I’m pretty sure that one leg wrap sit on the ankle is a taught technique at psu. In my opinion it is stalling. Simply because in the position you are parallel to the bottom man. That’s not an attempt to turn. But they don’t call it that way so it’s not stalling. Top wrestling has really gone downhill the past 15 years. That’s why I’m so glad we have Spence Lee.
That was right when I knew it was going to a long night. The first one was so egregious it wasn’t even funny.
You can be correct in your lesson on how to defend the ride, and admit that it’s stalling to just sit on that in the top position for 4 minutes.
Very strange take, IMHO. I’ll argue that it’s ridiculous to suggest it’s so beatable when week after week and NCAA after NCAA we witness high level college wrestlers consistently get beaten that way.
I knew it was going to be a night like that when he hit Lee twice with the PD call. Carl was in his head before the dual even started.
Perhaps i am just an outta of touch dinosaur. We used to drill it the top guy got to start with the ankle hooked and you had 30 seconds to get away. If you can’t get away shame on you.
He was right down on the mat 2 feet away waiting to call it.
Totally agree on that leg wrap thing...that is nothing more than stalling. Offiiciating in all sports has become just a show for the home crowd approval (except the Hawks women's game today vs Nebraska, ,where the officials stuck it to Iowa whenever they could...and don't seem to understand what defense is vs a legitimate foul (hacks across arms, going over backs, pulling on arms aren't fouls if it a red jersey today)
See you all in happy valley b
These are my thoughts also, if that's how they call it use it to your advantage. To me the stalling call reminds me of holding calls or PI calls in football, there's some judgement to it.
I would slightly disagree. If Teske did not have stalling calls against him, would he have felt the need to make that last shot? While it certainly did not affect the outcome of that match, it cost three team points.
Maybe I'm misrembering but he's still losing even without the stalling point. Or no? If so, I'd hope he'd feel the need to take that last shot.
I'd hope he wouldn't feel the need to take the last shot. He's completely outclassed and a leg shot gives zero chance of winning. Think of the team, and don't risk the pin with a petty move. Even he is going to do something, then I'd rather see him go for an upper body lock if he's wanting the risk.
Fair enough. Just a difference of opinion. I want my guy looking to score there. Never know what a leg shot can lead to. Also I think the mentality you have is the same many wrestlers have today. I think it's a reason why we bitch about how some of the matches are being wrestled these days.
At some point you think of the team rather than yourself. And if you read my comments again, you will see in no way did I say it affected that match. You really think he was going to score 4-5 points in the last 30 seconds?
If DeSanto got in on RBY a dozen times or so and didn't come away with a TD why would Teske risk that move where RBY has cradled people? It won't give him the win, and will only risk what happened. If he should try anything for the win, go upper body and go big. Give us something to applaud.
We can agree to disagree. If I'm a coach I will never tell my wrestler to concede and just take the loss. I think in the long run it's better for the wrestler and the team even if may not be beneficial for that particular dual. And yeah...kids come back every year from deficits even after getting schooled the entire match. I'm telling my kid if you want to help the team try to get the win as opposed to trying not to give up a bonus point or two.
For the exact same reason Austin NEVER stopped coming at RBY and never conceded the match. He ALWAYS had winning on his mind not trying to do his best to not give up bonus.
Fair enough - but you hear it all the time from Gibbons how to wrestle smart and save the team a point at the end of a match - someone who knows a little more about sport than either you or I. And it wasn't like there was significant time left to do anything other than a simple take down. As Clint once said - A man's gots to know his limitations.
own
He can't have the exact same reason as Austin, since he's nowhere near where Austin is. At that position in the match 1) not giving up bonus or 2) try to win through a desperate big move were his best options. He'd have to try something different. If winning was on his mind, he wouldn't go for a mere leg attack on RBY. He'd have to try a throw with just seconds left. Of course, he may have thought a leg attack may be the only way to keep RBY from getting a major.
Nice way to twist it, but anyone who knows anything would understand from a team prospective he could have stayed on solid defense and save the team 2 points. Not that I give 2 cents what you think, the facts remain whether you believe or not the Officiating was horrible and everyone knows it.
Indeed…was it 16-2 I believe? Gee…wonder which team should’ve been hit for stalling. Hmmm.
See Jayson Ness vs. Dan Dennis in the NCAA finals. Pretty much exactly what happened.
One only needed 1 takedown between two very evenly matched competitors and in the other match one needed 3 takedowns on a superior opponent.
