Jump to content
  • Featured
    Y2CJ41

    By Y2CJ41

    Y2CJ41

    By Y2CJ41 •

    THREEEEE Big Rule Changes Coming to High School Wrestling

    Big changes are coming to high school wrestling this season. Over the past ten years the collegiate folkstyle rules have become almost a different sport with out of bound stalling, what determines out of bounds, and this past year the three point takedown. While many were clamoring for the college out of bounds rules with only one supporting point determining being in bounds it was repeatedly shot down by the NFHS due to mat and gym size concerns.

     

    This year though, the NFHS has decided that it is time to implement the one supporting point criteria for high school wrestling. While making the wrestling area a little bigger this rule will make it easier for referees to focus on the action instead of checking for the proper amount of supporting points of the wrestlers.

     

    On top of that change the NFHS has approved the popular three-point takedown. This year at the NCAA level they went to a three-point takedown. Many people were cautious, but also excited about that big change. After the NCAA season concluded many felt that the three-point takedown was a huge success.

     

    If these two big changes aren’t enough for you, the NFHS has also aligned with the NCAA level with adding a four-point nearfall. After four seconds on your back the offensive wrestler will now be awarded four points instead of taking five seconds to earn only three points. This was implemented in the NCAA since 2015 and last year they updated the rule to allow two points for two seconds, three points for three seconds, and four points for four seconds or more. The NFHS will follow the NCAA and implement all three scenarios for nearfall.

     

    Other rule changes include a clarification of the Technical Fall criteria and not requiring a 10-foot circle on the wrestling mat.

     

    Here is the NFHS article on the changes
    https://www.nfhs.org/articles/participants-now-inbounds-with-one-point-of-contact-in-high-school-wrestling/

    NFHS Article.pdf

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    busstogate

    Thank you for posting this.  I am assuming the link will resolve soon.  It is currently 404. 

    It's crazy that you could end up with a five-point near-fall if the wrestler in the predicament calls injury time, assuming they keep that part of the existing rule.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    randalllynch
    10 minutes ago, busstogate said:

    Thank you for posting this.  I am assuming the link will resolve soon.  It is currently 404. 

    It's crazy that you could end up with a five-point near-fall if the wrestler in the predicament calls injury time, assuming they keep that part of the existing rule.

     

    Log in to NFHS and you can get to the article

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Galagore
    4 minutes ago, CommanderLightFeet said:

    Definitely will help some kids out that are not as good of wrestlers on the mat

     

    It should help everyone lean into their offensive strengths. The "best on their feet" wrestler can now use take down/let up even more successfully. The "has a hard time with take downs, but can really ride" wrestler can now really take advantage of choice between periods. From what we've seen in college, this should really open up what high school wrestlers are willing to risk to score points.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Y2CJ41
    14 hours ago, purdue02 said:

    With the implementation of the 3 point takedown, will all takedown records now be untouchable?

     

    Previously 15 takedowns was roughly a tech but now it would be done in 7-8 takedowns.

    How many takedown records were done in this manner? If you are getting takedown records by teching kids in this manner it just means you wrestled a super weak schedule and your record doesn't mean anything.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    casualwrestlingfan

    Still not a fan of the three point takedown. I like having a reversal be as much as a takedown. I think the better solution would have been to address stalling for mat wrestling. Now it feels like we are going more neutral focus of takedown & give up the escape to get a faster tech.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Galagore
    12 hours ago, casualwrestlingfan said:

    Still not a fan of the three point takedown. I like having a reversal be as much as a takedown. I think the better solution would have been to address stalling for mat wrestling. Now it feels like we are going more neutral focus of takedown & give up the escape to get a faster tech.

     

    The reversal thing is something I struggled with initially, but in the end am fine with. Why do you think a reversal and take down should be worth the same amount? Just curious on another's perspective.

     

    This scoring situation didn't seem to cause any more stalling at the college level...in fact, it seemed to open things up. Bottom wrestlers eager to get out so they can get to closing the gap, top wrestlers eager to take chances because a) there is a bigger reward to trying to expose the opponent's back and b) if it doesn't work out, they're still up 2 points and not just 1.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jcjcjc

    Rules are rules and whatever they are we’ll figure em out.

     

    The only thing that bugs me, is that a turn can be less than a takedown (2 v 3), and that doesn’t really make sense in any style of wrestling, as near falls are semantically the second best thing in a wrestling match that has falls. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Y2CJ41
    14 hours ago, casualwrestlingfan said:

    Still not a fan of the three point takedown. I like having a reversal be as much as a takedown. I think the better solution would have been to address stalling for mat wrestling. Now it feels like we are going more neutral focus of takedown & give up the escape to get a faster tech.

    Stalling is a judgement call and hard to have interpreted the same across the state or even country.

     

    NCAA referees work diligently to keep things as uniform as possible and we still have great variations in the way some call stalling. As much as you want to clamor about rules for stalling they will always leave a lot of room for interpretation from all refs.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    casualwrestlingfan
    3 hours ago, Galagore said:

     

    The reversal thing is something I struggled with initially, but in the end am fine with. Why do you think a reversal and take down should be worth the same amount? Just curious on another's perspective.

     

    This scoring situation didn't seem to cause any more stalling at the college level...in fact, it seemed to open things up. Bottom wrestlers eager to get out so they can get to closing the gap, top wrestlers eager to take chances because a) there is a bigger reward to trying to expose the opponent's back and b) if it doesn't work out, they're still up 2 points and not just 1.

    I feel it's going to lead to what I call a freestyle mindset in folkstyle. Say Wrestler A is great on his/her feet but not as good on the mat. Wrestler A gets a takedown but it's not likely leading to near fall. Wrestler A is going to cut right away and smartly so. What used to be a 4-2 lead is now 6-2. Guessing choice is going to be more neutral than top & bottom. I felt mat wrestling was a great equalizer for those not as good on their feet. In that prior example, if the other wrestler down 4-2 gets choice & gets a reversal, we are tied. Instead down 2. Just feel it will lead to less mat wrestling & more neutral to avoid mat wrestling. If they make options for period 2 top, bottom or defer and period 3 just top & bottom, then I'd be ok with it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    bbulldog152
    11 minutes ago, casualwrestlingfan said:

    I feel it's going to lead to what I call a freestyle mindset in folkstyle. Say Wrestler A is great on his/her feet but not as good on the mat. Wrestler A gets a takedown but it's not likely leading to near fall. Wrestler A is going to cut right away and smartly so. What used to be a 4-2 lead is now 6-2. Guessing choice is going to be more neutral than top & bottom. I felt mat wrestling was a great equalizer for those not as good on their feet. In that prior example, if the other wrestler down 4-2 gets choice & gets a reversal, we are tied. Instead down 2. Just feel it will lead to less mat wrestling & more neutral to avoid mat wrestling. If they make options for period 2 top, bottom or defer and period 3 just top & bottom, then I'd be ok with it.

    At the same time you have a chance to get 4 near fall which will encourage a wrestler that may be better on top to be more aggressive.  Not to mentioned with only 2 point reversal it becomes more of a high reward low risk situation. For example before if you're up 2-0 and aggressive on top and give up a reversal it's tied. Now with a takedown you're up 3-0 and can work for 4 points if you get reversed you're still up 3-2. The wrestlers that are going to work for takedowns are going to whether uts 2 or 3 points. I think this will encourage wrestlers to get better on there feet and on top. I agree you may see less wrestlers choose bottom, but I also think you might see an increase in choosing top.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Galagore

    When you think about what the verb "wrestle" actually means, it makes sense that the highest rewards go to a) taking an opponent from the feet to the mat and b) physically controlling the opponent on top to the point that shoulders are exposed. And let's not forget, while a 2 point near fall still has the top wrestler in deficit, the top wrestler can continue scoring from that position. When you score a take down, you are done scoring take downs until you concede points to your opponent. That would seem to more than balance out the score advantage of a take down vs the lowest scoring near fall.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    SunDevils
    On 4/27/2024 at 8:10 AM, Galagore said:

     

    The reversal thing is something I struggled with initially, but in the end am fine with. Why do you think a reversal and take down should be worth the same amount? Just curious on another's perspective.

     

     

    First, just stating, I like the rule changes. Fully in support of all of them. Nor do I care if the reversal is weighted as heavily as a takedown.

     

    Just providing conversation. I could see the argument for degree of difficulty. Reversals are far less likely than takedowns. Which results in a higher degree of difficulty to execute, meaning (if logic follows) it should be weighted equally or more. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Galagore
    15 minutes ago, SunDevils said:

     

    First, just stating, I like the rule changes. Fully in support of all of them. Nor do I care if the reversal is weighted as heavily as a takedown.

     

    Just providing conversation. I could see the argument for degree of difficulty. Reversals are far less likely than takedowns. Which results in a higher degree of difficulty to execute, meaning (if logic follows) it should be weighted equally or more. 

     

    Not sure I agree with the conclusion, but certainly logic that can be followed.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.