Have a question for the more knowledgeable people/refs. If the start a five count when top is on legs why dont they start count on dbl thigh prys, last i I knew the thighs are part of the legs.
5 count on legs
- Thread starter Folkstylefan
- Start date
yea, I need to check out the rule... Too often they're not counting at all when top guy is on a leg... (granted, in different positions...)
Double thigh pry is a hold that starts above the waist. The rule covers holds entirely below the waist.
I agree that the double thigh pry should trigger the 5-count and lead toward a stall call. But there's your reason.
Art. 13. Stalling by Waist and Ankle Ride. If the offensive wrestler applies a hold with a hand or arm around the defensive wrestler’s torso while applying the other arm/hand below the buttocks, the referee shall immediately start a verbal five-second count. Whenever possible, the referee also should include a visual indication of the count. The referee shall stop the count when the offensive wrestler moves his arm/hand back up above the buttocks of the defensive wrestler, or releases the hold. If the referee reaches the fifth count before the offensive wrestler moves his arm/hand back up above the buttocks of the defensive wrestler, or releases the hold, then the offensive wrestler shall be called for stalling.
The 5-count is a rule that didn't need to be made. I've always believed that the refs (good ones) know when they see stalling and should call it without very specific rules that MUST be applied. The reason the 5-count rule is so dumb is because often times guys get hit with stalling because they're hanging on a leg when the bottom wrestler is pulling himself out of bounds by his hands/arms or when he's lunging to clear the leg and at those times, it's not indicative of stalling on the top wrestler. If the top guy is just hanging on an ankle or a leg for no apparent reason, then sure, but once again, the refs already knew what stalling looked like before this rule took effect.
The 5-count rule needed to be made because there aren't enough of those good refs, haven't been for well over a decade, and there's no indication of the NCAA being serious about correcting that issue.
And that example (of bottom crawling out of bounds) is still stalling on top -- he's hanging on as opposed to attempting to score. Want to call a double stall, I'm good with that. But top is still stalling.
On both feet pulling him back in and he is stalling!?!? That's is why cut and dry rules do not work
One scenario, though, which I believe is at least partially behind the rule is the top guy — in an effort to counter an impending reversal or escape — funking/diving, locking hands around a leg, and sitting there belly and head to the mat waiting for a stalemate to save him. That was happening way too much without penalty before the rule was inacted.
Sure, but to @billrag's point, any ref on the planet could see that and call it for what it is--stalling. Wrestling is just too dynamic of a sport--the technique tricks of today will be forgotten for a while, and come back some years down the road. This notion that we can take away all subjectivity from refereeing is simply folly, IMO. Then again, I have no understanding why refs don't call stalling more often subjectively--perhaps because they have too many objective criteria rattling around in their heads.
I've been bemused somewhat by the twitter outcry over the "PSU ankle ride" aka "western" because obviously people don't like it because our team is so good at it. But I could subjectively agree in certain circumstances it is stalling, and others, part of a larger technique set that breaks guys down and sets up turns. But if I tried to write out the criteria for each, it would become a fricken novel. NCAA refs are supposed to be masters of understanding the sport. I believe we should be OK with their judgement more often without rote criteria for everything. Just my opinion.
Edit: Just read @El-Jefe's remark about not enough good refs. That is certainly a problem of another kind.
No, I get that part of it. But as El-J noted/alluded, some of these rules are a last resort because the officials either will not call stalling or cannot do it consistently.
I don’t mind the rule, because I see more guys getting the escape or stall that they are earning than top guys getting screwed by unfairness. The pros outweigh the cons so far, IMO.
Yeah--I don't really mind the rule in a vacuum--but I do feel like the more objective criterea we have for stalling, the less subjective calls we'll get.
I agree that pulling bottom back in while on both feet is not necessarily stalling -- but that's not what the other poster said.
Also, how long do you let top just pull bottom back in, without re-establishing control above the waist?
Every time the rules-based stalling calls are discussed, inevitably someone says "we just need the refs to call stalling the way they did so long ago that nobody really remembers."
Yet nobody can say when that was, or even narrow it down to any decade.
Also nobody can say how much longer they're willing to wait for this army of perfect refs to magically appear, that hasn't existed in some unknown number of years.
I agree. Even worse is that if the top guy pushes them both out of bounds to maintain control amd get a restart, he likely gets hit with stalling, even though the bottom wrestler was crawling to the boundary.
Agree - just pointing out I thought he kept the action moving. Always telling the guys to get back to the starting position if they were trying to catch a breather after going out of bounds.
It is not stalling if both wrestlers are on their feet. Not sure why that is but it is in the rules. See bolded portion of the rule below.
Art. 12. Stalling by Dropping Down to a Lower Leg. When the offensive wrestler
is positioned with one or both hands below the buttocks of the defensive
wrestler, the referee shall immediately start a verbal five-second count� Whenever
possible, the referee also should include a visual indication of the count� The
referee shall stop the count when the offensive wrestler improves his position,
moves his hold back up above the buttocks of the defensive wrestler, releases the
hold or when both wrestlers rise to the standing position� If the referee reaches
the fifth count before the offensive wrestler improves his position, moves his
hold back up above the buttocks or releases the hold, then the offensive wrestler
shall be called for stalling�
You may be right, my memory will always be clouded by recency bias. Then again, by your own argument, I may be right. Ironically, I'd love to see objective data on the subject. Maybe "stalling points per match" for NCAAs as far back as the data allows?
I just feel like when you single out a specific scenario, you're risking the forest for the trees, so to speak. Maybe what we need is something more like in Freestyle, where, in a scoreless bout, someone is getting warned and/or dinged. Who that is is often entirely subjective, but with the support of a majority of 3 officials. I doubt NCAA will want to pay another official though.
Every time the rules-based stalling calls are discussed, inevitably someone says "we just need the refs to call stalling the way they did so long ago that nobody really remembers."
Except for the one in the VT Tech match.
I never cease to be amazed by a stalling call and the offending wrestler not changing anything ……and not getting another call fairly soon. To Friday’s match…I get it. Iowa’s current style of wrestling is boring if not painful. There were some stalling calls issued. The wrestlers are at least engaged. But to not recognize the difference between that style and what Brands was doing vs Carter is ridiculous. Over-ties and arms extended blocking. Avoiding center as if it was the lava game we played as kids.
At least they were consistent. Kerk largely did the same in period 3 but since the ref had no clue, it was a good strategy. Lol.
Actually, it’s more like this: new stalling rules are enacted because the referees do not call stalling as it is written today.
Except for the one in the VT Tech match.
I never cease to be amazed by a stalling call and the offending wrestler not changing anything ……and not getting another call fairly soon. To Friday’s match…I get it. Iowa’s current style of wrestling is boring if not painful. There were some stalling calls issued. The wrestlers are at least engaged. But to not recognize the difference between that style and what Brands was doing vs Carter is ridiculous. Over-ties and arms extended blocking. Avoiding center as if it was the lava game we played as kids.
At least they were consistent. Kerk largely did the same in period 3 but since the ref had no clue, it was a good strategy. Lol.
Lol. Does the 2nd official do anything now? Can I get the job of the 3rd official. I love to work at nothing all day…..someone once said.
In a bout where neither has made any real offensive or even counter moves in the first period, a double stall is warranted. If there are several shots and scrambles initiated by each, I'm fine with no stalling even when no one scores. Seems like officials don't give stalls in the first if neither do anything.
Wouldn't a counter move mean that the opponent had made an offensive move? If the opponent hasn't attempted a move, what are you countering?
Could be countering a feint or half-shot. Kinda like how Jason ankle-picked Martinez to his back.
Any ref who calls Action -- the match should be stopped and get a new ref out of the stands.
If you need to call Action, then call stalling.
Now that I can get behind. How many times does a ref want the wrestlers to ignore creating action before a double stall is called. I hear Action all the time but nothing changes. One Action call then double stall.
Are the refs watching for too much that is in the rules or do we just happen to have a bunch of refs that are content to watch wrestlers do nothing?
No Action calls ever -- call stalling.
All three actively do things in freestyle. One guy has to be the bag man from the Russian contingent anyway, lol.
One has to fold the discarded clothes from the Mongolian coaches
The only thing I don't like is the warning signs that must be administered. 1 you are stalling, 2 you are stalling, 3 you are stalling, 4 you are stalling let go, stop count reapply.
Do an arm count, but remain silent.
Yeah it gets tricky, though. I can see arguments for and against. But guys do game it. Even our guys. I guess it wouldn’t be high-level sports if that didn’t happen.
That's why I think the really good refs call stalemate and move them back to the middle. I think stalemate should be called more often. I also see some of the great refs take control of the match and tell the wrestlers what they need to do. Like hey you need to improve or wrestle through that. If not stalemate and then restart. Just my opinion
Rule #1 on Fan Message Boarding:
Our guys never do anything wrong!
Rule #2 on Fan Message Boarding:
Never forget rule #1!
Wait. I was confused on the URL...thought I was somewhere else.
If the first period ends 0-0, then both wrestlers should be given a stall warning (double stall.) If they weren't actually stalling and they both continue to wrestle the match actively, then the warnings won't matter anyway.
Get rid of stalemates. If people stop trying to improve position or won't change their attack plan, double stall call.
Get rid of stalemates. If people stop trying to improve position or won't change their attack plan, double stall call.
Ah, but you assume and misinterpret.
Rule #1 on Fan Message Boarding:
Our guys never do anything wrong!
Rule #2 on Fan Message Boarding:
Never forget rule #1!
Wait. I was confused on the URL...thought I was somewhere else.
Gaming-it is not wrong, because our guys do it, too. 😉
