Keep in mind, some of the things posted on here are the very reasons some schools don't offer pole vault anymore. Just a thought. I mean, should we discourage the kid the aspires to vault 14', and then tell the kid who can that he can't do it anymore because they don't want other less experienced vaulters to try it? Just a thought.

I see your point Eagle 1, but I think the pole vault deal had something to do with a lawsuit or lawsuits by parents trying to find the school(s) and NSAA negligent for their kids injuries. I may be wrong about that, but that's what seems to come to mind.

I guess I see a big difference between pole vaulting, which doesn't have a whole lot of different ways to do it...just a matter of speed on the approach, upper body strenth, timing, and technique...in other words...everybody does it essentially the same way...it's a matter of who does it best...while the single leg has numerous counter alternatives to the back flip that aren't near as dangerous.

One of the biggest problems is that we are in a litigation happy world now. Parents will sue for negligence at the drop of a hat. Heck in the last 2 or 3 years(I think) some parents of a boy out in the panhandle sued over injuries he sustained BULLRIDING...claiming it wasn't made clear how potentially dangerous the sport was! Are you kidding me? Again, I may be off on the fore-mentioned...so if anyone can add details or correct what I said, please do.

For sure, not all lawyers have done the right things on these negligence claims but we can't obtain verdicts without jurys comprised of typical folks. I teach law at a local college and I have polled my classes with the query" Do you think football should be banned because its too violent?" 50% of the classes vote "yes."

quote:

Originally posted by ArmBar:
BTW, while we're making recommendations to rule changes, I think the "scream rule" should be changed. If the referee stops the match during the execution of a legal move for a wrestler asking for an "injury" timeout, penalty points should be automatically awarded depending on the extent of danger the wrestler was in at the time the match was stopped; and perhaps a change in position. For example if a wrestler is getting pinned, the penalty points should be awarded, and if the wrestler decides to continue wrestling after the injury timeout, be placed on his back with one shoulder to the mat.

ArmBar,
Your suggestion reminds me of a rule that was even before my time. Bill Koll, coach at Iowa State Teachers College (now UNI) when I was there told me about a rule that was changed while he was in high school. I think he started to ISTC in about 1940 so this rule was probably changed in the late 30's. If wrestlers went off the mat the referee brought them back to the center and tried to recreate the exact position they were in when they went off the mat. I'm sure there was some industrial strength lawyering going on there. "I had a deep half with one shoulder on the mat and the other within 1/2 inch." "Oh no, I had worked my arm free and was just turning to my base."

quote:

One of the biggest problems is that we are in a litigation happy world now. Parents will sue for negligence at the drop of a hat. Heck in the last 2 or 3 years(I think) some parents of a boy out in the panhandle sued over injuries he sustained BULLRIDING...claiming it wasn't made clear how potentially dangerous the sport was! Are you kidding me? Again, I may be off on the fore-mentioned...so if anyone can add details or correct what I said, please do.

Check this post on The Back Nine titled, "Need money for Christmas bills?

http://huskermat.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/757107982/m/7311022922

I have showed that to a few people Frank. They all laugh and say how pathetic it truly is. You really know how to make a point though huh

Several of the posts in this thread are by people who don't want the back flip outlawed. The gist of most of arguments is that wrestling is a tough sport and if a wrestler wants to attempt that move he should be able to do it if he's willing to accept the chance that he may be injured. I think that you are overlooking a very important point. He may be willing to accept the risk but his opponent may not want to, and should not have to, accept the risk. If you look at the Fremont Bergan wrestler's back flip on You Tube you will see that his opponent held on to his ankle throughout the move. That's why the Bergan wrestler's momentum was able to pull his opponent down to the mat in an out-of-balance position and he was able to follow through with the headlock. Now look at the second video on You Tube, right below Bergan's. In this case the opponent does not hold onto the ankle. It appears that the backflipper's foot just misses kicking his opponent under the jaw. Imagine that two wrestlers are in a neutral position and one of the wrestlers kicks up through his opponent's jaw and breaks it. Is it any different just because the other wrestler has lifted his leg up?

About 20 years ago the rules were changed to outlaw the "cut back". One wrestler had the other's leg picked up and his opponent would kick behind the knee causing it to buckle. It was fairly easy to lock up a cradle with your leg inside the cradle and pick up a takedown and back points. It caused a large number of knee injuries and high ankle sprains. At that time I heard the same arguments, "This will kill wrestling, they are trying to make all of the tough moves illegal. "I suppose that next they will make us play dodge ball in PE class with marshmallows." "It's a tough sport; if you can't take it go out for tiddly winks." etc, etc.

Funny that I never heard any of these comments from a wrestler who had had knee surgery because of the move or from his coach.

As far as the statement that it would kill wrestling I doubt if 99% of the wrestlers, coaches, and fans know that it was ever legal to use the "cut back". So we must not be missing it too much.

I'm with you Frank Ryan. I just don't see this having a big impact even if it is legal. Is this really going to happen with two really good wrestlers going at it, I don't think so, I noticed the chances of the kicking in the face also and that is a reality. If the guy does kick the other he should be thrown out because he knows that possibility exists when he hurls himself like that? It just looks like a crap move to me anyhow and really would be ugly when an aggressive wrestler attacks when they try to flip.

Better throw in my 2 cents. Change the rule. If a wrestler tries a backflip either penalize him 1 and stay nuetral, or penalize 2 and put him down. Can't just put him down without points awarded, that would be a gift for most wresters, get an escape and right back where you started only up by 1. Can't leave the rule the way it is or someone will get hurt. I've seen a kid hauled out by an ambulance not moveing. We don't want that again.

ArmBar, I agree the scream rule needs to change also. A couple weeks ago I saw a kid scream out of a fall and ended up winning the match by 1 point. Along the same line my kid was getting pinned and tried to sisor the head. I asked him after the match, what the heck he was doing, he said he wanted to get the ref to stop and award a penalty so he'd get of his back, that needs to stop also. I don't know how you restart a match with one shoulder on the mat in a pin hold of choice, but that is what is deserved in these situations.