wvmat.com

I'd like to raise a wrestling question and hopefully see if there is any consensus of thought. I'll admit that I did absolutely no research of the rules to see if there is any language that addresses this question clearly and precisely.
I get the idea of one wrestler falling out of bounds and the other wrestler being awarded points if they have hold of both legs or are behind the other(although the idea of "control" could be questioned).
A very common situation occurring now is one wrestler actually "letting" the other get one leg in a takedown attempt and then attempting to maneuver around behind and possibly lace one leg while their own leg is still firmly in the grasp of the other wrestler. In some of the sites where I have seen wrestling this year so far it seems to me that the referees are not giving any takedowns as long as the top wrestler is not in control of his captured leg. In other words it seems as if there is a trend or shift in opinion that it is not so much a matter of position but of actual control. That is, can the top man actually exert control over the other despite having a leg laced and more or less being somewhat behind the other. No real control, no takedown. In past years, and still a few time this year, there seemed to be the idea if you could get "behind" or in the correct position that "looked" like a takedown it was awarded. I personally don't like the technique of giving up the leg and then trying to get what might possibly look a takedown if you lay there long enough.

http://kopantherwrestling.com/wp-conten ... Photos.pdf

It sounds like the position you are describing is the one shown in figure 21. Those pictures are from the NFHS rule book. Although the link appears to be from a 2015 rule book, that particular picture has been in every rule book to demonstrate control for as far back as I can remember. You can normally tell how well a kid has been coached in that position by how hard they are working to get the leg laced.

Figure 20 is the one that I think is missed a lot-The double underhook does not stop the takedown. Don't know why it's so difficult to get this one right.

I understand the point and the figure referred to in the rule book. I wasn't actually referring to the obvious however. Maybe it's a little difficult to describe. More like when the one wrestler's leg is still completely in front of the other and being held at the knee beside the neck. The "top" wrestler is doing a split just to lace the leg. In other words, is lacing the leg a demonstration that a takedown has occurred?

It's almost as convoluted as what constitutes a touchdown catch in the NFL.

greencrush wrote:It's almost as convoluted as what constitutes a touchdown catch in the NFL.

I’m still fuming over that one!

KDunbar wrote:I understand the point and the figure referred to in the rule book. I wasn't actually referring to the obvious however. Maybe it's a little difficult to describe. More like when the one wrestler's leg is still completely in front of the other and being held at the knee beside the neck. The "top" wrestler is doing a split just to lace the leg. In other words, is lacing the leg a demonstration that a takedown has occurred?

Are you talking about from the crackdown position, when the guy gives up a head outside to fall to his hip while his opponent has his leg. Then he steps over the opponents trail leg while still practically on his butt? To my understanding that is a takedown, albeit a lame on, like the cheap merkle 2 (figure 22). Blair Academy and the northeastern part of the country seem to use this as their go to head outside defense.