Angel Rivera
- Thread starter WEH8ST8HAWK
- Start date
I hear ya. I have no faith that stalls will ever be called correctly again. I say take the subjectivity out of it even though they’d get it right the majority of the time.
Another solution would be the free style step out rule. I was never a proponent of this before but edge wrestling is suffering and people are using the oob line as an extra defender.
Wrestling is a unique sport, in that, it requires both guys attempting to create offense to make an enjoyable entertaining match. If you’re backing up and using the edge as a defender…you’re stalling point blank period. Keep them on the mat, if they run penalize them immediately.
Last edited:
If the ref is doing their job then someone should have gotten a stall warning before the end of a scoreless first period.
I agree. Implement a step out rule, create more scoring and get the (subjective) stalling decision out of the hands of the ref as much as possible.
Many interesting viewpoints raised in this thread. It would be within reason that current, or former wrestling officials are regular contributors to this forum. Perhaps those officials could describe the selection criteria, and the evaluation criteria of NCAA (or lower level) wrestling referees.
Wrestling officials who consistently grade well are generally selected for high profile matches/tournaments. Conversely wrestling officials who grade poorly will eventually eliminate themselves; natural selection.
Maybe some comments describing both the objective competencies of wrestling referees (i.e. rules; match control) and the subjective competencies. You have the stage.
Wrestling officials who consistently grade well are generally selected for high profile matches/tournaments. Conversely wrestling officials who grade poorly will eventually eliminate themselves; natural selection.
Maybe some comments describing both the objective competencies of wrestling referees (i.e. rules; match control) and the subjective competencies. You have the stage.
This whole discussion is due to that not taking place, and it isn't going to change. So now we're discussing possible changes. I don't like the double stall every time because sometimes one guy is trying ie. Buchanan vs Nebraska. I would be behind a rule that at least one stall is given after a scoreless period. If ref thinks it was even then he hits them both.
Last edited:
I’ve given up on the problem being fixed and now advocate for freestyle (without grounding).
Exactly how I feel. Also think a step-out rule would be good. I didn't think I'd like it when it was implemented in FS, but have come to like it since. Sometimes a good side-step gets the wrong guy, but in most of those instances, the guy was just pushing, looking for a cheap point. Also without the grounding. It's too easy to drop as you're going out.
Interesting thing was that it wasn't at the end of the period. IIRC it was in the 1st period and I think there was over a minute or so left. I could be wrong though as I was a bit stunned to see the double stall call like that.
Still means some subjectivity from ref, but I like this idea as well. And I would also reward the person who didn't get the stall, or better yet, who had the most takedowns in the period, with having the choice of up/down/neutral in the next period. If no/equal stalls...or takedowns...then flip each period. Don't like that risk, then get more takedowns.
Perhaps, but doesn't seem hard to track who got the stall, or more takedowns, in each period. And the part I added is at least an objective metric not open to ref interpretation. Anyway, just spitballing.
We don't need any more stoppages. The ref heading to the table after the 1st period to ask the table (at many tournaments they struggle with the basics) who had the most takedowns seems like that would stop action longer than we need
So if you take me down and i reverse you and turn you twice while riding you out, you still get your choice over me because of your takedown?
The overturning of the takedown was a makeup call for screwing Lugo against Sasso five years ago.
Do tell what goes on? Because if you don't think guys tend to migrate to the style M-Star wrestled I'm not quite sure what matches you are watching?
Well he's in his upper 30s how many days a week do you think he's is on the mat? Also you can say so and so doesn't attack. And then I can name a few guys who do. Getting a wrestler to open up and attack is between the ears. The guys wrestling with 149-74 daily are Eierman,Young and Marinelli along with various teammates.
Whether he's on the mat or not he isn't a coach? Way too many guys wrestle one takedown matches.
Well when you say "style" it makes it seem like you believe it's that way because they wrestle with him. I highly doubt guys go back and watch film of him. Like I said getting guys to attack is between the wrestlers ears. You think the coaches are telling guys just stand around and keep it close. Some guys have had that style forever and just won't change it. And you can look around the country and it happens everywhere. Should Casey be fired at Penn st because Bartlett doesn't open up?
Spitballing here. Have the step out rule implemented. If you ground on the edge you are warned, the next time it’s a point.
If a wrestler steps out award the point and keep wrestling, don’t stop the match if they are engaged. If the offensive wrestler gets the takedown award the points.
If the defense wrestler counters and scores the takedown its awarded, even though the defensive wrestler lost a step out point and wrestling continues on the mat,
If they aren’t actively engaged, meaning completely separated, stop the match award the point and return to center. This would allow action to continue, or the wrestler who lost the step out could disengage. If the defensive wrestler flees the mat so be it, the step out point has been awarded.
If a wrestler initiates a takedown and completes it at the edge and the other guys ends up out of bounds it’s 4, 3 TD 1 Step out. Think toe tap takedowns.
This could take away the subjective continuation vs. stalling call.
Stalling calls are considered if both wrestlers are in bounds.
With these rules, they could move the scoring of a TD back to two points?
If a wrestler steps out award the point and keep wrestling, don’t stop the match if they are engaged. If the offensive wrestler gets the takedown award the points.
If the defense wrestler counters and scores the takedown its awarded, even though the defensive wrestler lost a step out point and wrestling continues on the mat,
If they aren’t actively engaged, meaning completely separated, stop the match award the point and return to center. This would allow action to continue, or the wrestler who lost the step out could disengage. If the defensive wrestler flees the mat so be it, the step out point has been awarded.
If a wrestler initiates a takedown and completes it at the edge and the other guys ends up out of bounds it’s 4, 3 TD 1 Step out. Think toe tap takedowns.
This could take away the subjective continuation vs. stalling call.
Stalling calls are considered if both wrestlers are in bounds.
With these rules, they could move the scoring of a TD back to two points?
Considering he cost is 2 takedowns because he won’t admit when he is wrong and the BS stalling calls he is the worst out there. But I will also say I wouldn’t have a problem if it would have been 2-3 in Ben’s match after the first sequence. If Manning wasn’t such a clueless idiot he could have had his challenge left for that situation but Manning pulled a Manning.
I guess my suggestion was more that most points in a period (or the one who didn't get the stall if no points scored) gets choice next period. Shouldn't have focused just on takedowns.
And while I'm certainly not opposed to a step out-like rule here, I'm far from convinced it's going to make much of a difference in terms of offensive excitement. Not like guys can't stall their ass off in center of mat. But still probably worth a try.
Huskers having fit over the call should realize BK would have had a reversal after a takedown and final match score would have been 7-3 while Hawks still win meet but only by 18-16 rather than 19-16.
I like most of what you suggest but the bolded wouldn't work.
