EDITORIAL: Observations of the new FILA Rules

by Ted Witulski, USA Wrestling NCEP Manager There isn't much that I know about basketball. Honestly, I don't enjoy the game at all. But from my limited understanding even a sport that has existed for just over a 100 years has had to stretch its legs by changing the rules. I spoke with a friend that knows the game of basketball. And, apparently basketball went through two dramatic changes over the last 25 years or so. One was stopping stalling on the court by instituting the shot clock. The other was limiting the overall power that a gargantuan-sized seven footer could have on the game by just being tall. The solution for this was to put in a three-foot arc, so the little guys shoot from a distance for more points. Though I've put very little effort into understanding these changes ,my friend made it clear that these two rules were probably the most important adaptations in rescuing the dying game from the abyss. With the changes that basketball has made to better its sport, we come to the new rule changes for wrestling for the 2004-2008 quadrennium. When the rule changes were announced they were almost universally panned by coaches and athletes alike. Many questioned FILA's wisdom in once again twisting the spirit of wrestling into an unrecognizable mass. FILA's ultimate intention, of course, has been to create a simple version of wrestling that is readily understood by the uneducated wrestling masses and enticing with high action excitement. The determination was to go to a "set" system similar to tennis. Win the best two out of three periods and the wrestler wins the match. An off-shoot of this was to dramatically reduce the length of the match. Instead of wrestling a minimum of six minutes now wrestlers can wrestle a complete match in four minutes by winning the first two periods. Another important thing to remember is that there is no longer a need to score three points to terminate the match. The wrestlers and coaches had little problem adjusting to this new part of the sport this past weekend at the Sunkist Tournament. In fact, even a little positive feedback was voiced. Some people stated that periods, acting as mini bouts, required spectators to stay more in tune to what was happening, since a big lead was only good for a period victory. Another important break from the past rules was the creation of a new way to score, the push-out. The push-out borrowed from the Japanese style of wrestling, awards a wrestler for forcing their opponent off of the mat. In the past, the pushing an opponent out could result in a caution and one score for fleeing, which appeared to be too subjective of a call to explain to the fans just being introduced to the sport. FILA in turn moved to an absolutist interpretation - if you touch the protection area, then the opponent gains a point. Going into the tournament ,many people wondered about the need for the change. After all, wrestling is supposed to be about technique enacted on an opponent, and just pushing doesn't always fit the bill. Many people cited the obvious what-if. What if an opponent under attack hops into the air and the attacking wrestler while driving the jumper from the mat steps out first? In the new absolutist rule, the attacking wrestler is penalized for getting his feet wet before the opponent that was clearly beaten by technique. The absolutist position did not last long. After the first session of the first day, the referees and coaches were pulled together and told that an attacking wrestler would be given the point in most out of bounds cases. Once this adjustment was made even the newest spectator could see that a wrestler who was in control still deserved the point as he drove his opponent into the protection zone. The biggest area of concern left for FILA to address, undoubtedly is a combination of the push-out rule and awarding of a period to the leading wrestler. Wrestling has always struggled with what to do in case of a tie. We aren't patient enough to wait out the first score. No one is a fan of a 20-minute yawn-fest that can be produced as neither wrestler takes a risk. FILA's new determination places heavy emphasis on the first score of a period. A wrestler who scores first is in the driver seat, in a short two-minute period especially. Once a wrestler scores one point, essentially he/she can focus on defense and kill the clock. Even if the opponent ties a bout at 1-1, the wrestler with the first score wins the period---no clinch necessary. While this makes the rules clear, there still remains a problem that probably needs to be addressed by FILA. The sport of wrestling should always place emphasis on technique. It is done of course for spectacular throws like a five-point high amplitude maneuver, so it seems to make sense that technical scoring should always be rewarded. Presently, the new rules don't do this entirely. Take this scenario. A wrestler begins the period by scoring on a push-out, essentially manhandling the opponent and forcing them off the mat with a physical brawl. Although this is still exciting and readily understood, it places the second wrestler at a disadvantage by giving up the first score in the shortened period. A wrestler after giving up the first push-out point could come back and hit the most perfect controlled takedown and still lose the period under the present system. A good common sense adjustment would probably be to change a one-point control takedown into a two point maneuver. Thereby, a wrestler who executes a solid takedown in bounds could usurp the power of the push-out score. The scoring in this system would look like this: * 1 point for push-outs and passivity points * 2 points for takedowns of control with no exposure completed in bounds * 3 points for takedowns of exposure taking an opponent from their feet to their back. * Awarding of the period for any grand amplitude technique The essence of wrestling should give emphasis to technical scoring and creating a two-point takedown will elevate the importance of the technical score. Another substantial change is the break from no forced par-terre. In the past, a passive wrestler could be placed in the down position and forced to defend on the mat. Over the weekend and with more than a little confusion the mat referee was told to ask for confirmation of passivity calls. When a mat referee would ask for and receive confirmation then the opponent would receive one point. The mat referee was not required to stop the bout, so it was common for a wrestler to not realize that they gave a point as they wrestled from their feet. This was evident in one of Eric Larkin's bouts, where he defended an underhook by shooting a fireman's. A passive point was called for and confirmed. The passive definition has not changed, but now it appears it will be enforced more readily with the penalty of points occurring more often. Wrestlers and coaches should pay considerable attention to what actions referees view as passive such as blocking with the head or attempting multiple slip throws. When mat wrestling did occur at the beginning of the tournament any time that a competitor touched out of bounds a point would be awarded. After the first round of wrestling this was changed so that the top wrestler did not have to worry about touching out of bounds. If the top wrestler blatantly pushed his opponent out in par-terre then a point was not given. However, if the top wrestler initiated a scramble that forced the bottom wrestler out of bounds, then a point was given. This rule at times seemed subjective. The adjustment mid-way through the tournament was for the best and very few people seemed troubled by it. Finally, the change to the leg clinch for freestyle received a lot of attention prior to the Sunkist Kids International Tournament. Whether or not both people would lock was a big part of the discussion. After the Olympics , it appeared FILA might have accepted this approach. But on Saturday morning during the rules discuss