Picky rules-good article

[karelin]

Here is an article written on the 'Intermat' about the over-reaction to various and recent changes-good insights.

Over-legislation from head to shoestring

 

by Randy Simpson

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We are a country of extremes. Example: At one point, women were discriminated against to such a degree in this country, female Olympic gold medalists couldn't get a scholarship in their sport of interest. Now we give girls scholarships for sports they've never played and discard male athletes in the name of "doing the right thing."

 

A few years ago, we underwent practically an overnight transformation in the world of collegiate wrestling in regard to weigh ins. Basically, you weighed in whenever the coaches wanted, and weighed whatever they wanted, used whatever means necessary - plastics, saunas, 100 degree rooms, and, of course, cut as much as you wanted and dropped weight classes whenever you wanted. We went from that to strict rules on when to weigh in, how to cut weight (outlawing all of the above mentioned techniques), body fat tests, hydration tests - even to the point of how to weigh in (step on the scale once, no running to lose weight after weigh-ins start, etc.) Don't get me wrong - I think the rules are fine for the most part - but I also feel that they are an example of overkill, of going from one extreme to the other, which we are known for in our great society.

 

Another rule that has gone to extremes, in my opinion, is the shoestring rule. At one time, not long ago, there was no such rule about taping the shoestrings. The reason a rule was created in the first place, was because of wrestlers abusing the situation to get a rest. Some guys did this in the national tournament to get a breather - and they got away with it, and this was a bad thing for our sport. So the rules committee came along and decided to make a change. In college, the rule was: if the shoestring came untied and led to a delay in the match, that wrestler was charged as such, and was warned for stalling. If the wrestler needed to take time to tie the laces, an injury timeout was assessed. Fair enough. There was no rule about requiring the laces to be taped, or putting a shoelace guard on, or anything of that nature. It was the wrestler's responsibility to make sure they stayed tied.

 

In high school, it is a different situation altogether. The shoelaces must be "secured", or the wrestler is assessed a penalty point, the coach is called for unsportsmanlike conduct, and the kid is warned for stalling to boot. Seems pretty draconian for one little lace, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that this particular shoelace in question might not even come untied during the match. We just don't know. And by the way - Unsportsmanlike Conduct? On the coach? Wow. That'll teach him, the cheater. So if you end up with two freshmen who forget to lace up in the same meet, the coach is out of the tournament.

 

Is this really necessary? Does the punishment fit the "crime"? Kind of seems like we're killing the dog to get rid of the fleas.

 

The colleges had it right.

 

Keep in mind here that the basic crime being committed is delay of match. Stalling, if you will. So, instead of just calling stalling and issuing an injury timeout when the lace comes undone, we have made a rule. And that rule is responsible for every wrestler in the country having to tape his shoelaces, then, if he has to remove the shoe, retaping them again, before he dare step back onto the mat. So that rule is undoubtedly responsible for a big jump in athletic tape sales. And that rule is also responsible for practically creating an entire industry - lace guards, zip-up shoes, etc. And that rule is responsible for giving referees yet another little picky thing to worry about.

 

And that rule is unnecessary.