New Stalling Rule?

[RoarLions1]

An observation from Bloomington...

It appeared, to me, that the referees decided to not call stalling on either wrestler when going out of bounds. Even the obvious were called "action".

I know there's a refs meeting before the tournament...sure looked like they abandoned the rule book.
Thoughts?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

An observation from Bloomington...

It appeared, to me, that the referees decided to not call stalling on either wrestler when going out of bounds. Even the obvious were called "action".

I know there's a refs meeting before the tournament...sure looked like they abandoned the rule book.
Thoughts?

Didn't they call VinJo for Stalling in his match against I-Mar on a really questionable one where they were wrestling and both went OB?

 

[matter7172]

Very few calls of this nature and the ones that were made happened to be terrible. Luckily, wrestlers have decreased this activity considerably.

They should call stalling when wrestlers delay taking starting positions. If they did, Imar wouldn't last a match. He has to get verbal warnings 20-30 times every match. "Bottom guy ... set. Top guy ........ top guy ..... top guy .... top guy"

 

[Lyco1990]

The crew I was watching noticed the same thing, Also I think alot and I mean alot of Potentially dangerous knee situations were not called that placed wrestlers in danger. Thankfully I did not notice any injuries.

 

[nitlion6]

Roar.
Bo and Martin's match. Martin on top, they get into a scramble and end up in a head to toe funk situation. Eventually stalemated. We discussed this situation briefly earlier in year. You at the time said you had not noticed any, but would look for the situation.

I was wondering if you had noticed any in general and the Bo/Martin situation in particular.

IMO the reason it is a no brained is Martin ends up wrestling to that position to gain an advantage. A called stalemate that leaves him in control. It should be a by rule stall on top wrestler.

As far as your original question, I saw it called numerous times. I also saw it let go numerous times.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Roar.
Bo and Martin's match. Martin on top, they get into a scramble and end up in a head to toe funk situation. Eventually stalemated. We discussed this situation briefly earlier in year. You at the time said you had not noticed any, but would look for the situation.

I was wondering if you had noticed any in general and the Bo/Martin situation in particular.

IMO the reason it is a no brained is Martin ends up wrestling to that position to gain an advantage. A called stalemate that leaves him in control. It should be a by rule stall on top wrestler.

As far as your original question, I saw it called numerous times. I also saw it let go numerous times.

Could only hear it on audio, but I agree - how is that not "riding the lower leg" when the only thing preventing the Reversal or Escape was Martin clutching and hanging onto the ankle??? How does that not draw a 5 count on the top man in that situation - this is not a TD scramble??? By rule, hanging on the ankle like that to draw a stalemate from the top position should draw a 5 count and Stall Call.

 

[RoarLions1]

There are other rule situations we (our group) noticed. One, the one-second rule at restarts is no longer a thing. And two, the 5 count for below the buttocks is not evenly called. Really respect the heck out of the referees, this one however was not a call one particular guy EVER made.

 

[nitlion6]

Could only hear it on audio, but I agree - how is that not "riding the lower leg" when the only thing preventing the Reversal or Escape was Martin clutching and hanging onto the ankle??? How does that not draw a 5 count on the top man in that situation - this is not a TD scramble??? By rule, hanging on the ankle like that to draw a stalemate from the top position should draw a 5 count and Stall Call.

I believe it should be called that way, but I believe I have seen it called once. Not a Penn state match, something streamed on btn2go

 

[Cowbell Man]

I believe it should be called that way, but I believe I have seen it called once. Not a Penn state match, something streamed on btn2go

That absolutely is stalling by the rule book. I know of no exception that says "if your top position has evaporated to a scramble, the top man shall now be allowed to hold anything below the buttocks for as long as possible."

The good news is Brunson doesn't get in scrambles from the top position.

 

[Gray52]

They should call stalling when wrestlers delay taking starting positions. If they did, Imar wouldn't last a match. He has to get verbal warnings 20-30 times every match. "Bottom guy ... set. Top guy ........ top guy ..... top guy .... top guy"

I've been frustrated with this one for years. They take a couple extra blows out of bounds, slowly walk back to the center, mess with their headgear, adjust their knee brace, take another two blows, and then finally get set. Not sure if IMar does it 20-30... but way too many get away with it.

 

[burnsie1983]

One thing that frustrates me, is the top guy driving the bottom guy out, solely to prevent an escape. NaTo is quite good at this.

 

[dsites52]

Riding below the waist is called so vastly different it's astonishing. I wonder what it would it would be like if stalemates automatically take you back to neutral. Maybe more guys would wrestle through positions

 

[nitlion6]

The newer stall rules are rules I like and believe are good things. The inconsistent enforcement is irritating as hell.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Agree to a couple of these things:
- top man pushes the bottom guy out (when standing - that is stalling)
- if on top and you get into a stalemate, then maybe change the rules where that is an escape. Work to a fall... if bottom man is causing the stalemate in a non-dominant fashion then that is stalling.

 

[diggerpup]

One thing that frustrates me, is the top guy driving the bottom guy out, solely to prevent an escape. NaTo is quite good at this.

That was DSJ's signature ride strategy a few years ago.

---- Listening to Byers over the weekend, the lack of stalling calls when a wrestler would basically flee off the edge drove Byers crazy all weekend.

JB mentioned it at least a half dozen times when it should have been called.

 

[RoarLions1]

That was DSJ's signature ride strategy a few years ago.

---- Listening to Byers over the weekend, the lack of stalling calls when a wrestler would basically flee off the edge drove Byers crazy all weekend.

JB mentioned it at least a half dozen times when it should have been called.

Sorry for posting a thought I've already posted in another thread...it sure looked like the refs were told at the pre-tournament refs meeting to call "action" for all OOB situations.

 

[nitlion6]

That was DSJ's signature ride strategy a few years ago.

---- Listening to Byers over the weekend, the lack of stalling calls when a wrestler would basically flee off the edge drove Byers crazy all weekend.

JB mentioned it at least a half dozen times when it should have been called.

There were times DSJ would pick up a leg and walk the bottom man off the mat.

 

[HOCKEYGOD11]

Not currently a rule but something needs done to stop coaches challenging calls to get their wrestlers a breather. Happened a lot this weekend.

 

[diggerpup]

There were times DSJ would pick up a leg and walk the bottom man off the mat.

Off the whistle, pick up an ankle and walk the wrestler off the mat. Burn clock.

Rinse & repeat. DSJ did that to Dylan Alton at least 250 times.

 

[El-Jefe]

Not currently a rule but something needs done to stop coaches challenging calls to get their wrestlers a breather. Happened a lot this weekend.

Tan Tom is a JEDI at this.

 

[nitlion6]

Not currently a rule but something needs done to stop coaches challenging calls to get their wrestlers a breather. Happened a lot this weekend.

I have always thought doing something about the breather abuse was going to be tough to do. It happens enough to make it apparent there needs to be something done.

I do not believe penalizing the competitor a point is appropriate, nor do I think you can just penalize the team a point. Last year taking 6 points away from Illinois due to Perry's actions would have meant nothing. Taking a point away from Penn State or Ohio State this past weekend would have been a big deal.

Use the injury time rule. If a challenge is unsuccessful the other wrestler gets choice. Another consideration for tournament competition is no matter how many challenges a team/coach has in their pocket they get one challenge per bout.

 

[minnhawkeye]

Just another bad day of work for the refs.
What I can not understand is why they can not call a double stall in first period way to many matches go scoreless first period. Also another thing I can't understand Allen is the head of officals in big ten and when he was the ref he would make sure right away in first period one or both would get a warning after 2 mins and no score.
In Clark's match in the finals how can the head ref stop the match and then ask the other ref if he saw the gear pulled off dam if he saw it then call it cause if it didn't happen then he was wrong to stop the match. Worse job I have ever seen and in my 30 some years that is saying a whole lot.

 

[NoVa Lion]

That was DSJ's signature ride strategy a few years ago.

---- Listening to Byers over the weekend, the lack of stalling calls when a wrestler would basically flee off the edge drove Byers crazy all weekend.

JB mentioned it at least a half dozen times when it should have been called.

Nelson also used that to win 2 NCAA titles.

 

[dunkej01]

I have always thought doing something about the breather abuse was going to be tough to do. It happens enough to make it apparent there needs to be something done.

I do not believe penalizing the competitor a point is appropriate, nor do I think you can just penalize the team a point. Last year taking 6 points away from Illinois due to Perry's actions would have meant nothing. Taking a point away from Penn State or Ohio State this past weekend would have been a big deal.

Use the injury time rule. If a challenge is unsuccessful the other wrestler gets choice. Another consideration for tournament competition is no matter how many challenges a team/coach has in their pocket they get one challenge per bout.

I'm thinking....

If you challenge and lose, your opponent gets a point.

1 challenge per round of a tournament. With each round ie consi then semi then consi equalling 3 allowable challenges. If u win u get it back.

Edit: If the second ref is out of position or misses a call (like the ripping off of a head gear) he is immediately removed to mortal combat.

Edit 2: its high time the 2nd ref is either removed or forced to a place at the video screen like the guy in the booth for NFL games.

 

[El-Jefe]

I'm thinking....

If you challenge and lose, your opponent gets a point.

1 challenge per round of a tournament. With each round ie consi then semi then consi equalling 3 allowable challenges. If u win u get it back.

Edit: If the second ref is out of position or misses a call (like the ripping off of a head gear) he is immediately removed to mortal combat.

Edit 2: its high time the 2nd ref is either removed or forced to a place at the video screen like the guy in the booth for NFL games.

At the rate Tan Tom takes lunger challenges, I'd suggest: failed challenge = sprint lap around the gym with Coach on your back.

 

[liex26]

I have always thought doing something about the breather abuse was going to be tough to do. It happens enough to make it apparent there needs to be something done.

I do not believe penalizing the competitor a point is appropriate, nor do I think you can just penalize the team a point. Last year taking 6 points away from Illinois due to Perry's actions would have meant nothing. Taking a point away from Penn State or Ohio State this past weekend would have been a big deal.

Use the injury time rule. If a challenge is unsuccessful the other wrestler gets choice. Another consideration for tournament competition is no matter how many challenges a team/coach has in their pocket they get one challenge per bout.

I like that, as long as it's clear the call was correct. If it's very close not so much.

As far as wrestling on the edge they could add another ring like five feet from the edge and when even a toe enters it on their feet it initiates a 5 count.

 

[matter7172]

Use the injury time rule. If a challenge is unsuccessful the other wrestler gets choice.

Annieat285 and I were talking about this Sunday and this was my suggestion also. It would make coaches think long and hard about making a challenge, especially a specious one.

I hate challenges/reviews in every sport, though. The slowing down of the game outweighs the rare instances where officials reverse their calls. I've played a lot of sports at reasonably high levels (football, soccer, wrestling, basketball, lacrosse) and referees' mistakes were always viewed as part of the game. Refs make mistakes, athletes make mistakes - it's life. You deal with it and move on.

 

[El-Jefe]

I like that, as long as it's clear the call was correct. If it's very close not so much.

As far as wrestling on the edge they could add another ring like five feet from the edge and when even a toe enters it on their feet it initiates a 5 count.

I like the motivation but not the complication. May as well just implement the pushout and be done with it.

 

[seeyajohn]

I like both the freestyle challenge and OB rules.

 

[nitlion6]

Annieat285 and I were talking about this Sunday and this was my suggestion also. It would make coaches think long and hard about making a challenge, especially a specious one.

I hate challenges/reviews in every sport, though. The slowing down of the game outweighs the rare instances where officials reverse their calls. I've played a lot of sports at reasonably high levels (football, soccer, wrestling, basketball, lacrosse) and referees' mistakes were always viewed as part of the game. Refs make mistakes, athletes make mistakes - it's life. You deal with it and move on.

Video review is now part of it and unlikely to go away. The current task has become how to use it effectively and minimize the impact.

I like the fact they can fix obvious screw ups. I don't like that some reviews take multiple views of the same sequence with the same angle to come to a conclusion. After you have seen whatever video is available once or twice and it isn't obvious then move on.

 

[jack66]

For those at Indy, did you see any Retherford/Collica situations? If so I'd be interested to know how the refs called it.

I didn't see that scenario in any of the PSU matches, and we can be pretty sure it will come up again if Zane and Collica meet at NCAAs

 

[matter7172]

For those at Indy, did you see any Retherford/Collica situations? If so I'd be interested to know how the refs called it.

I didn't see that scenario in any of the PSU matches, and we can be pretty sure it will come up again if Zane and Collica meet at NCAAs

Either stalemate or potentially dangerous stoppages. No stalling warnings. I had the BTNPlus 4 mat grid up, so I saw a vast majority of the matches.

 

[nitlion6]

For those at Indy, did you see any Retherford/Collica situations? If so I'd be interested to know how the refs called it.

I didn't see that scenario in any of the PSU matches, and we can be pretty sure it will come up again if Zane and Collica meet at NCAAs

Since the NCAA offered a public clarification on how to call that situation (Hagerty was wrong) I doubt there is a repeat.

 

[jack66]

Since the NCAA offered a public clarification on how to call that situation (Hagerty was wrong) I doubt there is a repeat.

I must have missed it.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Since the NCAA offered a public clarification on how to call that situation (Hagerty was wrong) I doubt there is a repeat.

Nitlion, where is that release? It isn't on the officials updated intrepetation page.

 

[liex26]

I am assuming he's referring to this post from like three pages back.

NCAA sent this out today as a direct result of the Retherford match:

Situation #4 on Page 119 of the rules book states:

Wrestler A has legs on Wrestler B. Wrestler B stands up with the legs still in. The referee stops the match for a stalemate. Wrestler A again applies the legs on Wrestler B while on the mat. Wrestler B again stands up. Question: Who should be called for stalling? Ruling: Wrestler B should be called for stalling for repeatedly standing up to break a legal move.

Clarification:

The bottom man should called for stalling, for standing up with the leg-ride in, only when the offensive wrestler has the leg in, while the defensive wrestler is completely down on the mat (hands and knees touching the mat with the leg-ride in) and the defensive man repeatedly rises to the standing position to secure a stalemate call.

In all other instances in which the offensive wrestler has the leg-ride in, or is attempting to get the leg-ride in, while the defensive wrestler is attempting to escape, it is the responsibility of the offensive wrestler to attempt to return the defensive wrestler back to the mat.

I did see the situation happen again at Bloomington, can't recall the match, I even pointed it out to others around me, but neither was called at all. Stalemate three consecutive times.

 

[CowboyUp61]

OK, saw that one. The NCAA just confirmed that Hagerty was correct, in that Collica did not have both knees on the mat when the leg went in, therefore it was Zains responsibility to return.

 

[boroscott]

OK, saw that one. The NCAA just confirmed that Hagerty was correct, in that Collica did not have both knees on the mat when the leg went in, therefore it was Zains responsibility to return.

I was about to dismiss this as just another self-serving snide comment, but decided to go back and watch the match. I think you might be half right, within the letter of the rule. But Collica (and Smith) gamed the rule to their advantage, and must have prepared the ref for what they were trying to do.

 

[CowboyUp61]

I was about to dismiss this as just another self-serving snide comment, but decided to go back and watch the match. I think you might be half right, within the letter of the rule. But Collica (and Smith) gamed the rule to their advantage, and must have prepared the ref for what they were trying to do.

Thanks a bunch for the almost vote of confidence!

And yes, I imagine they saw a chink in the armor they could use for an advantage, and did so. Almost worked!

 

[oldlion57]

I contend that if there are two refs on the mat they should both call the bout. When they differ they should consult each other and if they still disagree then the head official rules. Why have two officials on the mat if they are just watching. Other sports have more than one official and they don't always agree with each other.