Jump to content

Scoring change idea- offensive and defensive takedowns


Recommended Posts

Every year at the coaches clinic a discussion about rules changes comes up. There is always talk about making wrestling more exciting, so I've spent some time thinking about ways to make wrestling more exciting.

With that in mind what do you think about scoring "offensive" takedowns- double, single, etc. as 2 or even three points, and defensive takedowns- fronthead, front 1/4, etc. as one point? I think this would encourage aggressive wrestling as there would be a reward in attacking, and your not going to be in a huge hike for taking a chance.

 

Anyone think this is a feasible option? What problems do you think scoring like this would produce? Also has something similar to this been attempted before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person taking down offensively would probably get hit with taunting for being to aggressive. That's what they do now if someone takes someone down and works them up. They should hit the wrestler on bottom for not moving. We have something in place to make things more exciting, calling the person that is not being aggressive for stalling. Instead every year it is the same story, I watch double stalling calls in heavy weight, stalling called on kids out shooting kids 5-1 and other silliness like the above taunting calls. We don't need new rules, just a consistency of the old ones. Sorry, vent over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantage to the original posters rules would be that it wouldn't force the official to insert themselves into a match and make a decision on who is not being aggressive. We do have stalling, but why make an official decide if they are stalling? Push action and reward action. I like the suggestion, though not disagreeing with warsawwrestling in that we do have rules to push it. I just believe rewarding the attacking wrestler would help to alleviate the stalling more than punishing the stalling wrestler as it's not subjective for the official. The more objective the scoring, the better the sport is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with those saying that this would cause some judgement calls by the official about who would be the aggressor. A snap to a front head would constitute being the aggressor, and in my opinion would be a higher point td. A fronthead movement off of someone else's shot would be considered a defensive td in this situation.

Any officials out there have any opinions on if something like this would be feasible. I think it would take communication from the ref's "green is the aggressor" something like that. Similarly were do our current rules stand on the referee communicating with the wrestlers during matches? Is it encouraged, ref's choice, discouraged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trolling just kind of a fun topic in a dead time of the year. I don't think that this would ever be considered, but am curious in finding out if others thought this would encourage more action, or if people thought it would even be a feasible way to score matches.

My thought is simple, it's more exciting seeing guys shoot than watching guys wait for the other guy to fire in there. If your reward for shooting was a possible 3 points, while the consequence is only a point against you, I think you'd see more guys with attacking mentalities.

Also as far as trolling goes, I think that finding ways to innovate our sport is a serious topic. My idea for scoring this way came from a question about the first takedown being worth three points that was on the NFHS survey a few years ago. Finding ways to increase action and scoring in wrestling seem like serious topics to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea would be great, but absolutely brutal to officiate.

 

I think if we are hypothetically thinking of ways to make wrestling more fun, we should look at what Hinkel used to tell us about at Purdue about a professional freestyle league that was in PA in the 80's.  (My version is of what I heard here, so might be off on what actually happened)

 

Each team was allowed one substitution per dual meet at a break in action.  I think it would be awesome to see a guy score a takedown going out of bounds to tie the score in the third, and the opponents coach throws the block out and inserts the fresh JV guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first impression is that there are too many hazy situations to deem takedowns as strictly offensive or defensive (counterattacks, scrambles that lead to re-shots by the "defensive" wrestler who wouldn't have had the opportunity without the opponent's aggression, etc.).  It could be fun to add some other incentives, though, such as 3 points for the first takedown of the match if no one has scored after a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first impression is that there are too many hazy situations to deem takedowns as strictly offensive or defensive (counterattacks, scrambles that lead to re-shots by the "defensive" wrestler who wouldn't have had the opportunity without the opponent's aggression, etc.).  It could be fun to add some other incentives, though, such as 3 points for the first takedown of the match if no one has scored after a minute.

What about the opposite?  More points if the take down occurs in the first 30 seconds or minute.  This will encourage more action in the beginning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy idea....take stalling out of the penalty chart so that Officials are not concerned about placing themselves in a position to disqualify someone.  It could be warning, stall-1pt, stall-1pt and choice of position and repeat until the match ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy idea....take stalling out of the penalty chart so that Officials are not concerned about placing themselves in a position to disqualify someone.  It could be warning, stall-1pt, stall-1pt and choice of position and repeat until the match ends.

College did that a few years ago and it didn't increase stalling calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would officials be more likely to call stalling if there were no "free" points involved?  What if every stalling call gave the opponent choice of position.  They could choose bottom and earn the escape point.  If they're behind a lot at the end of the match, they could choose top to try to get a pinning combo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would officials be more likely to call stalling if there were no "free" points involved?  What if every stalling call gave the opponent choice of position.  They could choose bottom and earn the escape point.  If they're behind a lot at the end of the match, they could choose top to try to get a pinning combo.

 

If you were really good on top, wouldn't you just stale so your opponent picks down to "earn the escape point"?  

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.