The Open Mat's take on nationals
- Thread starter El-Jefe
- Start date
Very much agree with his comments regarding the "inconsistency" of enforcing the newly instituted rule regarding a Stall Call when the wrestler in the top position goes to the lower and "rides" the lower leg for longer then a 5-Count -- this rule needs to be STRICTLY ENFORCED EVERY TIME THE SITUATION OCCURS (e.g., as soon as a wrestler in the top position goes to the lower leg, the official should be required to start "swiping" for the 5 count - the 5 count should not stop unless the top wrestler successfully "breaks the bottom wrestler down"). I would go even further and suggest that a similar rule be instituted in regards to a "spiral ride" - if the top wrestler is unable to break the bottom wrestler down with a Spiral Ride inside of 5 seconds, they should be required to "try something else" or be hit with a stall if they go beyond the 5 count (e.g., they have until the end of the full fifth swipe) without successfully breaking the opponent down.
One last rule that clearly needs to be mandated that it be enforced consistently is wrestlers using OB as a defensive weapon to avoid being taken down. Honestly, I would simply make it a rule that while in the Neutral Position any wrestler who clearly intentionally takes themselves OB while engaged with the other wrestler is hit with a stall call at the very least (I would even consider making it a "technical violation" and awarding a point to the other wrestler). In essence, this would not include a "push out" - however, I do think it should be made illegal for a wrestler to intentionally take themselves OB as a defensive technique solely intended to thwart the other wrestler from improving their position and generate a "restart".
I disagree ...
However, it's not as easy to call as it may seem. When the top guy collapses to the ankle, and just hangs on, it's pretty easy to start the count. When the bottom guy is actively moving forward, and the bottom guy has 1 arm wrapped around a leg, it's somewhat harder to call. The ref has to locate the 2nd arm, and is also responsible for looking for an esc as well as observing the line to determine out of bounds. Those can be conflicting focuses, and getting any of them incorrect is a disservice to the wrestlers. The ref does their best there, but I think a little fans should be cognizant of the complexities of what they are trying to manage.
As for your suggestion that the top guy needs to basically flatten the wrestler in 5 seconds or the stall call should be made, I think that's crazy. There are lots of situations where the top guy is in a worse position than the bottom guy, but because the bottom guy hasn't established control the RT clock keeps running. There are 2 wrestlers out there, with conflicting desires. I think the current rule, where the 5 second count stops if the top guy moves at least 1 arm from the bottom guy's legs to the torso is quite sufficient. Besides, the physics of breaking someone down within 5 seconds from when you're simply on the legs is nearly impossible. I think you're trying to encourage movement and scoring, but this suggestion is not workable, IMHO, and it penalizes the top guy too much.
If you're limiting this to situations like in the finals where the person in the less advantageous position would reach off the mat for the automatic stoppage, I have more sympathy with your proposal. However, that's more on the NCAA putting the finals up on a platform, and thus not having a lot of mat past the out-of-bounds line. In the earlier matches, that could only happen on some of the boundaries.
I don't see how you can penalize one wrestler for simply using the rules, which indicate that if they are off the mat surface the ref has to whistle a stoppage.
Tom
While I liked TOM's article, I wouldn't say that the 5-second call was as strictly enforced in the finals as they indicated. It certainly wasn't called properly on Wilps previous to the incident where it was properly called.
However, it's not as easy to call as it may seem. When the top guy collapses to the ankle, and just hangs on, it's pretty easy to start the count. When the bottom guy is actively moving forward, and the bottom guy has 1 arm wrapped around a leg, it's somewhat harder to call. The ref has to locate the 2nd arm, and is also responsible for looking for an esc as well as observing the line to determine out of bounds. Those can be conflicting focuses, and getting any of them incorrect is a disservice to the wrestlers. The ref does their best there, but I think a little fans should be cognizant of the complexities of what they are trying to manage.
As for your suggestion that the top guy needs to basically flatten the wrestler in 5 seconds or the stall call should be made, I think that's crazy. There are lots of situations where the top guy is in a worse position than the bottom guy, but because the bottom guy hasn't established control the RT clock keeps running. There are 2 wrestlers out there, with conflicting desires. I think the current rule, where the 5 second count stops if the top guy moves at least 1 arm from the bottom guy's legs to the torso is quite sufficient. Besides, the physics of breaking someone down within 5 seconds from when you're simply on the legs is nearly impossible. I think you're trying to encourage movement and scoring, but this suggestion is not workable, IMHO, and it penalizes the top guy too much.
You're the wrestler that is nearly taken down, and you are completely out of bounds, or nearly out of bounds, in part because you were driven into that position, or that's how you ended in a roll, or some other sequence that resulted in you being there. You have 2 choices: 1) stay where you are and try to avoid being taken down, 2) allow yourself to be dragged back so that the other wrestler can complete his TD. You're proposing to basically hit a wrestler with a stall call for doing anything other than allowing themselves to be taken down? That makes no sense to me.
If you're limiting this to situations like in the finals where the person in the less advantageous position would reach off the mat for the automatic stoppage, I have more sympathy with your proposal. However, that's more on the NCAA putting the finals up on a platform, and thus not having a lot of mat past the out-of-bounds line. In the earlier matches, that could only happen on some of the boundaries.
I don't see how you can penalize one wrestler for simply using the rules, which indicate that if they are off the mat surface the ref has to whistle a stoppage.
Tom
Re: I disagree ...
Nope, didn't say that the top wrestler has to flatten the other guy in 5 seconds or be called for a stall -- that is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of what I said. The top wrestler is not permitted to use the ankle, a spiral-ride or a crab ride simply to accumulate "riding time" with no effort to stop using an INEFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE FROM THE TOP POSITION that is not working and at least attempt something that improves their ability to potentially score an offensive point (IOW, riding exclusively to generate and accumulate "riding time"). When a wrestler continually does the same thing (e.g., a spiral ride for example) and it NEVER generates the supposed desired outcome (e.g., breaking the opponent down and ultimately exposure points) and ONLY generates UNDESERVED ACCUMULATED RIDING TIME, it is time to call the BS what it is - STALLING DISGUISED AS A SPIRAL RIDE. You take someone down in Freestyle and then do nothing but that BS, both wrestlers are put back into the Neutral Position (e.g., BS stalling disguised as wrestling is not rewarded with "riding time advantage", a point, wrestler with lead permitted to burn time off clock....or anything else -- it is viewed for precisely what it is - BS, not wrestling). In other words, a wrestler attempts to break a wrestler down with a Spiral Ride and it is completely ineffectual, it is the top wrestler's obligation to try something else.....they should not be REWARDED for an ineffectual RIDE that is not moving them any closer to scoring offensive points. They should be required to try something else if their chosen "move" from the top position is not effectual -- again, they should not be rewarded with accumulated riding time for an ineffective move that is doing nothing but accumulating riding (e.g., stalling disguised as riding). Riding simply for the sake of accumulating riding time is NOT a legitimate offensive move from the top position.
Also, it is complete nonsense to claim that the "rules of wrestling" permit you to intentionally stop wrestling whether you are at the edge of the mat, center of the mat or anywhere else on the mat. Intentionally going OB as a defensive technique (e.g., refusing to wrestler and instead attempting to not wrestle by intentionally going OB) is STALLING and is absolutely illegal under the "spirit" of wrestling's rules. If an opponent pushes you OB, drives you OB, truck-drives you OB.....that is a different story, but from the Neutral Position when you find yourself at the edge of the mat physically engaged with your opponent and the only thing you are attempting to do is "flee the mat" (e.g., intentionally go OB) to bring the wrestling to a stoppage rather then "wrestle", you are quite incorrect that this is a LEGITIMATE "MOVE" in the wrestling rulebook -- in reality it is not a "wrestling move" of any kind which is why they should think about making it a "technical violation" and awarding the other wrestler a point. I wrestled quite a bit growing up and I had coaches teach me all kinds of moves usually starting from the most basic then moving up - single-leg, double-leg, sitout, switch, wizzer, barrel-roll, fireman's carry, granby, etc..., but I never, NEVER EVER, had a coach teach me the "if all else fails and you're desperate, flee the mat Move". It is not a legal "move" within the clear "spirit" of wrestling's rules and INTENTIONALLY GOING OB in an obvious attempt to gain a stoppage to thwart the other wrestler's offensive engagement from the neutral position is at a minimum clear stalling and against the spirit of the rules.
This post was edited on 3/23 4:06 PM by Bushwood CC
This post was edited on 3/23 4:47 PM by Bushwood CC
Nope, didn't say that the top wrestler has to flatten the other guy in 5 seconds or be called for a stall -- that is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of what I said. The top wrestler is not permitted to use the ankle, a spiral-ride or a crab ride simply to accumulate "riding time" with no effort to stop using an INEFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE FROM THE TOP POSITION that is not working and at least attempt something that improves their ability to potentially score an offensive point (IOW, riding exclusively to generate and accumulate "riding time"). When a wrestler continually does the same thing (e.g., a spiral ride for example) and it NEVER generates the supposed desired outcome (e.g., breaking the opponent down and ultimately exposure points) and ONLY generates UNDESERVED ACCUMULATED RIDING TIME, it is time to call the BS what it is - STALLING DISGUISED AS A SPIRAL RIDE. You take someone down in Freestyle and then do nothing but that BS, both wrestlers are put back into the Neutral Position (e.g., BS stalling disguised as wrestling is not rewarded with "riding time advantage", a point, wrestler with lead permitted to burn time off clock....or anything else -- it is viewed for precisely what it is - BS, not wrestling). In other words, a wrestler attempts to break a wrestler down with a Spiral Ride and it is completely ineffectual, it is the top wrestler's obligation to try something else.....they should not be REWARDED for an ineffectual RIDE that is not moving them any closer to scoring offensive points. They should be required to try something else if their chosen "move" from the top position is not effectual -- again, they should not be rewarded with accumulated riding time for an ineffective move that is doing nothing but accumulating riding (e.g., stalling disguised as riding). Riding simply for the sake of accumulating riding time is NOT a legitimate offensive move from the top position.
Also, it is complete nonsense to claim that the "rules of wrestling" permit you to intentionally stop wrestling whether you are at the edge of the mat, center of the mat or anywhere else on the mat. Intentionally going OB as a defensive technique (e.g., refusing to wrestler and instead attempting to not wrestle by intentionally going OB) is STALLING and is absolutely illegal under the "spirit" of wrestling's rules. If an opponent pushes you OB, drives you OB, truck-drives you OB.....that is a different story, but from the Neutral Position when you find yourself at the edge of the mat physically engaged with your opponent and the only thing you are attempting to do is "flee the mat" (e.g., intentionally go OB) to bring the wrestling to a stoppage rather then "wrestle", you are quite incorrect that this is a LEGITIMATE "MOVE" in the wrestling rulebook -- in reality it is not a "wrestling move" of any kind which is why they should think about making it a "technical violation" and awarding the other wrestler a point. I wrestled quite a bit growing up and I had coaches teach me all kinds of moves usually starting from the most basic then moving up - single-leg, double-leg, sitout, switch, wizzer, barrel-roll, fireman's carry, granby, etc..., but I never, NEVER EVER, had a coach teach me the "if all else fails and you're desperate, flee the mat Move". It is not a legal "move" within the clear "spirit" of wrestling's rules and INTENTIONALLY GOING OB in an obvious attempt to gain a stoppage to thwart the other wrestler's offensive engagement from the neutral position is at a minimum clear stalling and against the spirit of the rules.
This post was edited on 3/23 4:06 PM by Bushwood CC
This post was edited on 3/23 4:47 PM by Bushwood CC
I personally hate the mandated calls on stalling (i.e. 5 counts, kickout at the edge of the mat). Unfortunately, it is one of the few ways stalling gets called.
What bothers me most about the 5 counts....It used to be the chosen method for escape was a strong stand up off the whistle. Now it seems to be get to your feet and try to defend being brought back to the mat knowing that the guy will be forced to cut you. There are a lot of times the top man is working his butt off to maintain control.
Everyone harps on Mike Evans a lot but in his wins against Evans I don't remember Brown coming close to turning him.
What bothers me most about the 5 counts....It used to be the chosen method for escape was a strong stand up off the whistle. Now it seems to be get to your feet and try to defend being brought back to the mat knowing that the guy will be forced to cut you. There are a lot of times the top man is working his butt off to maintain control.
Everyone harps on Mike Evans a lot but in his wins against Evans I don't remember Brown coming close to turning him.
Re: I disagree ...
I think it should also be pointed out that there were just as many examples of wrestlers intentionally going OB while physically engaged with their opponent from Neutral explicitly looking for a "bailout" (e.g., restart) where both wrestlers were in-bounds at the start of the sequence near the edge and one wrestler, and one wrestler only, did nothing - made no wrestling moves or anything else - but attempt to go OB and be bailed-out by a restart rather then a "stalemate" (e.g., neither wrestler has scored or is able to improve their position). So the two options you gave are not the only options IMO - the other option is the wrestler in the inferior position chooses to continue to wrestle (e.g., attempt to "scramble") and improve their position which is what the spirit of the rules requires. It is not legitimate within the "spirit of the rules" to intentionally flee the mat for the sole purpose of thwarting your opponent's offensive attacks. At the very least, there should be a rule that if you explicitly rely on OB twice the same match (e.g., intentionally take yourself OB with the clear goal of being bailed-out, avoiding a TD and looking for a restart), it is an automatic call. After the whistle stopping action and signalling a restart, the official could literally explicitly tell the offending wrestler "that's your 1"....then if the other wrestler does it, they both understand that the next wrestler to rely on OB for a bailout is getting dinged....
In any event, they absolutely need to do something about all these wrestlers who insist on wrestling on the edge to gain an advantage. The Snyder-Cox match was disgusting -- no way on God's green earth did Snyder deserve to win that match....he refused to wrestle anywhere except on the edge and only when he had his back to the boundary and both feet on the outer circle. Cox had him dead to rights a couple times even with his BS antics and then Snyder did nothing during the scrambles except attempt to drag himself and Cox off the mat -- no way should that repeated BS technique have been rewarded such that he did it over and over and over again the entire match while Cox was the aggressor for all but 30 seconds of the 1st period and Snyder finally decided to engage and continue a scramble at the edge on Cox's weakest and most shallow attempt of the night on a counter-shot..., but it was ludicrous to reward an entire match of the BS by Snyder IMO because that is the very type of BS that makes wrestling purists hate "folkstyle wrestling" because that type of BS is not "wrestling" whatsoever.
This post was edited on 3/23 8:59 PM by Bushwood CC
I think it should also be pointed out that there were just as many examples of wrestlers intentionally going OB while physically engaged with their opponent from Neutral explicitly looking for a "bailout" (e.g., restart) where both wrestlers were in-bounds at the start of the sequence near the edge and one wrestler, and one wrestler only, did nothing - made no wrestling moves or anything else - but attempt to go OB and be bailed-out by a restart rather then a "stalemate" (e.g., neither wrestler has scored or is able to improve their position). So the two options you gave are not the only options IMO - the other option is the wrestler in the inferior position chooses to continue to wrestle (e.g., attempt to "scramble") and improve their position which is what the spirit of the rules requires. It is not legitimate within the "spirit of the rules" to intentionally flee the mat for the sole purpose of thwarting your opponent's offensive attacks. At the very least, there should be a rule that if you explicitly rely on OB twice the same match (e.g., intentionally take yourself OB with the clear goal of being bailed-out, avoiding a TD and looking for a restart), it is an automatic call. After the whistle stopping action and signalling a restart, the official could literally explicitly tell the offending wrestler "that's your 1"....then if the other wrestler does it, they both understand that the next wrestler to rely on OB for a bailout is getting dinged....
In any event, they absolutely need to do something about all these wrestlers who insist on wrestling on the edge to gain an advantage. The Snyder-Cox match was disgusting -- no way on God's green earth did Snyder deserve to win that match....he refused to wrestle anywhere except on the edge and only when he had his back to the boundary and both feet on the outer circle. Cox had him dead to rights a couple times even with his BS antics and then Snyder did nothing during the scrambles except attempt to drag himself and Cox off the mat -- no way should that repeated BS technique have been rewarded such that he did it over and over and over again the entire match while Cox was the aggressor for all but 30 seconds of the 1st period and Snyder finally decided to engage and continue a scramble at the edge on Cox's weakest and most shallow attempt of the night on a counter-shot..., but it was ludicrous to reward an entire match of the BS by Snyder IMO because that is the very type of BS that makes wrestling purists hate "folkstyle wrestling" because that type of BS is not "wrestling" whatsoever.
This post was edited on 3/23 8:59 PM by Bushwood CC
In the Brown vs Wilps Match
Wilps was clearly reaching for the off mat area to get a re-start. How is that any different than fleeing the mat? I think that intentional type of behavior to generate a stoppage should be penalized with a warning then stalling points.
Wilps was clearly reaching for the off mat area to get a re-start. How is that any different than fleeing the mat? I think that intentional type of behavior to generate a stoppage should be penalized with a warning then stalling points.
Just my opinon elimate riding time.
Make them go netural if one gets a take down and in some set of time like in free style if top man does not make back point count put them on feet again.
Make them go netural if one gets a take down and in some set of time like in free style if top man does not make back point count put them on feet again.
I know this is a tough nut to crack as it is a pretty big subjective call, but I see more and more posts about riding and referee's position. One thing I like about our scholastic sport is that one of the goals is to be able to ride your opponent as well as get off of the bottom. Thus, I like the aspect of riding someone and looking for a turn. I also like the aspect of having to get off of the bottom. We all see those that do both well.
To recap, I am a proponent against stalling but I certainly like our sport for the challenge to wrestle on the mat.
To recap, I am a proponent against stalling but I certainly like our sport for the challenge to wrestle on the mat.
Similar threads
