National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News Features

November 25, 1996

Wrestling rules discussion

As a result of questions arising during wrestling officiating rules clinics this fall, the NCAA Wrestling Committee provides the following to clear up areas of concern before the season starts.

One concern expressed by coaches during rules clinics regards the system for making rules changes and the part that coaches play.

The process begins during the season that precedes the clinics. For example, potential rules issues for the 1997 Wrestling Committee meeting will start to be gathered as soon as this season starts and the desirability of the current rules can be assessed. At the close of the season, any rules proposals that have been collected by Robert G. Bubb, secretary-rules editor; Kevin A. McHugh, the committee chair; and the NCAA national office staff are combined into a document that is sent to the committee for review shortly before its April meeting.

For the most part, these proposals are submitted by coaches and officials, but input also is received from virtually any source interested in bettering the sport.

In addition, before each of the respective national championships, a survey containing rules issues from the previous year is sent to all head coaches and officials. The compiled results from these surveys are presented to the committee at its April meeting, along with other rules information.

Finally, rules input sometimes comes from other areas of the NCAA, such as the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, a group to which the NCAA Executive Committee looks for guidance on safety and medical issues. The issue of weight, a major area of change this year, is an example.

This information is reviewed and the merits of each proposal debated during the Wrestling Committee meeting. Committee attendees at that meeting include six representatives from Division I, three representatives from Division II and three representatives from Division III, and the secretary-rules editor. Also attending in an advisory capacity are the supervisor of officials, the executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, two assistant directors of championships from the NCAA national office and the NCAA wrestling rules staff liaison to the committee. Despite the presence of all these people, only committee members -- excluding the secretary-rules editor -- have a vote as to whether a rules change should pass.

The group described above, using as its guiding principle a commitment to making the sport the best it can be, decides what rules changes will take effect for the coming year. Its decisions dictate what appears on the rules video and what is presented at the fall clinics.

This year's major changes

The major rules changes for this season, which were reported in The NCAA News shortly after the committee's meeting, listed by rule and section, include:

  • 2-13: The term "technical fall" replaced "match termination." Note: A wrestler earning a differential of 15 points during a match can lose only by committing an act of flagrant misconduct.

  • 3-3: One weigh-in for tournaments recommended.

  • 3-5: The weight-allowance section has been modified, and this rule, which previously was alterable upon mutual consent of the participating coaches, was made unalterable. The new weight allowance stipulates that a three-pound allowance is recommended in November and a two-pound allowance is recommended for December. A one-pound allowance is required in January and flat weight (or zero tolerance) is required in February and March.

    In a related issue, a change was made in championships rules to require that, in order for a student-athlete to wrestle at a given weight in the respective division's national championships, that wrestler must have made weight in that class for a minimum of 75 percent of the student-athlete's weigh-ins in the second half of the season. (For more information, see the July 22, 1996, issue of The NCAA News.)

  • 3-7: Final determination of a participant's ability to compete shall be made by the host site's physician or certified athletic trainer who conducts the skin check.

  • 4-10: The wrestler earning the first points in overtime periods cannot lose unless charged with flagrant misconduct.

  • 4-16-g: It is recommended that no contestant wrestle two matches in any tournament with less than 45 minutes of rest between such matches. (The previous recommendation was one hour.)

  • 4-24: In tournaments, the official videotape of a match may be used to correct an error in the mechanics of scoring and other nonjudgment calls as part of a formal protest. The tournament must designate an official tape and all matches must be recorded. Videotaping is not permitted to support dual-meet protests.

  • 5-3: A technical fall is worth five team points in a dual meet when the winning wrestler was awarded or scored a near fall.

  • 5-4: A technical fall is worth 11/2 points in a tournament when the winning wrestler was awarded or scored a near fall.

  • 6-4: It is unsportsmanlike conduct to have both uniform straps down while in the wrestling area. (Note: The 1997 rules book erroneously states that uniform straps may not be down while wrestler is still on the wrestling mat).

  • 6-11: The offensive wrestler may keep "locked hands" after a bodylock takedown or double-leg takedown when there is an imminent near fall. The referee shall verbally inform the wrestlers whether a near fall is imminent by saying "near fall imminent."

    Locked hands

    Throughout the clinics, it became clear that the changes made regarding locked hands (Rule 6-11) and the means by which the rule should be called needed further clarification. A list of situations and the proper ways for them to be called follows.

  • Situation 1: Wrestler A has scored a takedown on Wrestler B with a bodylock and takes Wrestler B directly to almost meeting a near-fall criterion (near fall imminent). Subsequently, Wrestler B works out of the imminent situation and the referee says that the near fall is no longer imminent. Wrestler A is given reaction time to unlock his hands.

    Question: Can Wrestler A, without changing his lock, force Wrestler B back into an imminent position during the moment of reaction time?

    Ruling: Yes, if Wrestler A can do this within reaction time as determined by the referee, the referee will state again that the near fall is imminent. Wrestling will continue and no technical violation will be called.

  • Situation 2: Wrestler A has scored a takedown on Wrestler B using a bodylock, taking Wrestler B to meeting a near-fall criterion without changing his hold. Subsequently, Wrestler B works his way out of meeting a near-fall criterion, but in the opinion of the referee, the near fall is imminent.

    Question: Can Wrestler A, who has the same bodylock on Wrestler B that was used for the takedown keep his hands locked?

    Ruling: Yes, the referee will state again that the near fall is imminent and wrestling will continue until that situation is concluded.

  • Situation 3: Wrestler A is leading Wrestler B, 13-0. From a neutral position, Wrestler A takes Wrestler B directly toward his back with a bodylock takedown and almost meets a near-fall criterion (near fall imminent). Two points are awarded to Wrestler A for the takedown.

    Question: Since the score is now 15-0 and a technical fall has been reached, should wrestling continue so that Wrestler A has the opportunity to pin Wrestler B?

    Ruling: No, even though Wrestler B is in an imminent near-fall position, he is not meeting a near-fall criterion. The rule states that wrestling may continue after a technical fall is reached only if a near-fall criterion is being met. In the imminent situation described, the match will be stopped and Wrestler A awarded a technical fall.

  • Situation 4: In the sudden-death period of overtime, Wrestler A takes Wrestler B directly toward his back with a double-leg takedown with his hands locked around both legs of Wrestler B and almost meets a near-fall criterion. Two points are awarded to Wrestler A.

    Question: Should wrestling continue so that Wrestler A has the opportunity to pin Wrestler B?

    Ruling: No, even though Wrestler B is in an imminent near-fall position, he is not meeting a near-fall criterion. The rule states that wrestling may continue in sudden death only if a near-fall criterion is being met. In the imminent situation described above, the match will be stopped and Wrestler A awarded the bout.

    Further questions

    Further questions regarding any rules or rules changes should be directed either to Bubb (telephone 814/764-6374) or McHugh (609/771-2230).