ADVERTISEMENT

True-Wrestling - PSU vs Ohio State Preview

In regards to the riding/stalling issue discussed on another thread, these guys make the point...no riding time unless you get back points.
Not sure if they mean RT doesn't start until back are scored or if RT starts when control is established, but unless you get backs, you won't get an extra point if over 1 min.

I find this intersting.

Discuss among yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimNazium
I've tried thinking about this for years.

This is gonna be a bit of a long one, boys and girls.

Rules interpreters need to make it a point of emphasis that if you make no honest effort to break a guy down, you're stalling. And if this breaking down is not then followed by an honest effort to turn, that's stalling. That's the way it's written. One would think it shouldn't be that hard to turn the rules into reality.

But clearly we have a culture of officiating that wants every instance of stalling to be specifically written out. The rulebook starts by giving a very general instruction - it is stalling when one or both wrestlers attempt to avoid wrestling action. But refs very obviously want more than that - perhaps to cover their butts in case they get yelled at? Who knows? But that's why Chris Perry's side headlock stall tactic was explicitly banned - it was obviously stalling, in the general sense of the rule, but it wasn't getting called. It just boggles my mind that we had to specifically ban that trashy tactic, but, there it is.

I can't blame refs for that. I certainly didn't and don't enjoy being yelled at when or if I did something wrong ... or something that's a "judgment call." :)

To my mind, the rulebook was written in general way to encourage refs to use their own judgment with a core philosophy in mind. That core philosophy is that refs ought to be willing to promote ACTION, to err on the side of actual wrestling action. But, once again, that general rule apparently isn't enough when people are scrutinized so intensely. Thus we get this culture of trying to legislate stalling out of existence by specifically banning particular situations. Now, this is just speculation on my part, but I can't imagine why else guys are so scrupulous about "inserting themselves" into the matches via the whistle.

The other funny/dumb thing is that refs are still pretty aggressive against "bottom stalling" while being extremely lenient against various top stalling tactics (until the NCAA bans individual ones).

I suppose I'm a bit of a libertarian when it comes to wrestling rules: I really like the idea of more general rules against stalling, because, frankly, some of it is pretty obvious. And I dislike ideas like push-out rules, or big changes to riding time, because then we get close to changing the nature of folkstyle itself.

Of course, it must be said that the overall quality of the sport is still at a pretty high level. I absolutely think stalling is less predominant than it was even 10 years ago. More serious threats to its existence really lie elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
You could also award backs as long as you get any swipes. This would reward those that are truly working but just can hold down for a full count.If you are just stalling you would never get to the point where you would get swipes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbldoofus
You could also award backs as long as you get any swipes. This would reward those that are truly working but just can hold down for a full count.If you are just stalling you would never get to the point where you would get swipes.
Except what happens if you are clearly the aggressor, get some riding time in all three periods but never get a far as getting a turn?

Put parallel rides on the clock like ankle rides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbldoofus
The other funny/dumb thing is that refs are still pretty aggressive against "bottom stalling" while being extremely lenient against various top stalling tactics (until the NCAA bans individual ones).

The idea of stalling in the bottom position really cracks me up sometimes. Yes, plenty of wrestlers do deserve to be dinged in said position, but being penalized because it takes 100% of your strength to prevent Zain from ripping limbs off your body and planting you on your back is rather absurd.

I'm sure everyone who wrestled Zain would have loved to just toss him off, but part of sports is your opponent getting a chance to impose their will on you as well. I'm of the opinion that resisting overwhelming force is action, even if it doesn't result in points and shouldn't be punished (of course you'd have no choice but to ding the guy on bottom if he didn't make a real effort to escape during the gaps between Zain's efforts to contort our poor victim into a human pretzel).
 
Last edited:
Why not implement the CHOICE of position into the stalling call expectations?

If you choose neutral in the second,then you have a set amount of time to get a TD.
If you choose bottom, then it is your job to get an escape or reversal. Why expect the top guy to get a turn, he didnt choose to be on top.
If you choose top in either period, then make THAT guy get a turn, he should be the one expected to be more active, after all it was HIS CHOICE to take top!
 
Why not implement the CHOICE of position into the stalling call expectations?

If you choose neutral in the second,then you have a set amount of time to get a TD.
If you choose bottom, then it is your job to get an escape or reversal. Why expect the top guy to get a turn, he didnt choose to be on top.
If you choose top in either period, then make THAT guy get a turn, he should be the one expected to be more active, after all it was HIS CHOICE to take top!
In many instances, stopping action benefits the stalling wrestler.
 
I just say leave it as it is. Sometimes changing things sounds great until we are stuck with what we changed. Perfect example is hands to the face last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danoftw
I
I've tried thinking about this for years.

This is gonna be a bit of a long one, boys and girls.

Rules interpreters need to make it a point of emphasis that if you make no honest effort to break a guy down, you're stalling. And if this breaking down is not then followed by an honest effort to turn, that's stalling. That's the way it's written. One would think it shouldn't be that hard to turn the rules into reality.

But clearly we have a culture of officiating that wants every instance of stalling to be specifically written out. The rulebook starts by giving a very general instruction - it is stalling when one or both wrestlers attempt to avoid wrestling action. But refs very obviously want more than that - perhaps to cover their butts in case they get yelled at? Who knows? But that's why Chris Perry's side headlock stall tactic was explicitly banned - it was obviously stalling, in the general sense of the rule, but it wasn't getting called. It just boggles my mind that we had to specifically ban that trashy tactic, but, there it is.

I can't blame refs for that. I certainly didn't and don't enjoy being yelled at when or if I did something wrong ... or something that's a "judgment call." :)

To my mind, the rulebook was written in general way to encourage refs to use their own judgment with a core philosophy in mind. That core philosophy is that refs ought to be willing to promote ACTION, to err on the side of actual wrestling action. But, once again, that general rule apparently isn't enough when people are scrutinized so intensely. Thus we get this culture of trying to legislate stalling out of existence by specifically banning particular situations. Now, this is just speculation on my part, but I can't imagine why else guys are so scrupulous about "inserting themselves" into the matches via the whistle.

The other funny/dumb thing is that refs are still pretty aggressive against "bottom stalling" while being extremely lenient against various top stalling tactics (until the NCAA bans individual ones).

I suppose I'm a bit of a libertarian when it comes to wrestling rules: I really like the idea of more general rules against stalling, because, frankly, some of it is pretty obvious. And I dislike ideas like push-out rules, or big changes to riding time, because then we get close to changing the nature of folkstyle itself.

Of course, it must be said that the overall quality of the sport is still at a pretty high level. I absolutely think stalling is less predominant than it was even 10 years ago. More serious threats to its existence really lie elsewhere.
I agree with the rule book and with what you saying. I think the big issue has always been the timing. In other words how long til you call stalling. I hate when they call a guy for stalling when there's fifteen seconds to go in the match. The guy has been stalling the whole match and somehow that stall call gets the ref off the hook. I think the second. Ref should be timing the wrestlers as soon as there is a take down. If you don't turn the guy in thirty seconds it's stalling. If your on bottom and dont attempt to get to your base in thirty seconds it's stalling. The timing needs to improve end of story
 
I really don't have an issue with RT as it is. Certainly they could be more aggressive with the whistle if TOP isn't doing anything. However, I'd much rather them ding TOP for pushing a guy out of bounds, or pulling a guy out of bounds while attempting escape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT