Wrestling rules

Factual Questions
1

Just saw the Greco-Roman wrestling super heavyweight gold medal match a few hours ago (a real treat, considering how little time NBC spends on these “fringe” events). It was a great battle between two oustanding athletes, and certainly a well-earned victory for Rulon Gardner. And yet…I couldn’t help but think that it was a really lousy way to end Alexander Karelin’s amazing career.

Gardner’s wining point (the only point scored in the match) occurred during a lockup. Both men were moving their arms a lot, trying to get an offense going, when suddenly someone broke his grip. For some reason…the commentary went by too fast for me to follow…Karelin did something too soon or too late, which got a point scored against him, which would eventually cost him the match. Not even a normal scoring move, but a penalty.

I’ve always been amazed at how such a macho sport could have so many niggling little rules. I don’t think thirty seconds went by without the referee blowing his whistle for something. Anyway, just out of curiosity, I’d like to know some more about the actual rules.

Okay, first off, the scoring: 1 point for a takedown, 2 or 3 for a back exposure, 1 for “control” or “dominance” for a certain amount of time, 1 for an escape, and 2 for a reversal.

And then there’s “passivity”. I’ve seen dozens of wrestling matches over the years, and I have absolutely no idea what constitutes this. I thought the match was pretty spirited for almost the entire nine minutes, but Gardner was penalized with a “disadvantage” position twice for passivity. I’ve never thought of wild, indiscriminate attacking as a sound wrestling strategy, and I don’t see why waiting for an opportunity or slowly pressing the attack should be punished. I remember one match where all the points scored were penalty points for passivity (there nearly was a disqualification as well). So how ferocious does one have to be, anyway?

Also, if someone is in the “disadvantage” position long enough without giving up a point (Gardner was in it twice, Karelin I think once), the whistle blows and he gets a reprieve. I don’t understand the reasoning behind this. Logically, if he’s been put in that position, it should be incumbent upon him to find a way out, not given a ticket out after a pretty short period of time.

I think it’s possible to give up a point…this was mentioned in the commentary…by stepping out of the ring if it’s the result of “retreating before an attack”. The problem is, if they’re locked up, how do the judges determine if it’s a retreat or simply a strong push? I don’t think it’s possible to score just by driving the opponent out (a fundamental technique in sumo, but not traditional wrestling).

And what the heck was Karelin penalized for? It had something to do with breaking his grip or shifting his arms…really hard to see, and so close that the judges had to go to replay. He was never in any danger of being scored on, and that one mistake changed the whole match. It was completely within the rules, but that still has to be a tough, tough way to lose a gold medal.

2

Karelin was penalized for unclasping his hands. In the lockup position they were in it is illegal to take the hands above the opponent’s shoulder, or to release your grip.
This was the first Greco-Roman matched I have watched in years and the rules seem very arcane to me. The rules against passivity seem to be trying to prevent someone from scoring one point early and then running away for th rest of the match.

3

DKW,

I used to be a grappler, though not greco-roman. Maybe I can shed a bit of light on some of your questions, however bear in mind that I’m not intimately familiar with the international rules:

Generally, both wrestlers need to demonstrate that they are trying to get points. Passivity is usally a result of one wrestler “locking up” and merely blocking attacks. Wrestling is supposed to be more than a defensive sport.

This is one of those rules I’m not 100% sure of, but I suspect the motivation is to get some action going. If the bottom man isn’t escaping or reversing and the top man isn’t scoring any points, then the men are put into a neutral position. Presumably, this is in the best interest of who ever is the best take down artist. Fundamentally, it nearly garuntees that a point will be scored by one or the other.

It’s usually based on trend and it has to be reasonably obvious. Usually the wrestler is given te benefit of the doubt.

I didn’t see the match, so I don’t know what penalty was specifically called. Most penalties are there to protect the wrestlers from injury, unfair advantage or to keep the action going. If it’s an action related penalty, there’s usually a warning (maybe not in international rules). If the penalty was assessed instantly, then I have to assume that the move was a potentially dangerous one or gave Karelin an unfair advantage. Karelin has been wrestling for a long time. There are few grapplers ever with his skill and experience - if he made a mistake, he should have known better and should be prepared to be penalized for it. Having been on the opposite end of that equation, I can tell you that it doesn’t feel any better to lose a match because your opponent got away with something illegal…

4

both wrestlers’ hands went above the others’ shoulders at the same time, so no point was scored. other than that, karelin is the only one that unclasped his hands, awarding gardner the point.

5

NBC was kind enough to show two preliminary round freestyle matches today (both won by Americans…big surprise). It was like a completely different event: Much faster paced, far more technique, more scoring, and overall a lot more action (I only heard one “passivity” call). Or maybe it was because it was the prelims, where the wrestlers are less evenly matched…whichever. It was fun.

Now I’m curious about the points and penalties for going out of the ring and what exactly constitutes a back exposure.

In the first match, between Lincoln McIlravy (United States) and Yuksel Sanli (Turkey), McIlravy got into early trouble. Sanli got a hold on his left leg and was driving forward. There was a lot of struggling, then both of them tumbled out of the ring. The result was a point for Sanli and McIlravy getting a caution and the down position. This was a little surprising to me. I can understand the one point for control (which was very clear), but what was the caution for? If it was for retreating, that was hardly fair, since he wasn’t in a position to move anywhere but backwards.]

Later, something amazing happened, which I’ll try to describe as best as I can. Sanli had a strong low grip (I think it was a gut wrench). It looked like he was going to attempt some kind of throw, but McIlravy made a sudden hard push forward; Sanli rolled onto his side and McIlRavy’s momentum caused him to roll completely over his opponent. Both men were credited with a 2-point back exposure! I’d always assumed that a back exposure meant that the back had to actually contact the mat, but this wasn’t the case here.

The second match had three back exposures, all by the American (don’t remember names, sorry). For the first one…which was a 3-pointer, by the way…he drove forward hard and lifted his opponent completely off the ground before flying out of bounds. He landed on his side, and if his back ever pointed toward the ground it was only for a split second. The CNNSI.com site says that a back exposure scores 3 points if it’s “held for five seconds”, which clearly was not the case here…unless it was yet another “retreat” penalty (which would also be unjust). On two other occasions (this was a pretty one-sided match), he managed to turn his opponent around from the face-down position. He ended up in a half-sitting position (with his legs crossed) both times, and both were scored as 2-point back exposures.

So from what I could tell, a back exposure only has to do with position, not location (i.e. on the mat), and the position only has to be there for a moment to get the two points. It doesn’t matter if he’s lying, standing, or…in the first example…airborne. Correct?

In all fairness, I’m not the only one who finds these rules confusing. Check out this article: http://espn.go.com/oly/summer00/news/2000/0930/794094.html

[Postscript: What Alexander Karelin was penalized for was “fleeing a grip”. Ya gotta love these terms. :p]

6

The main reason that the freestyle seemed much more entertaining than the greco-roman was that attacks to the legs are not allowed in greco-roman. Freestyle shows more technique, and g-r relys more on brute strength. Alexander Karelin’s patented move is called the reverse body lift, meaning that he picks the other person up and throws them to there back. Remember that the heavyweight wrestlers are nearly 300 pounds.

As for back exposure, when I wrestled in high school, points were scored when in control and the opponents back was past 90 derees. Three seconds for 2 points, five seconds for 3 points.

BTW, high school style wrestling is similar to freestyle, but the scoring is different.