The thing that most annoys me in wrestling

[Conewago]

I was just watching the matches from North Carolina at North Carolina State.

I don't know who that official was, but he was driving me NUTS.

The thing that most annoys me in wrestling is when a ref, staring at two inactive wrestlers, says, "Offense! Both guys, offense!"

When a ref says that, I cringe in pain! it never produces any offense.

This was in a match, Zach Sherman vs. Tariq Wilson, where both guys spent the first period doing very little - they each might have had one or two half-shots, but nothing else. And they kept tying their fingers up. Now, every time the ref would say, "Fingers!" Okay, but if you don't back that up, what's the point? These refs ought to warn them about that once, and if it happens again, boom, a stall warning - maybe a double stall warning. How often do you see refs call double stalling anymore? Whatever the instances of that may be, you can't say, "Offense!" or "Action!" over and over again! That's the definition of insanity.

Now, this, to me, is both very simple and fair. We shouldn't be letting 3 minute first periods go by with complete inaction by BOTH wrestlers. I hope that my rant will inspire any officials reading this to please take the complaint seriously, because you CAN do something about it and you SHOULD. I am a die hard wrestling fan, so I'll keep watching, but it hurts us if someone's first experience of our sport are meets where the pattern is passive first periods. People have short attention spans and might not be patient enough to keep watching after a bad start!

I do think wrestling officiating is better than it was 10 or 15 years ago in college. However, this is SO SIMPLE that it should be corrected immediately!

 

[hlstone]

I can only share my experience as a ref. I only ref 9th grade and younger and this is my 2nd year. I am not good at it, but I do the best I can.

I have called double stalling in 1 minute periods. I call stalling on the top guy for riding parallel. I call stalling for pushing a guy out of bounds(from neutral and top wrestler).
Half the parents and coaches think I suck and I am O.K. with that.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Throwing the brick resulting in continuation points coming off the board. They have to change this rule even if just to allow a 5 maybe 10 second continuation window and longer if one kids has control in a pinning situation.

The argument against is one or both wrestlers alter their approach because of a call they either heard the ref make or a noncall the ref misses, but unless I am going mad I am seeing one kid get robbed of points in about 20-25% of challenges because they go back to the point of challenge and freeze the clock and action there.

When in doubt create rules that protect the integrity of the match and the efforts and rewards the kids have earned. I have seen 1, 2, 4 even 6 points pulled off because of a referee being out of position to make the proper call. Sometimes it's simply unfair to make a review and change the call based upon a super slow-mo review of a fractional occurrence

The poster child was Bo vs Miles in the final. Ryan tosses the brick and one of the most iconic moments in NCAA history 'might' get wiped off the board and likely puts Miles up 4-0.

 

[dunkej01]

I can only share my experience as a ref. I only ref 9th grade and younger and this is my 2nd year. I am not good at it, but I do the best I can.

I have called double stalling in 1 minute periods. I call stalling on the top guy for riding parallel. I call stalling for pushing a guy out of bounds(from neutral and top wrestler).
Half the parents and coaches think I suck and I am O.K. with that.

Not all heroes wear capes.....some mind you wear stripes and carry a whistle.

H/T of the highest degree

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I was just watching the matches from North Carolina at North Carolina State.

I don't know who that official was, but he was driving me NUTS.

The thing that most annoys me in wrestling is when a ref, staring at two inactive wrestlers, says, "Offense! Both guys, offense!"

When a ref says that, I cringe in pain! it never produces any offense.

This was in a match, Zach Sherman vs. Tariq Wilson, where both guys spent the first period doing very little - they each might have had one or two half-shots, but nothing else. And they kept tying their fingers up. Now, every time the ref would say, "Fingers!" Okay, but if you don't back that up, what's the point? These refs ought to warn them about that once, and if it happens again, boom, a stall warning - maybe a double stall warning. How often do you see refs call double stalling anymore? Whatever the instances of that may be, you can't say, "Offense!" or "Action!" over and over again! That's the definition of insanity.

Now, this, to me, is both very simple and fair. We shouldn't be letting 3 minute first periods go by with complete inaction by BOTH wrestlers. I hope that my rant will inspire any officials reading this to please take the complaint seriously, because you CAN do something about it and you SHOULD. I am a die hard wrestling fan, so I'll keep watching, but it hurts us if someone's first experience of our sport are meets where the pattern is passive first periods. People have short attention spans and might not be patient enough to keep watching after a bad start!

I do think wrestling officiating is better than it was 10 or 15 years ago in college. However, this is SO SIMPLE that it should be corrected immediately!

I don't ref college wrestling, so I can't speak for what college refs do. I talk with college refs a great deal, as many of them also ref other levels as well, so usually I'm picking their brain about how to deal with this or that HS situation, though the conservation will often evolve into what they saw in a recent college match.

With that said, at least on the HS level, I disagree with your basic thrust of what a ref should do in the situation(s) you described.

"Offense, both guys," is a way of expressing a bit of frustration; encouraging them to get to their offense. However, the key part in the comment is "both guys." Stalling from neutral is pretty obvious, and also easy for a ref to call, when one wrestler is taking shots (accent on the plural), and the other wrestler is not doing anything from an offensive perspective -- not even trying to counter.

When both guys are not exhibiting much offense, especially between skilled wrestlers, it's often a combination of them being wary of each other, of one or both of them trying to set up offensive situations but being stymied by their opponent who has scouted them well (or their respective coach has scouted them well), or in the 1st period they both are having trouble finding a situation to take advantage of because both of them are in great shape, etc.

Most refs get pretty good at distinguishing between a wrestler that is avoiding wrestling (or avoiding their offense), and a wrestler that is simply not finding a situation where they are comfortable pulling the trigger on a shot.

I've only called double stalling a couple of times (in thousands of matches), and in each case it did nothing to change the dynamics of the situation. I've found that it doesn't really help for managing the match, in that you've set the bar for stalling at a pretty low level for any other times they are in neutral. Wrestlers that don't have a great offensive skill set, or two wrestlers that are really wary of each other, are unlikely to change their approach all that much in subsequent neutral positions, unless one of them tires and thus provides better opportunities to their opponent.

I'm pretty sure I understand the frustration with a lack of action in matches. I hear the complaints in some matches that I'm reffing, or when I'm on break and watching a match that another ref is working. Plus, if you read my PBP of PSU matches, you will catch an occasional comment from me about the lack of action from one or both wrestlers.

That said, I'm not interested in a match where one wrestler gets most of their points due to stall calls, or a wrestler defaults due to too many stall calls against them.

Every single ref has a different threshold for stalling, and being as they are human, most refs don't even call stalling the same on different days (mostly due to different dynamics in respective matches, but also because of some self reflection/evaluation they do of their reffing after each match). That said, most refs do the best they can in working with the wrestlers before them in each specific match.

 

[hlstone]

I don't ref college wrestling, so I can't speak for what college refs do. I talk with college refs a great deal, as many of them also ref other levels as well, so usually I'm picking their brain about how to deal with this or that HS situation, though the conservation will often evolve into what they saw in a recent college match.

With that said, at least on the HS level, I disagree with your basic thrust of what a ref should do in the situation(s) you described.

"Offense, both guys," is a way of expressing a bit of frustration; encouraging them to get to their offense. However, the key part in the comment is "both guys." Stalling from neutral is pretty obvious, and also easy for a ref to call, when one wrestler is taking shots (accent on the plural), and the other wrestler is not doing anything from an offensive perspective -- not even trying to counter.

When both guys are not exhibiting much offense, especially between skilled wrestlers, it's often a combination of them being wary of each other, of one or both of them trying to set up offensive situations but being stymied by their opponent who has scouted them well (or their respective coach has scouted them well), or in the 1st period they both are having trouble finding a situation to take advantage of because both of them are in great shape, etc.

Most refs get pretty good at distinguishing between a wrestler that is avoiding wrestling (or avoiding their offense), and a wrestler that is simply not finding a situation where they are comfortable pulling the trigger on a shot.

I've only called double stalling a couple of times (in thousands of matches), and it each case it did nothing to change the dynamics of the situation. I've found that it doesn't really help for managing the match, in that you've set the bar for stalling at a pretty low level for any other times they are in neutral. Wrestlers that don't have a great offensive skill set, or two wrestlers that are really wary of each other, are unlikely to change their approach all that much in subsequent neutral positions, unless one of them tires and thus provides better opportunities to their opponent.

I'm pretty sure I understand the frustration with a lack of action in matches. I hear the complaints in some matches that I'm reffing, or when I'm on break and watching a match that another ref is working. Plus, if you read my PBP of PSU matches, you will catch an occasional comment from me about the lack of action from one or both wrestlers.

That said, I'm not interested in a match where one wrestler gets most of their points due to stall calls, or a wrestler defaults due to too many stall calls against them.

Every single ref has a different threshold for stalling, and being as they are human, most refs don't even call stalling the same on different days (mostly due to different dynamics in respective matches, but also because of some self reflection/evaluation they do of their reffing after each match). That said, most refs do the best they can in working with the wrestlers before them in each specific match.

Tom writes his thoughts well and I agree with his statement.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Throwing the brick resulting in continuation points coming off the board. They have to change this rule even if just to allow a 5 maybe 10 second continuation window and longer if one kids has control in a pinning situation.

The argument against is one or both wrestlers alter their approach because of a call they either heard the ref make or a noncall the ref misses, but unless I am going mad I am seeing one kid get robbed of points in about 20-25% of challenges because they go back to the point of challenge and freeze the clock and action there.

When in doubt create rules that protect the integrity of the match and the efforts and rewards the kids have earned. I have seen 1, 2, 4 even 6 points pulled off because of a referee being out of position to make the proper call. Sometimes it's simply unfair to make a review and change the call based upon a super slow-mo review of a fractional occurrence

The poster child was Bo vs Miles in the final. Ryan tosses the brick and one of the most iconic moments in NCAA history 'might' get wiped off the board and likely puts Miles up 4-0.

smh

you're showing a total lack of knowledge about the rule book, both at the NFHS level (HS, MS, and youth) and the NCAA level. Video review does not exist below college. However, the rules are consistent in both rule books. Wrestling that takes place after a mistake by the ref, which is subsequently corrected, is treated as dead time. It's treated as though it did not take place, and you revert back to the situation, and the time, where the correction is being made.

Fans are generally aware of the situation where wrestlers revert to a prior situation when a challenge is successful. However, there are many other situations (give the wrong wrestler choice, mistakenly start in the wrong situation after going out of bounds, etc.) which are rarely seen, but for which the rules are the same. If the mistake is discovered by a coach/table/ref, the proper redress is to revert back to where the mistake was made, correct it, and start from that point in the match.

In short, the rules are very consistent in how mistakes are handled. I doubt that you'd find anybody on the rules committee for the NFHS or the NCAA that feels that the rules should be inconsistent, and treat one mistake one way, but other mistakes a different way.

 

[7brwnpsu]

Histone and Tom, thanks for taking the challenge of being a ref. This sport and others I'm told are hitting a crisis due to the lack of officials. Histone I love your humility.

I know in our chapter, the refs were discouraged from calling a double stall. Pick the least active athlete raise the fist and give the warning.

This year refs were telling teams in the prematch lockeroom talk to stay in the inner 10 foot circle or they could get called for stalling.

 

[ejzeppelin42]

The evolution of the “handshake” after the match drives me nuts. Win or lose, the hand shake between the two wrestlers should just be that. No hand slap. No celebration. Just shakes hands. Walk back to your bench. Wrestling

 

[psualt]

Throwing the brick resulting in continuation points coming off the board. They have to change this rule even if just to allow a 5 maybe 10 second continuation window and longer if one kids has control in a pinning situation.

The argument against is one or both wrestlers alter their approach because of a call they either heard the ref make or a noncall the ref misses, but unless I am going mad I am seeing one kid get robbed of points in about 20-25% of challenges because they go back to the point of challenge and freeze the clock and action there.

When in doubt create rules that protect the integrity of the match and the efforts and rewards the kids have earned. I have seen 1, 2, 4 even 6 points pulled off because of a referee being out of position to make the proper call. Sometimes it's simply unfair to make a review and change the call based upon a super slow-mo review of a fractional occurrence

The poster child was Bo vs Miles in the final. Ryan tosses the brick and one of the most iconic moments in NCAA history 'might' get wiped off the board and likely puts Miles up 4-0.

I too would like to see some form of continuation. There are too many instances where a 2/1 or 2/2 situation ends up being 2/0 because of the reversion. I think you would have less challenges in point scoring flurries because there would be less incentive to do so if continuation points were awarded.

Hall-Kemerer match is one example. It very easily could have been 2-2 after the first scramble. If PSU won that challenge it would have been 2-0 Hall with him on top to restart. It completely changes the match.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

As a ref (and a fan), here's a pet peeve of mine in wrestling ... check out where the ref is in this picture. IMHO, that's only acceptable if that's the 2nd Ref, but if it is, he's too close to the action. Plus, if that's the 2nd Ref, then the 1st ref should be in the center of the picture, blocking the camera's view of the rest of the action, as he/she should be looking at the left shoulder/shoulder blade (and should be looking from a position on the mat):

 

[SJP80]

I can only share my experience as a ref. I only ref 9th grade and younger and this is my 2nd year. I am not good at it, but I do the best I can.

I have called double stalling in 1 minute periods. I call stalling on the top guy for riding parallel. I call stalling for pushing a guy out of bounds(from neutral and top wrestler).
Half the parents and coaches think I suck and I am O.K. with that.

I truly respect you being a referee. I know it’s a tough job. But.... Double stalling for a ninth grade or younger in one minute period? Stalling for a parallel ride for an eighth grader? These guys don’t even know how to ride to start with? Do they even understand why they are getting dinged for stalling?

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Scoreless first period is mine

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

I truly respect you being a referee. I know it’s a tough job. But.... Double stalling for a ninth grade or younger in one minute period? Stalling for a parallel ride for an eighth grader? These guys don’t even know how to ride to start with? Do they even understand why they are getting dinged for stalling?

I bet their coach knows, possibly even their father. The rules are there for a reason.

 

[Annieat285]

I always thought it would be hilarious if someone wrestling in the national championship opted for some k-pop or anime song as their walk out song just to make the crowd uncomfortable.

 

[PSUranger]

Stalling must be one of the hardest decision a ref has to make. Things that aren't always stalling... stepping backward: some wrestlers set up their shot by getting you to step toward them... sprawling repetitively: if you shoot rapidly, I'm taught to sprawl... kicking away from a guy on the ankle and going off the mat: not stalling executing a defensive move that took me off the mat... I think it would be very hard to be the guy that has to determine when these are stalling and when they are part of the wrestling... THANK YOU REF's for taking on this challenge. We couldn't be there without you.

 

[nerfstate]

I always thought it would be hilarious if someone wrestling in the national championship opted for some k-pop or anime song as their walk out song just to make the crowd uncomfortable.

Pokémon doesn’t count?

 

[jrd23psu]

For me it's Iowa fans.

 

[Annieat285]

Pokémon doesn’t count?

As a former anime connoisseur I firmly stand in the camp that pokemon is a saturday morning cartoon on fox and not an anime.

 

[dsites52]

Oooo! A place to air out grievances. Home at last. To keep somewhat on message with the stallings and the whatnots, my biggest pet peeve is a kid getting dinged for hoping on his horse the last minute when they created all of the action/scoring in the prior 6 minutes. Now, some of my ire would be mitigated if the ref has dinged the other wrestler in the first 6. Sure, there is the extenuating circumstance of where someone is just absolutely dominated, but not necessarily stalling. But that's my biggest pet peeve.

 

[RoarLions1]

I can only share my experience as a ref. I only ref 9th grade and younger and this is my 2nd year. I am not good at it, but I do the best I can.

I have called double stalling in 1 minute periods. I call stalling on the top guy for riding parallel. I call stalling for pushing a guy out of bounds(from neutral and top wrestler).
Half the parents and coaches think I suck and I am O.K. with that.

I am seriously impressed that you have taken the leap into refereeing. Shouldn't be, knowing you as I do. Totally awesome, good for you!!!!!!!!

 

[kingslayer_85]

This is easy , for me the most annoying thing are fans who make excuses for losses due to the other guy being bigger and that if there guy wrestled him Friday night they would have won.

 

[nerfstate]

My biggest pet peeve are fans who leave before/during heavyweight. Easy for me to judge, I bike to Rec. But still.

 

[Still in State College]

My biggest pet peeve are fans who leave before/during heavyweight. Easy for me to judge, I bike to Rec. But still.

I always want to tell them as they are leaving, "remember to tell everyone you were there for the big win."

 

[hlstone]

I truly respect you being a referee. I know it’s a tough job. But.... Double stalling for a ninth grade or younger in one minute period? Stalling for a parallel ride for an eighth grader? These guys don’t even know how to ride to start with? Do they even understand why they are getting dinged for stalling?

Yes and yes
I do verbalize to the wrestlers and the coaches.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

smh

you're showing a total lack of knowledge about the rule book, both at the NFHS level (HS, MS, and youth) and the NCAA level. Video review does not exist below college. However, the rules are consistent in both rule books. Wrestling that takes place after a mistake by the ref, which is subsequently corrected, is treated as dead time. It's treated as though it did not take place, and you revert back to the situation, and the time, where the correction is being made.

Fans are generally aware of the situation where wrestlers revert to a prior situation when a challenge is successful. However, there are many other situations (give the wrong wrestler choice, mistakenly start in the wrong situation after going out of bounds, etc.) which are rarely seen, but for which the rules are the same. If the mistake is discovered by a coach/table/ref, the proper redress is to revert back to where the mistake was made, correct it, and start from that point in the match.

In short, the rules are very consistent in how mistakes are handled. I doubt that you'd find anybody on the rules committee for the NFHS or the NCAA that feels that the rules should be inconsistent, and treat one mistake one way, but other mistakes a different way.

smfh

Thanks dad. You entirely missed the point though.

And case in point with the Bo example, it seems you would be fine with a video review (granted we will never know) reversing that entire outcome. It's extremely plausable Miles had at least 2 there.

 

[SJP80]

Yes and yes
I do verbalize to the wrestlers and the coaches.

One man's opinion....

I feel like we have two groups of kids wrestling these days. Group 1 are the kids that go year round, belong to clubs, wrestle freestyle in the summer. Group 2 are those that start in 7,8,9 grade, may or may not be serious about the sport. We (ex wrestlers/coaches/crazed fan board posters) like to make the sport and rules for the group 1 guys (my kid was one of them). Reality is we need the group 2 guys to keep the sport relevant and not on the chopping block. Those are the more mainstream participants and expecting group 2 guys to be like group 1 guys in the 7,8,9th grades is fools folly.

 

[kingslayer_85]

One man's opinion....

I feel like we have two groups of kids wrestling these days. Group 1 are the kids that go year round, belong to clubs, wrestle freestyle in the summer. Group 2 are those that start in 7,8,9 grade, may or may not be serious about the sport. We (ex wrestlers/coaches/crazed fan board posters) like to make the sport and rules for the group 1 guys (my kid was one of them). Reality is we need the group 2 guys to keep the sport relevant and not on the chopping block. Those are the more mainstream participants and expecting group 2 guys to be like group 1 guys in the 7,8,9th grades is fools folly.

couldn't agree with this more. My son is group 2 and really likes it but just not ready to move to group 1. If he decides to move to that group 1 I will be happy to support that but if i pushed him he would end up in group 3 (out of the sport). He is in middle school and enjoying it and wouldn't enjoy it if I pressured him to wrestle year round so for now I sit back and enjoy that we share a love for this sport.

 

[Conewago]

I don't ref college wrestling, so I can't speak for what college refs do. I talk with college refs a great deal, as many of them also ref other levels as well, so usually I'm picking their brain about how to deal with this or that HS situation, though the conservation will often evolve into what they saw in a recent college match.

With that said, at least on the HS level, I disagree with your basic thrust of what a ref should do in the situation(s) you described.

"Offense, both guys," is a way of expressing a bit of frustration; encouraging them to get to their offense. However, the key part in the comment is "both guys." Stalling from neutral is pretty obvious, and also easy for a ref to call, when one wrestler is taking shots (accent on the plural), and the other wrestler is not doing anything from an offensive perspective -- not even trying to counter.

When both guys are not exhibiting much offense, especially between skilled wrestlers, it's often a combination of them being wary of each other, of one or both of them trying to set up offensive situations but being stymied by their opponent who has scouted them well (or their respective coach has scouted them well), or in the 1st period they both are having trouble finding a situation to take advantage of because both of them are in great shape, etc.

Most refs get pretty good at distinguishing between a wrestler that is avoiding wrestling (or avoiding their offense), and a wrestler that is simply not finding a situation where they are comfortable pulling the trigger on a shot.

I've only called double stalling a couple of times (in thousands of matches), and in each case it did nothing to change the dynamics of the situation. I've found that it doesn't really help for managing the match, in that you've set the bar for stalling at a pretty low level for any other times they are in neutral. Wrestlers that don't have a great offensive skill set, or two wrestlers that are really wary of each other, are unlikely to change their approach all that much in subsequent neutral positions, unless one of them tires and thus provides better opportunities to their opponent.

I'm pretty sure I understand the frustration with a lack of action in matches. I hear the complaints in some matches that I'm reffing, or when I'm on break and watching a match that another ref is working. Plus, if you read my PBP of PSU matches, you will catch an occasional comment from me about the lack of action from one or both wrestlers.

That said, I'm not interested in a match where one wrestler gets most of their points due to stall calls, or a wrestler defaults due to too many stall calls against them.

Every single ref has a different threshold for stalling, and being as they are human, most refs don't even call stalling the same on different days (mostly due to different dynamics in respective matches, but also because of some self reflection/evaluation they do of their reffing after each match). That said, most refs do the best they can in working with the wrestlers before them in each specific match.

Fine and good. I certainly respect your experience!

My only question, then why is double stalling in the rule book at all?

In any case, in this particular dual meet, there was a LOT of uncalled stalling taking place, in all positions, so, frankly, that particular ref let things get out of hand.

I should add that in several of that meet's matches, wrestlers were encouraged/told/shouted at by the ref, to commence with the "action," yet neither did. This happened 2 or 3 times a period in some cases. That's when a stalling on SOMEBODY is certainly warranted - regardless of how wary anyone is about it.

 

[Conewago]

For me it's Iowa fans.

I believe that would make just about anyone's list.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

One man's opinion....

I feel like we have two groups of kids wrestling these days. Group 1 are the kids that go year round, belong to clubs, wrestle freestyle in the summer. Group 2 are those that start in 7,8,9 grade, may or may not be serious about the sport. We (ex wrestlers/coaches/crazed fan board posters) like to make the sport and rules for the group 1 guys (my kid was one of them). Reality is we need the group 2 guys to keep the sport relevant and not on the chopping block. Those are the more mainstream participants and expecting group 2 guys to be like group 1 guys in the 7,8,9th grades is fools folly.

I agree.

Every ref is different in how they approach things. I've seen refs calling locked hands (and thus awarding points) with 7-year-old beginners who don't even know what is or is not legal on the mat. Their attitude is that this will help/force the kids to learn the rules. I don't share their opinion, but they are not wrong.

I take a much different approach. Basically, I use the 1st 30 seconds (or so) to evaluate the skill set of the kids. Even when you're on the mat where supposedly you're getting the most experienced kids, to keep things flowing the organizers may also put some first-year wrestlers on the mat. When I determine that neither kid really knows much about the rules, or about positioning, etc. then I feel a ref should be as much a teacher as anything else. I generally won't call locked hands in those situations. And when the opposing coaches call it out, I just give them a wave to try to let them know to back off (as I'll be giving their kids the same liberty, if I feel their kid is a real beginner). The idea is for it to be fun, and we want these kids coming back next week, and next season. I've seen situations with beginners where I could, if I followed the rules as written, disqualify them in a period or two (and periods are only 1 minute at the youth level). Would that kid have a good time? No. Would they learn anything? Perhaps, though it's questionable. Has their opponent, who is equally unskilled, be disadvantaged by my being a little flexible with the calls? No, as they are usually equally as unfamiliar with the rules. After the match is over, I walk over to the coach of the kid that was locking hands, and tell them to write down on their sheet to work with the kid that just wrestled, and teach him/her about locked hands. About the only exception I have is with full nelsons. If a beginner does that. I immediately stop the match. Before I award the opponent a point, I turn to the coach and ask them to step onto the mat, and to show their wrestler what a full nelson is. So even there, while I'm calling the rule as written, I'm stretching the boundaries a bit to make it a learning experience, and hopefully a little more fun, for the kid that is penalized.

At youth matches, you also get kids who it's obvious are training year round, and for them, I call the match pretty much as I would call a HS varsity match.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

smfh

I put "smh" in my response, because it was pretty clear to me that you did not know the rules, and the consistency of the rules.

Your response was "smfh." You can F this or F that with your friends, but I don't engage in conversations with people that respond to me that way, especially when I explain wrestling rules to them. So believe what you want, but I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[Conewago]

I agree.

Every ref is different in how they approach things. I've seen refs calling locked hands (and thus awarding points) with 7-year-old beginners who don't even know what is or is not legal on the mat. Their attitude is that this will help/force the kids to learn the rules. I don't share their opinion, but they are not wrong.

I take a much different approach. Basically, I use the 1st 30 seconds (or so) to evaluate the skill set of the kids. Even when you're on the mat where supposedly you're getting the most experienced kids, to keep things flowing the organizers may also put some first-year wrestlers on the mat. When I determine that neither kid really knows much about the rules, or about positioning, etc. then I feel a ref should be as much a teacher as anything else. I generally won't call locked hands in those situations. And when the opposing coaches call it out, I just give them a wave to try to let them know to back off (as I'll be giving their kids the same liberty, if I feel their kid is a real beginner). The idea is for it to be fun, and we want these kids coming back next week, and next season. I've seen situations with beginners where I could, if I followed the rules as written, disqualify them in a period or two (and periods are only 1 minute at the youth level). Would that kid have a good time? No. Would they learn anything? Perhaps, though it's questionable. Has their opponent, who is equally unskilled, be disadvantaged by my being a little flexible with the calls? No, as they are usually equally as unfamiliar with the rules. After the match is over, I walk over to the coach of the kid that was locking hands, and tell them to write down on their sheet to work with the kid that just wrestled, and teach him/her about locked hands. About the only exception I have is with full nelsons. If a beginner does that. I immediately stop the match. Before I award the opponent a point, I turn to the coach and ask them to step onto the mat, and to show their wrestler what a full nelson is. So even there, while I'm calling the rule as written, I'm stretching the boundaries a bit to make it a learning experience, and hopefully a little more fun, for the kid that is penalized.

At youth matches, you also get kids who it's obvious are training year round, and for them, I call the match pretty much as I would call a HS varsity match.

Sounds like the perfect approach for kids.

And for the record, I do not endorse refs being a hard-a$$ with youth wrestlers. College, maybe. High school, maybe. 7 year olds, no.

 

[SJP80]

I agree.

Every ref is different in how they approach things. I've seen refs calling locked hands (and thus awarding points) with 7-year-old beginners who don't even know what is or is not legal on the mat. Their attitude is that this will help/force the kids to learn the rules. I don't share their opinion, but they are not wrong.

I take a much different approach. Basically, I use the 1st 30 seconds (or so) to evaluate the skill set of the kids. Even when you're on the mat where supposedly you're getting the most experienced kids, to keep things flowing the organizers may also put some first-year wrestlers on the mat. When I determine that neither kid really knows much about the rules, or about positioning, etc. then I feel a ref should be as much a teacher as anything else. I generally won't call locked hands in those situations. And when the opposing coaches call it out, I just give them a wave to try to let them know to back off (as I'll be giving their kids the same liberty, if I feel their kid is a real beginner). The idea is for it to be fun, and we want these kids coming back next week, and next season. I've seen situations with beginners where I could, if I followed the rules as written, disqualify them in a period or two (and periods are only 1 minute at the youth level). Would that kid have a good time? No. Would they learn anything? Perhaps, though it's questionable. Has their opponent, who is equally unskilled, be disadvantaged by my being a little flexible with the calls? No, as they are usually equally as unfamiliar with the rules. After the match is over, I walk over to the coach of the kid that was locking hands, and tell them to write down on their sheet to work with the kid that just wrestled, and teach him/her about locked hands. About the only exception I have is with full nelsons. If a beginner does that. I immediately stop the match. Before I award the opponent a point, I turn to the coach and ask them to step onto the mat, and to show their wrestler what a full nelson is. So even there, while I'm calling the rule as written, I'm stretching the boundaries a bit to make it a learning experience, and hopefully a little more fun, for the kid that is penalized.

At youth matches, you also get kids who it's obvious are training year round, and for them, I call the match pretty much as I would call a HS varsity match.

Bravo. I know what you do would be hard to teach and be repeatable, but it feels like it is best for the sport.