Here's the way Jason Bryant described it on the AWN/TOM site:
"Here's the best way I can put it.
The "pass behind" point is awarded when a wrestler counters another wrestler's attack and gets control. So if you shoot on my leg, I sprawl and go behind, that's only 1 point. Internationally, the wording is so vague, I believe they're saying this is a reversal. If you'll note the FILA rulebook, there is no such thing as a 1-point takedown in section 2A of the scoring portion.
I believe the vague wording "reversal" is used to validate this alleged "clarification" -- despite the fact there was no public issue of such clarification. I perceive this as a rule change, not a clarification, but I don't believe that's how FILA would describe it, because to them, "reversal" isn't the same in the U.S. as folks feel internationally.
I can SLIGHTLY comprehend the rationale for giving one point and not two for a wrestler who isn't initiating the risk, but I don't agree with it. As we saw with Gilman, it again brings us another nuance rule and again brings in subjectivity and official's discretion. If clearly defined and administered, it's not completely terrible, but it still pretty bad, IMO.
I thought this was only a recommendation after the University Games in Kazan, where everything was scored 2. Basically, going behind after defending a shot and coming around is 1 point. I argued this until I was blue in the face with some people within FILA. Sure, the athletes and coaches were all informed of it, but when the officials aren't fully trained on how to call it, you get into another inept set of officials screwing things up.
If you're going to make a rule change, at least release it to the public. I was unaware this change had gone into effect (and was actually used at Cadet Pan Ams and Asian Juniors) and I'd like to think I'm pretty in-tune with what's going on internationally.
My biggest problem, again, was with the lack of public dissemination of this. I was also under the assumption there would be no rule "changes" until after Budapest. I'm told this was not a change, rather a clarification. To which, I retorted "where is it in the rulebook?"
It's clear to everyone this is a change and not a clarification ... except, well, you know who."