You Can’t be Saved by the End of a Period
One of the next changes the rules committee should immediately adopt is a simple but crucial rule:
A wrestler should not be saved by the end of a period if he’s on his back.
The ultimate goal of wrestling is the pin. It’s what fans come to see. Sure, the take-’em-down, cut-’em-loose style has its place and can be exciting for a while—but it’s not a pin.
And while a takedown is certainly more entertaining than two wrestlers standing around staring at each other, the pin should always be king. Wrestlers deserve to be rewarded for taking the risks necessary to put an opponent on his back.
So why should the end of a period be allowed to bail a wrestler out of a pinning predicament? Why not let action continue beyond the buzzer until either a) the fall occurs, b) the bottom man gets off his back, or c) the official realizes a pin isn’t going to occur?
It sounds like a win for everyone—and we already apply this principle in certain situations.
Consider overtime: even though a takedown officially ends the match, if the defensive wrestler is on his back, the match continues until either the fall happens or the wrestler fights off his back.
Other sports embrace similar logic. Remember the epic 2013 Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama? Alabama’s field goal attempt fell short as time expired—but ten seconds later, Chris Davis crossed Alabama’s end zone for a 109-yard game-winning touchdown.
If that had been wrestling, the greatest play in college football history wouldn’t have counted because time would have expired before the score.
Look at basketball: any shot leaving a player’s hand before the buzzer sounds still counts, no matter when it drops through the hoop. Why not give wrestling fans the same thrill—letting the action finish if it means a potential pin?
I can’t fathom why anyone would want to rob fans of those moments of pure excitement.
Boxing has it right: a fighter knocked down in any round cannot be saved by the bell. Wrestling should follow that lead. It just makes sense if we believe excited spectators are good for the sport.
I’m sure three-time NCAA champion Mark Churella would support this change. His son lost the NCAA finals to Johnny Hendricks in 2006. But at the end of the first period, Churella locked up a cradle and pinned Hendricks—only for the officials to wave it off because the fall occurred 0.03 seconds after the period ended.
That’s not how a sport built on decisive outcomes should work.
Ending the buzzer bailout is a rule whose time has come.
