Back points

[n9531l]

In this video, John Smith says near-fall criteria are met if you hold the opponent's back at less than 90 degrees to the mat. I thought it was 45 degrees, but I know the rules sometimes change. So which is it?

[Ray Brinzer]

2.9 Near Fall
A near fall is a position in which the offensive wrestler has the opponent in a controlled pinning situation in which (1) the defensive wrestler is held in a high bridge or on both elbows, or (2) any part of one shoulder or scapula, or the head is touching the mat and the other shoulder or scapula is held at an angle of 45 degrees or less to the mat, or (3) any part of both shoulders or both scapulae are held within four inches of the mat. In any pinning situation, a near fall may occur if any part of either wrestler remains in bounds. (See Illustration Nos. 53, 59 and 60.) A continuous roll-through is not to be considered a near fall.

(Source)

[TobusRex]

So to sum up, since Ray is a nice guy...John Smith don't know shit about wrestling!! Seriously though, that sounds to me like Smith was referring to Freestyle rules, not Catch. It was a long time ago and I didn't wrestle much freestyle, but I remember locking up guy's upper bodies and "rolling" them. I got 2 points per "roll". In Scholastic I never got squat for the same move.

I'd like clarification on the 2 and 3 point variety of nearfall. It's always been my impression that the 3 pt variety was for a longer exposure and deeper angle. Is that correct?

[AKIN]

2 count= 2NF
5 count= 3NF

Still must be at least 45 degrees

[red viking]

I can see why he thinks it's 90 degrees since a lot of refs are pretty liberal about the 45 degree rule. Some of them will call it when it is barely past 90.

[AKIN]

Then they are bad officials.

[ViseGrip]

Then they are bad officials.

I just wish when there are two officials on a mat that the other one would overrule a bad call. They seem more concerned with not hurting their colleague's feelings than making sure the call is correct,

[Ray Brinzer]

Then they are bad officials.

I just wish when there are two officials on a mat that the other one would overrule a bad call. They seem more concerned with not hurting their colleague's feelings than making sure the call is correct,

I believe the purpose of the second official (other than drawing additional pay) is to supplement what the first sees, and offer additional information and perspective.  Having one overrule the other, as can happen in the international styles, wouldn't work very well.

"Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three."

[red viking]

Correct. The assistant can't overrule the head referee, at least in high school. He can only help him out, watch the clock, watch for safety concerns, and offer suggestions very discretely. He isn't even supposed to have his whistle anywhere near his mouth or talk to the coaches.

[matref0]

I'm sure Coach Smith made a mistake on his video and has forgotten more about wrestling than most.  However, it is kind of disappointing to see.  Every season I seem to have to explain things to coaches that don't understand a rule or the reasoning behind it.  Some coaches think officials don't know anything and are full of crap.  Many coaches will watch this video because of the influence John Smith has over the community and hear near fall criteria starts at 90 degrees.  If I told a coach that criteria was 45 degrees and Smith states it is 90 degrees in a video, who are they going to believe is accurate?  As right as I may be, they will never put an official's remarks above John Smith's even though in this case he is incorrect.

I follow football very closely and the same thing happens there.  An official could make an absolute correct call but if Madden or another announcer says anything different, millions hear what the announcer said and take it as gospel even though it may be wrong.

[Ray Brinzer]

I'm sure Coach Smith made a mistake on his video and has forgotten more about wrestling than most.

I expect he thinks of it in radians, and just slipped up on the conversion.

However, it is kind of disappointing to see.  Every season I seem to have to explain things to coaches that don't understand a rule or the reasoning behind it.  Some coaches think officials don't know anything and are full of crap.  Many coaches will watch this video because of the influence John Smith has over the community and hear near fall criteria starts at 90 degrees.  If I told a coach that criteria was 45 degrees and Smith states it is 90 degrees in a video, who are they going to believe is accurate?  As right as I may be, they will never put an official's remarks above John Smith's even though in this case he is incorrect.

Realistically, referees as well as coaches understand wrestling in terms of what they're used to seeing, not the rules.  For instance:  I have come to expect that if I teach a mat technique which is out of the mainstream (and teaching things most people haven't seen should be an advantage), it has a much higher probability of being stopped.  Now, a spurious potentially dangerous call at least has something to be said for it:  in a situation you don't understand, under time pressure, erring on the side of safety has some merit.  But you'll also see stalemate and even stalling calls when an athlete is pursuing an unconventional line of attack.

Conventions are often as strong as rules.  In Oklahoma (at least when wrestled), most throws were slams; in Pennsylvania, you practically had to put someone through the floor to get a slam.  In Iowa, backing up was stalling; in Oklahoma, not shooting was stalling.  Today, in large parts of New Jersey, any sort of riding seems to be stalling.  It's all based on what the refs are used to seeing.

Very seldom, so far as I can tell, do referees think, "what are the rules governing this situation?"  Referring to the rulebook seems to be the last resort, when you can't figure out the answer.

As for the 90° mistake:  many times I have seen a referee indicate that there were no back points to count by turning his hand sideways (thumb toward the ceiling), and waving it up and down... as if to say, "He hasn't broken 90 yet."

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, and I'm not actually disagreeing with you.  I would enjoy seeing referees answer pop-quiz rule questions.  I expect it'd be pretty funny.