth enough. Remember, IMO these rule changes were to correct the overvalued escape. We increased the takedown by 50%. 2 points for 2 seconds is unchanged. It’s very hard to achieve exposure against a decent wrestler. I think 2 seconds should be worth 3 points and 5 seconds worth at least 5 points.

3. We’ve made it easier to get majors and tech falls, right? The question is will this be problematic for team scores or for matches ending too quickly? Maybe shorter matches for blowouts is a good thing?

My overall assessment is that these rule changes are a net positive for the sport. Maybe my (minor) concerns are unfounded. But what I’m hoping is that they improve these changes even further by making reversals worth 3, and simplifying nearfalls to be worth 3 and 5 points respectively, and to make tech falls worth 20.
 
More points = more incentive to score.
Also greater the risk to be countered or stuffed and reshot on or a go behind. It’s the same dilemma and changes nothing other than putting more emphasis and rewarding a neutral wrestler over a mat wrestler. The numbers didn’t change other than they are less now due to earlier stoppage for tech falls. I know in your head you grabbed that sound bite “more reward more action” but it just made it easier for the cat and mouse kick out game and to slowly move away from mat wrestling and destroy Folk Wrestling which should emphasize the three positions. You take a guy down to turn him on his back and pin him while maintaining control. That is the game and kick outs are bad sportsmanship.
 
Crimson is correct in addition a 3-1 lead in the 3rd will lead to more stalling as you can get hit 3xs before it has consequences,
 
I think I like it.
Now the NFHS needs to change the weight classes to more closely align with the upper college weights.
College = … 174, 184, 197,
OHSAA = … 175, 190, 215,
If colleges are looking to fill their 184 or 197 spot, who are they recruiting?
Yes they should’ve left the weights alone some five years back 170-182-195-220
 
Also greater the risk to be countered or stuffed and reshot on or a go behind. It’s the same dilemma and changes nothing other than putting more emphasis and rewarding a neutral wrestler over a mat wrestler. The numbers didn’t change other than they are less now due to earlier stoppage for tech falls. I know in your head you grabbed that sound bite “more reward more action” but it just made it easier for the cat and mouse kick out game and to slowly move away from mat wrestling and destroy Folk Wrestling which should emphasize the three positions. You take a guy down to turn him on his back and pin him while maintaining control. That is the game and kick outs are bad sportsmanship.

Also greater the risk to be countered or stuffed and reshot on or a go behind. It’s the same dilemma and changes nothing other than putting more emphasis and rewarding a neutral wrestler over a mat wrestler. The numbers didn’t change other than they are less now due to earlier stoppage for tech falls. I know in your head you grabbed that sound bite “more reward more action” but it just made it easier for the cat and mouse kick out game and to slowly move away from mat wrestling and destroy Folk Wrestling which should emphasize the three positions. You take a guy down to turn him on his back and pin him while maintaining control. That is the game and kick outs are bad sportsmanship.
Greater risk to be countered? If as a wrestler or a coach you’re worried about getting to your offense and attacks because there is a risk you can get countered I’m sorry but you’ve lost the plot.
 
Greater risk to be countered? If as a wrestler or a coach you’re worried about getting to your offense and attacks because there is a risk you can get countered I’m sorry but you’ve lost the plot.
I am all about opening one’s offense and attacking. Scoring points is the name of the game. I’m saying that the extra point doesn’t change the risk of being countered or one’s particular style ( some are counter wrestlers) is the reality and this isn’t really my problem with it. My problem with three point take downs is the reversal is still two. We are giving an edge to a neutral wrestler over a better mat wrestler with an unbalance between the two. If you read Nick Corey on Track wrestling or Kyle Kling on Flo wrestling you can see the agenda and where it is headed. Bottom line is folk style is a better product than freestyle and NCAA viewing ratings compared to Olympic ratings is the proof! I believe freestyle/neutral wrestling advocates want to diminish mat wrestling. This is my point and to say an extra point for take downs creates more action is false. We already have neutral wrestlers in Folk but now they are getting an advantage for what they already do. That is wrestle from their feet as much as possible and avoid the mat. Folk is three positions and we need to go back to first period is neutral and the 2nd and 3rd period are top and bottom like the old days.
 
Last edited:
I am all about opening one’s offense and attacking. Scoring points is the name of the game. I’m saying that the extra point doesn’t change the risk of being countered or one’s particular style ( some are counter wrestlers) is the reality and this isn’t really my problem with it. My problem with three point take downs is the reversal is still two. We are giving an edge to a neutral wrestler over a better mat wrestler with an unbalance between the two. If you read Nick Corey on Track wrestling or Kyle Kling on Flo wrestling you can see the agenda and where it is headed. Bottom line is folk style is a better product than freestyle and NCAA viewing ratings compared to Olympic ratings is the proof! I believe freestyle/neutral wrestling advocates want to diminish mat wrestling. This is my point and to say an extra point for take downs creates more action is false. We already have neutral wrestlers in Folk but now they are getting an advantage for what they already do. That is wrestle from their feet as much as possible and avoid the mat. Folk is three positions and we need to go back to first period is neutral and the 2nd and 3rd period are top and bottom like the old days.
Jesse Mendez vs Beau Bartlett finals match ended 4-1 and both wrestlers took 2 total shots. Mendez wrestles Yianni a month later and that match ends 12-7 with one less minute of wrestling. But yes I’m sure folkstyle is the superior product.
 
Bottom line is folk style is a better product than freestyle and NCAA viewing ratings compared to Olympic ratings is the proof!
@Crimsonblooded you make good points and counter points. You're an advocate for folkstyle and that is appreciated.
Comparing ratings to determine the best product between folk and free doesn't seem like the proof that's appropriate...

The NCAA tourney is a primetime, "big city, big lights" ESPN production. Casual fans can tune in for a few hours and root on their team. Folks can do that even without knowing a single wrestler. It's fast and fun and built for, "casual fan."

"Casual USA fan" doesn't tune into freestyle/Olympic wrestling. Very few of us are up at 3am getting ready to watch the RD1 57 kg Azerbaijan vs India match.

I'm not advocating for any style. I'm a wrestling junkie. I love all of it... ✌️
 
Top