Pennsylvania going to 12 weight classes

[GETOFFYOURHIP]

On Wednesday Pennsylvania will ask the nfhs to go down to 12 weights. https://news.theopenmat.com/high-sch...-classes/73165

[Truth is Out There]

So after you get over the clickbait headline, here are some thoughts:

A massive change could be coming to the world of high school wrestling and it could be coming fairly soon. On Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association control board passed the wrestling committee’s proposal to reduce the weight classes from 14 to 12 for the 2020-21 season.

They're ASKING for it... no confirmation it's getting approved.

The board will now advance the proposal to the National Federation of State High School Associations in hopes it will approve the change. Should the change be denied, it will ask the NFHS board to allow the PIAA to launch a pilot program that would then be adopted down the line.




As most of you know, the current weight classes are: 106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220 and 285.

Under the new proposal, the weights in PA would be: 110, 118, 125, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 190, 215 and 285.

The rule intends to limit forfeits in dual meets and to increase fan interest...

The rules will neither limit forfeits nor increase fan interest. Not that those aren't admirable objectives but they're trying to dress this up as a way towards that and it simply will not work the way they're describing it.

in the sport at lower levels according to Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League wrestling chairman Frank Vulcano Jr. While many have lauded the move for its potential improvements to the sports watchability,

Simplify the rules if you want to improve watchability. Get rid of stupid stalling calls. Stop making parents need to pay for attending meets. We already pay enough with the sacrifice of time from our children.

it hasn’t come without criticism. Many Pennsylvania coaches feel the change will take away opportunities from wrestlers looking to compete and wrestlers who they think could be champions if the weights remain unchanged.

Everybody jumps up and down about "losing opportunities". I'm not so sure that's a bad thing anymore. On the second point, oh boy... you don't make decisions on who gets to be a champion and who doesn't. Before you get rid of an 180ish weight, get rid of the 220ish weight please! It's become a barren wasteland.

Coach Scott Green of Wyoming Seminary, which is located in PA but not eligible to compete in PIAA postseason events, proposed 11 weights for duals and 15 for individual tournaments as well as multiple entries per weight in the postseason.

Interesting. Outside the box, I'm fine with 11 weights for duals I think. We need 15 weight classes like we need night before weigh-ins.

Additionally, the proposed changes have led to concern over weight separation and potentially issues with drastic cutting.

I've mostly retired from my weight-cutting pulpit simply because the powers-that-be do not want to end or even curtail the practice. They give plenty of lip service that they do but they really don't. Until someone dies. Again. It'll be what it is.

The lightest weight being 110 has led to many suggesting that it’s too heavy and would drastically limit the opportunities of small wrestlers, particularly underclassmen.

Tail wagging the dog. Varsity sports aren't supposed to be tailored for underclassmen. As it is, the kids who are winning 106 walk around above 130. No more need for the "designated freshman" weight class.

There’s also been concern over the 20-pound jump from 170 to 190, with some saying it would cause wrestlers caught in the middle to cut unhealthy amounts of weight to try to make the lower of the two.

You don't cut from the middle (or slightly right of middle) to accommodate the fringe tails of the bell curve.

But this wasn’t the only proposal. There was also talk of removing the 2-pound allowance given to wrestlers in the middle of the year.

Oh yes! The "growth" allowance! Which would be called the "weight-cutter's" allowance if the sport's leadership were less interested in putting make-up on a black eye over continuing the abusive relationship between wrestlers and the scale.

The suggestion is due to the notion that rather than making it safer for wrestlers, it incentivizes wrestlers to attempt to cut down to a lower weight class.

The biggest question that now remains, in addition to whether the new proposal will gain favor with the NFHS, is how many states will follow.

How many followed Michigan when they thought they could stand against the turning tide? This will be less than that.

Currently, most states follow the 14 NFHS weight classes while New York adds a 99-pound division and Michigan uses the old NFHS weights which were changed following the 2010-11 season.

Yeah so let's create more deviations... to promote "watchability". LOL.

It stands to reason that if the NFHS board approves the new changes that most states will follow, but with the current weight classes only having come into a play less than a decade ago, there’s no guarantee.

Some interesting notions strewn within the article but like the way the sport addresses weight-cutting, there won't be much to come of this...

[PapaBearSLIM]

Fast forward a handful of years following the debate over the last weight class change and this is absolutely hilarious.

[Truth is Out There]

Almost as hilarious as the guy ranting about additional resources as if free housing and distribution side-jobs somehow don’t count.

[PapaBearSLIM]

Almost as hilarious as the guy ranting about additional resources as if free housing and distribution side-jobs somehow don’t count.

Free housing?
Like the offer you made for housing my kid?

[Truth is Out There]

Free housing?
Like the offer you made for housing my kid?

Oh! Now you’re responding to me? That’s hilarious too.

Stick to the topic at hand. You’ll do better. I have no recollection to what you’re referring to about housing any of your kids. Not saying it didn’t happen, just not to my recollection. There was a time...

As for the topic at hand, please don’t step across your own hypocrisy to address any perceived hypocrisy of mine. I’m not interested in any opinion you might have of me. So save it for someone who might be.

The last weight change? Gee, they went from 14 weights to... wait for it... 14 weights. There was no elimination of a weight class. Somehow suggesting moving to 12 weight classes is analogous to you?

[PapaBearSLIM]

Receipts

[Truth is Out There]

https://images.app.goo.gl/44rsqdjycKuMA7Nd7

[55663]

Simplify the rules if you want to improve watchability. Get rid of stupid stalling calls.

If the NFHS has their way, you'll see MORE stalling calls next year.

They took it out of the disqualification sequence to encourage officials to call it early and often.

[Truth is Out There]

If the NFHS has their way, you'll see MORE stalling calls next year.

They took it out of the disqualification sequence to encourage officials to call it early and often.

I wouldn't mind more stalling calls if they get called for the right reasons.

If you're losing on bottom and the top has two boots in riding you hard, you're probably aren't stalling on bottom.

That should never be called in my opinion.

I'm sure the bottom guy wants to and would get out if he could. He shouldn't be penalized further for the top's good ride.

That, to me, is a "stupid stalling call". There's simply no need for it to be called there.

[Nelson*0.5]

I wouldn't mind more stalling calls if they get called for the right reasons.

If you're losing on bottom and the top has two boots in riding you hard, you're probably aren't stalling on bottom.

That should never be called in my opinion.

I'm sure the bottom guy wants to and would get out if he could. He shouldn't be penalized further for the top's good ride.

That, to me, is a "stupid stalling call". There's simply no need for it to be called there.

And to keep that from happening, all referees need to do is adhere to one simple rule that is already on the books that officials too often ignore and that is Section 24 Article 7 which very clearly states "The defensive wrestler is not stalling when overpowered."

Being overpowered by the offensuve wrestler happens far more than many officials care to admit.

[Truth is Out There]

And to keep that from happening, all referees need to do is adhere to one simple rule that is already on the books that officials too often ignore and that is Section 24 Article 7 which very clearly states "The defensive wrestler is not stalling when overpowered."

Being overpowered by the offensuve wrestler happens far more than many officials care to admit.

Exactly what I was referring to. Nothing worse than a rule specifically explained being ignored.

I would actually take it a step further. If you are losing and on bottom you cannot be called for stalling. I know this opens the whole balling up conundrum but if you're behind then the time you're wasting is as much your enemy as your opponent at that point. Want it more cut n dry.

Furthermore any coach calling for or suggesting stalling on the other wrestler should be penalized. I can't ask some questions at the table but a guy can sit there with his fist in the air?