LU808 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:12 pm Not necessarily. With the 3 point takedown, the major and tech have been a bit cheapened. I was discussing this last weekend with some people as to whether the change to more points should also result in an adjustment as to what constitutes a major and a tech fall? I know I've seen more "takedowns and let 'em ups" this year. Not sure I've seen more near falls. Don't get me wrong. I favor the new points scoring as I think it has resulted in more "aggression" in making the takedown more valuable; but I am not convinced that more near falls have been occurring.
And if we had NO ONE at the top f these categories I suspect the grousing would be incessant.
[/quote]
Whose grousing? I am merely pointing out that the increase in tech falls does not necessarily mean those matches had more than usual near falls generating those points. I am in favor of anything that creates incentive to be more active toward takedowns (including more stalling calls). But, the 3 point takedown is likely creating more tech falls without increasing the attempts to pin one's opponent. Scoring points is always more entertaining to watch, and the 3 point takedown should reduce the number of "dancing bear" performances we have seen over the years. I think most people would agree that the Fall is the most exciting occurrence in a wrestling match and creating incentives toward that goal would be welcome.
Regarding the stalling observation, I thought the referee in the Michigan/Ohio State match was very good on that score. I think the rule includes the terms "three steps back" as part of the determination. This past week we had too much backward walking that was not called. The problem with stalling is that the referees are NOT hired by the NCAA, but by the separate conferences with approval by the coaches, who can blackball a ref. Hence, the reason there is a reluctance to call the violation.