I don't like this rule

[nearfall2]

From the rule book:
SITUATION 4: Wrestler A has legs on Wrestler B. Wrestler B stands up with the legs still in. The referee stops the match for a stalemate. Wrestler A again applies the legs on Wrestler B while on the mat. Wrestler B again stands up.
QUESTION: Who should be called for stalling? RULING: Wrestler B should be called for stalling for repeatedly standing up to break a legal move.

Sorensen got warned for this yesterday. It is a stupid rule. If you have legs in and the man on bottom can stand up you are riding not trying to turn. It is awfully hard to turn someone with out any pressure. The correct interpretation should be; the offensive wrestler is stalling for not attempting to return the defensive wrestler to the mat.

They call you for stalling for getting ridden like a mule on the mat or you get called for stalling for getting to your feet.

Change this rule and make the top man wrestle.

 

[dicemen99]

From the rule book:
SITUATION 4: Wrestler A has legs on Wrestler B. Wrestler B stands up with the legs still in. The referee stops the match for a stalemate. Wrestler A again applies the legs on Wrestler B while on the mat. Wrestler B again stands up.
QUESTION: Who should be called for stalling? RULING: Wrestler B should be called for stalling for repeatedly standing up to break a legal move.

Sorensen got warned for this yesterday. It is a stupid rule. If you have legs in and the man on bottom can stand up you are riding not trying to turn. It is awfully hard to turn someone with out any pressure. The correct interpretation should be; the offensive wrestler is stalling for not attempting to return the defensive wrestler to the mat.

They call you for stalling for getting ridden like a mule on the mat or you get called for stalling for getting to your feet.

Change this rule and make the top man wrestle.

This rule has been in place for many years. I watch a TON of wrestling and I've only seen the stall actually called once or twice. It is to prevent the bottom man from creating a PD situation for the purpose of getting a restart. Same rule applies to the top man if he puts the leg in after the stand.

It serves it's purpose. It had zero bearing on the match yesterday - Sorenson did NOT get a stalling warning, it was a PD with the ref warning him that the next time it was done he would be hit - this is exactly how the rule is written, first time PD, 2nd time stall.

Legs are a reality of wrestling. Figure out a way to not let the top guy get them in - as Sorenson was able to do for most of the match. If he gets them in, work to get out - standing up does not accomplish this.

 

[crablegs1]

I like the rule. Bottom guy knows that standing up is not going to get an escape. I've never seen the bottom guy stand up when top guy has the legs in and get out.

So to me, it is the bottom guy not making an attempt to get out and is stalling.

**this opinion is coming from a guy who lived in the top position with the legs in

 

[dicemen99]

I like the rule. Bottom guy knows that standing up is not going to get an escape. I've never seen the bottom guy stand up when top guy has the legs in and get out.

So to me, it is the bottom guy not making an attempt to get out and is stalling.

**this opinion is coming from a guy who lived in the top position with the legs in

100%. Standing up is just trying to get a restart.

 

[HoundedHawk]

I totally agree with the first guy. If a guy stands up the top man should have a 5 count to get the legs out. If you can't keep him on the mat you don't deserve to keep them in.

 

[HoundedHawk]

I like the rule. Bottom guy knows that standing up is not going to get an escape. I've never seen the bottom guy stand up when top guy has the legs in and get out.

So to me, it is the bottom guy not making an attempt to get out and is stalling.

**this opinion is coming from a guy who lived in the top position with the legs in

Yeah, I was thinking this before I got to the end of the post.

Sorry, your posting name disqualifies you from rationality on this topic.

 

[nearfall2]

I didn't suggest that the rule had any bearing on that match. Top was my best position as well and pretty good with legs. You would not need to restart if the top wrestlers responsibility was to return the man to the mat. The PD is not an issue because you have the responsibility to return him safely. If he can stand up take your damn leg out and return him. If your hanging on to a standing wrestler with a leg in you are not wrestling. You are stalling. If bottom wrestler holds your leg so you can't get it out (while on his feet) then call him.

 

[Stanley75]

Gilman mat slammed Waters a few years ago. That is one way to get the guy off your back.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Gilman mat slammed Waters a few years ago. That is one way to get the guy off your back.

That move is now an automatic flagrant misconduct. They changed that rule in response to that very move.

 

[Jaybird319]

Think of PD this way. Who has more control over their body when bottom stands up? The guy with their feet on the ground or guy with legs in?

Who can choose to fall, roll, jump back, etc, etc.

When Kem ended up stacked w Nolf standing and Kem on his head. That situation depends on head/body placement of Kem. People who don't think that was PD, need to revisit what POTENTIALLY means.

What Gilmann did was 100% intentional trying to hurt Waters! Never liked or agreed w that stunt by him or anyone else.

 

[93hawkeye]

I fundamentally disagree with the stalling provision of the rule also. In simplest terms my thoughts are if the top man does not attempt turning his opponent he's stalling. If the bottom man does not attempt to escape his opponent's control he's stalling. A stand up is in every other case, well accepted as effort towards an escape. In the scenario we're talking about, the onus should be on the top man to adjust so he can improve his position (meaning return the bottom man to the mat)
By the way, I cannot think of any other circumstance in which a wrestler is required to break his opponent's hold before he may execute a scoring attempt, as the current rule demands of the bottom wrestler in this case

 

[anon_hc7hkvtk15hp5]

I fundamentally disagree with the stalling provision of the rule also. In simplest terms my thoughts are if the top man does not attempt turning his opponent he's stalling. If the bottom man does not attempt to escape his opponent's control he's stalling. A stand up is in every other case, well accepted as effort towards an escape. In the scenario we're talking about, the onus should be on the top man to adjust so he can improve his position (meaning return the bottom man to the mat)
By the way, I cannot think of any other circumstance in which a wrestler is required to break his opponent's hold before he may execute a scoring attempt, as the current rule demands of the bottom wrestler in this case

Agree with you here. Also, if a guy has his legs in and is wrestling hard (regardless of trying to turn) there should be no way the bottom guy should even be able to stand up.

 

[CumberlandHawk]

We teach kids a stand-up to get away, then we say you cant stand up to get away. No wonder this generation is so confused.