The Rulebook On Stalling
- Thread starter bourbon n blues
- Start date
Thats a ncaa rule pa hs has no riding time. Hopefully pa hs rules allow ref to call top wrestling when top make no effort for tilt or pin. Which it should be for all folkstyle. Get rid of the damn riding time in college.
I'm one who feels being able to control a wrestler should result in a point whether you turn him or not. That being said, if we get rid of riding time, I'd just as soon go Freestyle and be done with it.
In a tied match or up by one… a 3rd period rideout has me glued to the action.
Last edited:
I was paying attention during the Starocci/Lewis NCAA final.
“There is no such thing as stalling on top.”
“See, this NCAA document has 5 bullet points describing how the offensive wrestler can be called for stalling, each backed by a rule citation. I even highlighted it for you.”
“In conclusion, there is no such thing as stalling on top.”
🦝🦝🦝
“See, this NCAA document has 5 bullet points describing how the offensive wrestler can be called for stalling, each backed by a rule citation. I even highlighted it for you.”
“In conclusion, there is no such thing as stalling on top.”
🦝🦝🦝
Every year we go through this bitch about folkstyke rules. From takedown point value, to riding time, to having a major, superior, tech fall and other points of discussion.
No we do not need to change the value of a takedown. If you want a tech fall without having to secure 13 or more takedowns then turn your opponent and earn back points.
Exerting enough dominance over your opponent to gain a minute of riding time is a skill and not easy to do. For every Tony Nelson example one can find an example of Cenzo having a minute of riding time on IMAR which caused IMAR to work for a takedown or lose.
Having a major = 4, superior = 5, tech fall = 6. What is a fall, 7 or equal to a tech fall?
It would be nice if refs would call stalling more aggressively and consistently, but generally speaking I like wrestling and do not believe the sport needs some sort of major rules overhaul.
No we do not need to change the value of a takedown. If you want a tech fall without having to secure 13 or more takedowns then turn your opponent and earn back points.
Exerting enough dominance over your opponent to gain a minute of riding time is a skill and not easy to do. For every Tony Nelson example one can find an example of Cenzo having a minute of riding time on IMAR which caused IMAR to work for a takedown or lose.
Having a major = 4, superior = 5, tech fall = 6. What is a fall, 7 or equal to a tech fall?
It would be nice if refs would call stalling more aggressively and consistently, but generally speaking I like wrestling and do not believe the sport needs some sort of major rules overhaul.
This NCAA article is very interesting. You hear so much talk of "parallel riding" as stalling, and yet that term is not mentioned in the article. The two general provisions that could be used to enforce an extended parallel ride would be the "attempting to avoid wrestling action" and "attempt to sustain active wrestling" scenarios. It is almost like the NCAA revisited the rules based upon the way Penn State in particular, and other wrestlers in general, are riding these days by hooking the leg or ankle and controlling the wrists. Based on the article, I would say the NCAA has generally sanctioned the way many Penn State wrestlers ride. I would not be surprised to see more teams imitating Penn State's top technique or some variation thereof, especially given this NCAA article.
Im with ya, If the bottom guy gets rewarded for getting out/up , then why shouldnt the top guy get rewarded for keeping him down.
Hey, I might have misremembered, but can someone clear up stalling rules as to having a leg in and standing up?
I thought it was stalling on the bottom guy for standing straight up while top guy has a leg in, eventually? Maybe stalemate, than stalling? And I thought it was stalling on top if they threw the leg in after bottom stood up.
I will respectfully not join the riding time debate lol.
I thought it was stalling on the bottom guy for standing straight up while top guy has a leg in, eventually? Maybe stalemate, than stalling? And I thought it was stalling on top if they threw the leg in after bottom stood up.
I will respectfully not join the riding time debate lol.
I'm pretty sure this was a rule change to remove the complexity...2-3 years back? Responsibility of top man to return, always. Not really sure when, here's the 21-23 rule book language:
A.R. 5-35. If Wrestler A is in the offensive rear standing position with Wrestler B, and Wrestler A has a leg ride in on Wrestler B, is Wrestler A obligated to make an attempt to return Wrestler B to the mat? RULING: Yes, regardless of the situation Wrestler A finds themselves in, they must make an attempt to return their opponent to the mat or risk being called for stalling. (Rule 5.7.15c)
Last edited:
That is absolutely NOT true. Here is the rule. See bolded section.
Art. 15. On-the-Mat Stalling Situations. Offensive and defensive stalling
situations also include:
a� The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the
opponent�
b� The defensive wrestler not initiating action to escape or reverse the
opponent�
c� An offensive wrestler not making an effort to return the defensive wrestler
to the mat is considered stalling� In all rear-standing situations, it is the
offensive wrestler's responsibility to make an effort to return the defensive
wrestler to the mat�
F
Go tell the guy who tweeted it, it appears to be a judgment call.
To me it seems over the years the Iowa fan base would often cry stalling while to me not very many actually spent a lot of time attacking. I've also heard something recently how PSU does something with the legs that helps control that technically isn't stalling. I'm more of a novice than many but I think the referee can always call it if he sees it.
Is this just a misunderstanding of *turn* vs *return*? Your bolded statement here is about returning to the mat, the original was about attempting to turn?
