SUGGESTED SEEDING PROCEDURES
The number of contestants who are seeded may vary from one weight class to the next, but every effort should be made to treat like situations in a uniform manner.
Tournament directors should establish the criteria for seeding prior to commencing the actual seeding meeting.

• Drawings to place competitors on the tournament bracket should be made immediately after the verification of entries.
• If there are two outstanding wrestlers in a weight class, one should be placed in the upper half of the bracket and one in the lower half of the bracket.
• If there are several wrestlers of nearly equal ability, they should be assigned positions based on their seeds.
• A seeded contestant shall have the same opportunity to draw for the byes as other contestants in his bracket.

The following criteria order is not mandated nor is it intended to be an all-inclusive list.
Items/factors for consideration for determining seeds:

• Records against common opponents;
• Head-to-head
• Other common opponents
• Returning champion or runner-up in the same weight class;
• Wrestler with exceptional record against acknowledged strong competition;
• Contestant with best overall record
• At weight class entered
• Overall record

POINT OF CLARIFICATION: Dual team tournament situations - Interpretations:
Questions and Answers:

Q – Wrestler A for school A is disqualified during the first dual in a dual-team tournament. Wrestler A was disqualified for a) unsportsmanlike conduct, b) flagrant misconduct. Can school A substitute another wrestler from their school for wrestler A in subsequent duals during the tournament?
A – Yes, in either a) or b), school A may substitute another wrestler in for wrestler A in subsequent duals during that tournament provided the substitute is eligible to participate in that weight class. Wrestler A is charged with participation in a tournament and is assessed the competition points and one event even though he only participated in one dual in that tournament. The substitute is also assessed the competition points and one event for participating in that tournament.

Q - Can a school team enter more than one wrestler per weight class for a dual-team tournament?
A - It is permissible for a school team to have more than one wrestler per each weight class entered in a dual-team tournament. For example, school team A has 16 different wrestlers entered in a dual-team tournament. For that school team, there may be more than one student eligible for some weight classes.

Q – Can a school team change which participants (wrestlers) represent that school in different duals in a dual-team tournament?
A – Yes, as long as the wrestler is eligible to participate in that weight class (based on his stripped weight at the time of the competition weigh-in).

Q – Can different wrestlers in the same weight class from the same school team compete in a dual-team tournament.
A – Yes, but in any one dual a school may only have one wrestler entered in each weight class.

Q – How are points calculated for wrestlers entered in a dual-team tournament?
A – Any wrestler that is entered in the tournament and participates (regardless on the number of matches or number of duals they compete in) is charged with one event and three competition points (one-day tournament) or four competition points (two-day tournament). Even if the wrestler only wrestles in one match in that tournament, it counts as a tournament for that wrestler.

Q – If a wrestler takes a forfeit in a match does that match count toward the maximum number of matches a wrestler can participate in during a day?
A – Yes, forfeits count as matches in regards to the maximum number of matches a wrestler can compete in during a day.

RULE INTERPRETATIONS:
Situation:  Wrestler A takes a second injury time-out at the conclusion of the first period.  Wrestler B is now given the choice of position at the start of both the second and third periods (8-2-1).  During the second period, Wrestler B takes their second injury time-out.  Who has choice on the restart and does Wrestler B still get choice at the start of the third period?  Ruling:  On the restart in the second period after Wrestler B has taken a second injury time-out, Wrestler A would how have choice of top, bottom or neutral on the restart only.  Also, Wrestler B would no longer have automatic choice at the start of the third period because he has taken his second injury time-out.  Wrestler B could still have the option at the start of the third period IF it was their choice because of the rotation determined by the pre-meet choice or by virtue of the coin flip if during a tournament.  Comment:  If the second wrestler, during the course of the match, takes a second injury time-out, the choices in place for this wrestler based on their opponent having taken their second injury time-out prior to that time-out should be disregarded.  New choice(s) should be issued to the opponent based on the second injury time-out procedure.  (1-2-6, 8-2-1)

Situation:  A match is still tied at the conclusion of the one-minute sudden victory period in overtime.  The referee penalizes Wrestler A for unsportsmanlike conduct:  (a) prior to the start of the first 30-second tiebreaker; (b) in between the conclusion of the first 30-second tiebreaker and the start of the second 30-second tiebreaker; or (c) after the conclusion of the second 30-second tiebreaker, but prior to the start of the ultimate tiebreaker.  Ruling:  In (a) or (c), award the appropriate penalty points to Wrestler B and the match is over.  In (b), award the appropriate penalty points to Wrestler B and continue with the second 30-second tiebreaker. (5-31-2; 6-7-1; 8-1-3; penalty chart)

NFHS rule 5-20-6 – Offensive wrestler’s choice of neutral
The NFHS has clarified a situation re: the right of the offensive wrestler to choose neutral at the start of a period.  (You may want to periodically check the NFHS web site (www.nfhs.org/sports/wrestling) for additional interpretations.  The situation occurs at the start of a period and concerns the options available to the offensive wrestler.  SITUATION:  At the start of the second period, Wrestler A has choice and chooses the down position.  Wrestler B then signals to the referee that he wants to start from a neutral position.  Can Wrestler B choose this option at the start of a period when his opponent has the first choice?  RULING:  Yes, Wrestler B may elect to start from neutral, even though his opponent had choice to start the period and elected to start down.  Upon being notified by Wrestler B that he wants to start in neutral in this situation, the official would signal/award Wrestler A one point (award is indicated on the bout sheet as an escape point).  The official would inform Wrestler A that he is awarded an escape and one point and would then indicate that wrestlers would be in the neutral position to start that period.  If Wrestler B had elected to start in the neutral position (instead of the down position) at the start of the period, then that’s the position they would start from for the period but no points would have been awarded to A for B choosing that option.  COMMENT:  Officials and coaches should keep in mind this new option (of electing to start in neutral instead of the offensive position) would be given to the “offensive” wrestler on any re-start of the match or at the start of a period, if their opponent elected to start in the “defensive” position.

NFHS rule 8-1-3 – Penalty administration
The question sometimes arises “can a wrestler be penalized more than once during a pinning situation?” NFHS rule 8-1-3 provides that “penalties and warnings are cumulative throughout the match.  Each infraction has its specific penalty….”  SITUATION:  During the second period, Wrestler A has Wrestler B in a pinning situation.  Wrestler B puts an illegal headlock on Wrestler A.  The official, not wanting to take Wrestler B out of his pinning situation, signals an illegal hold by B and tells B to break the illegal hold.  B does release the illegal head lock.  The official does not however, indicate that a point is awarded to Wrestler A – this would be a delayed call (awarding of the point(s) by the referee) until the situation has ended.  In the same pinning situation Wrestler B again puts on an illegal headlock a second time.  The official at that point decides to stop the match based on his judgment that Wrestler A would not be able to improve his position.  The official then awards Wrestler A the near fall points earned and indicates that two penalty points will be awarded to Wrestler A for the two separate illegal holds.  RULING:  Correct procedure.  Wrestler B applied two illegal holds and should be penalized for both of them.

2.B.1 – Order of Competition
NFHS rule 1-1-2 provides that “competition in dual meets shall be conducted by random draw of weight classes.  A random draw for championship final matches for an individual tournament, regular season and/or state high school championship series, may be used for competition.”  The rule goes on to provide that “the random draw shall take place immediately following the conclusion of the weigh-ins.”   When the NFHS first provided for the use of a random draw to set the order of competition for duals and regular season tournaments, the KSHSAA Executive Board recognized a conflict in how weigh-ins in Kansas were conducted and the way the NFHS rules require weigh-ins and rule 1-1-2 provisions.  NFHS rules require all competitions to be done at site in a very defined process/schedule.  However, in Kansas since school teams are permitted the option of home-site weigh-ins the day of competition, there arises a challenge with the implementation of 1-1-2 and the KSHSAA home site weigh-in option.  The KSHSAA Executive Board saw the potential benefit of having the order of competition changed for competition.   BUT the board also recognized that because of our weigh-in option, having this done following the weigh-ins (as required by NFHS rule) because of the Kansas weigh-in option, not all coaches would be present, a problem would arise.  In addition, the KSHSAA Executive Board was concerned that if parents were not informed of a change in the order of competition, they might miss their child’s competition under any different order of competition.  Therefore, the KSHSAA approved the policy as stated in 2.B.1 which permits the host school to set the order of competition for duals or tournaments but this must be done a minimum of 48 hours prior to the scheduled competition.  This would permit the host school to inform the schools participating in the event so the schools could inform the parents.  Our process is not in compliance with the provisions of 1-1-2 because we don’t comply with the NFHS weigh-in process. 

The next question that arises is “What is the process used by the host school to select the starting weight?”  Our current policy as provided in 2.B.1 does not answer that question.  Beginning on December 3, 2007, it is the policy of the KSHSAA that the selection of the starting weight (if other than with the competition beginning at 103#) will be on the basis of a random draw conducted under the direction of the host schools administration (Principal, Athletic Director/Activities Director) but not by the host school’s coach.

Application of NFHS rules re: misconduct and/or unsportsmanlike actions leading to removal of the offender
The question has arisen regarding the application of NFHS rules on the removal  of a coach or a contestant from competitions under the penalty sanctions for Coach Misconduct, Unsportsmanlike Conduct for Contestants, Coaches and other team personnel or Flagrant misconduct by contestants, coaches or other personnel.  Please note that the following interpretation does NOT change provisions of NFHS rule 7-4-2 (unsportsmanlike conduct by a contestant during a match). 

The question that arose is this – “During a dual team tournament, a coach was penalized and removed from the premises for unsportsmanlike conduct during a match occurring during the first dual competition of the tournament.  Is the coach removed from just that dual or is he removed from the entire day’s competitions?” 

After a lengthy review of the rules by the NFHS staff the following clarification was given – IF the competition is set up as a “tournament” as opposed to a dual, double-dual or triple-dual, then the contestant or coach removed under the provisions of NFHS rule 7-4-2, 7-5-3 or 8-1-4, is to be removed from the premises for the duration of that tournament.  IF the competition is set up as dual, double-dual or triple-dual, then the contestant or coach removed under the provisions of NFHS rule 7-4-2, 7-5-3 or 8-1-4 will be removed from the premises during the duration of that competition/event. 

Example:  if the competition is a triple-dual (for example) and the coach or the contestants actions were in violation of 7-4-2, 7-5-3 or 8-1-4 and they were removed from the first dual (for example), they could return for the second dual.  HOWEVER, if the competition was a dual-team tournament, where teams were placed into pools and wrestled against the other team within their pool to decide the pairings for a final competition either by wrestlers individually or teams against other wrestlers or teams from the other pool(s), then any coach or contestant removed under the provisions of NFHS rules 7-4-2, 7-5-3 or 8-1-4 would be removed for the duration of the event (meaning all remaining competitions or rounds). 

I recently visited with one of our wrestling coaches as to how this rule would be applied and about some concerns he had about these protectors coming out during competition.  I contacted the NFHS with some questions and concerns and would like to provide them to you. 

SITUATION 1: During the match, Wrestler A (who is wearing a tooth and mouth protector because he has orthodontic devices) loses the protector and it comes out of his mouth a) with both wrestlers in neutral; b) just after Wrestler B has secured a leg and is moving toward a takedown; or c) while Wrestler B has Wrestler A in a near-fall situation.  Should the official stop the match as soon as the mouth protector comes out?  RULING: In applying the rule, officials should apply the same logic and mechanics as they would for other items of equipment (such as headgear) that come off during competition.  In a) since no take-down was in progress, the official should stop the match when the mouth protector comes out.  In b) and c) the official should delay stopping the match until the situation has ended or the takedown has been secured (assuming it was not a takedown directly to Wrestler A’s back).  COMMENT:  The official would not charge this to the wrestler’s injury time – it is to be treated just as if the head gear came off during wrestling.  Since the mouth protector would need to be replaced and should be cleaned for health and sanitary reasons, before the wrestler put it in their mouth, the official may have to have allow some time for the wrestler to get the protector rinsed.

Concern was expressed by the coach that a wrestler might use the dislodging of the mouth protector in an effort to recover from lack of conditioning or as a “stalling” tactic.  From information provided by the NFHS, the wrestling rules committee did discuss this possibility when they were considering this rule change (4-2-5).  During the discussion of this possibility, the committee felt that if the official performed their duties appropriately (i.e., warning and/or penalizing the wrestler for stalling if in the judgment of the official they were using this as a delaying tactic) then this should not be a problem.

Example 1:  Wrestler A at the second school team competition weigh-in (which is prior to the Winter break) wants to certify his minimum weight.  He presents a urine sample that the assessor deems is hydrated.  He steps on the scales and weighs in at 151.8 pounds.  He is now certified at 152 pounds.  He continues to participate in practices and meets during the first semester and early into the second semester and his weight continues to drop (due to better dieting and weight management and physical activity) to 144 pounds.  At a school team competition weigh-in after the winter break, he wants to try to certify at 145 pounds.  He presents a urine sample that shows he is hydrated, he immediately then steps on the scales and weighs in at 144.7 pounds.  Can he now be certified at 145 pounds?”  The current KSHSAA interpretation is that “Yes, he can now certify at this lower weight.”   IMPORTANT REMINDER:  The KSHSAA provision that in order for a wrestler to wrestle at their minimum/certified weight in the State Tournament series, a wrestler must have a minimum of one-half of their total competition weigh-ins at their minimum certified weight prior to the state tournament series, a wrestler still has to meet this provision in order to compete at this later minimum certified weight class.  If the wrestler certifies at a lower weight class but it is later in the competitive season, he may not be able to compete in the state tournament series because the total number of competition weigh-ins they participated in prior to the state tournament series (prior to the regional competition weigh-in) does not meet the one-half requirement.

Example 2:  Wrestler A at the second school team competition weigh-in (which is prior to the Winter break) wants to certify his minimum weight.  He presents a urine sample that the assessor deems is hydrated.  He steps on the scales and weighs in at 151.8 pounds.  He is now certified at 152 pounds.  He continues to participate in practices and meets and his weight continues to drop due to better dieting and weight management to 144 pounds.  At a school team competition weigh-in after the winter break, he wants to try to certify at 145 pounds.  He can not provide a urine sample that shows he is hydrated but he weighs in at 144.7 pounds.  Is his season over?  NO, he is still certified at 152 pounds.  Since he could not provide a urine sample showing that he is hydrated, he could not certify at 145 pounds, BUT because he was originally certified at 152 pound class he is still eligible to participate in wrestling.

The board in their discussions did give some flexibility to “certification” which does not run counter to the basic concepts the weight-management committee supports.  The idea of essentially permitting “re-certification” of a wrestler’s minimum weight class allows wrestlers to certify early in the season, continue to work on weight management and still certify later at a lower weight provided they can still keep hydrated.  The “safety factor” of this interpretation is that if a wrestler is going to wrestle at their “minimum certified weight” for the state tournament series, the wrestler still has to have a minimum of one-half of their competition weigh-ins at that weight class prior to the regional weigh-in.  This approach also serves somewhat as a “safety valve” by allowing a wrestler to certify early in the season and if they can’t get to a lower weight and present a hydrated urine sample for a later certification weigh-in, they can essentially “re-certify”.  And it will certainly minimize the chances that their season ends on January 13.