STALLING...

[Lyco1990]

Right from the NCAA rule book.

SITUATION 4: 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.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Right from the NCAA rule book.

SITUATION 4: 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.

nice avatar Lyco. How many pin calls would there be if one wrestler (JG) would have been in control (had already established or was awarded a td)? Probably 98%. BTW - Lyco had a pretty nice year. Follow Nolan Barger a bit.

 

[RoarLions1]

There's more than that Lyco...here's some other Rulebook language...


"5.9.3.4 Repeatedly applying the legs while in the rear-standing position is stalling."


"The defensive wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly stands to cause a stalemate. The top (offensive) wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly applies legs after the defensive (bottom) wrestler is already standing. If neither wrestler can improve this position, a stalemate may be called. If, in the opinion of the referee, this situation becomes unstable, “potentially dangerous” may be called."

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Right from the NCAA rule book.

SITUATION 4: 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.

The other thing that should have tipped off the official was the fact that Colica kept grabbing Zain's lower-leg and ankle and holding it in place while standing -- that is clearly stalling on the bottom wrestler as defined by the rule. Zain had no other option once Colica started grabbing his leg and pulling on it while standing. I believe the PSU coaches were also pointing out that Colica was grabbing the legs and holding them in place while standing.

 

[Lyco1990]

There's more than that Lyco...here's some other Rulebook language...


"5.9.3.4 Repeatedly applying the legs while in the rear-standing position is stalling."


"The defensive wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly stands to cause a stalemate. The top (offensive) wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly applies legs after the defensive (bottom) wrestler is already standing. If neither wrestler can improve this position, a stalemate may be called. If, in the opinion of the referee, this situation becomes unstable, “potentially dangerous” may be called."

Right, Just rewatched the match but I don't think 5.9.3.4 applied at all. Repeatedly applies after the defensive wrestler is standing. Colleca was on four points of contact each time the legs were applied.

 

[RoarLions1]

Right, Just rewatched the match but I don't think 5.9.3.4 applied at all. Repeatedly applies after the defensive wrestler is standing. Colleca was on four points of contact each time the legs were applied.

Just sharing all the language that references standing and legs...

 

[El-Jefe]

Right, Just rewatched the match but I don't think 5.9.3.4 applied at all. Repeatedly applies after the defensive wrestler is standing. Colleca was on four points of contact each time the legs were applied.

Actually do think it applied -- to Collica. Ref blew it.

 

[Lyco1990]

Actually do think it applied -- to Collica. Ref blew it.

It is sad when most fans know the rule and how it is applied and the ref misapplied. If applied per the NCAA interpretation Retherford gets awarded two stalling points as Collica did it Four times.

 

[RoarLions1]

It is sad when most fans know the rule and how it is applied and the ref misapplied. If applied per the NCAA interpretation Retherford gets awarded two stalling points as Collica did it Four times.

My opinion is similar, Lyco. I believe Cael even tried to explain it during the bout, but in the heat of battle was unsuccessful. Just guessing (though pretty sure on this)...this will be discussed with this referee after the fact.

I do disagree with your comment that most fans know this rule. It's been my considerate experience that very few know the rule.

 

[psu_flip]

Ref was clearly influenced by Smith and the crowd. At least it didn't affect the outcome of Zain's match. Gulibon got robbed though.