Stoll!!!!
- Thread starter rossel 33
- Start date
I Believe in Stoll. He looked great that match, the stall call on him was a joke, Smith was backing all over the mat right when stoll would get his body lock or offensive ties.
Still needs to find ways to get to the legs against elite oponents, but he is just going to keep getting better. He gets around that corner quick for a big guy. Almost scored that same way in the first. Smith continuously backing up and refusing to come into Stoll on the upper body stuff and they call Stoll for a ridiculous stall call. All is well that ends well, though
Great job Sammy. Still lots of work to do. Keep working hard with Berhow and Telford man keep moving forward. Need to work on u r riding when on top and u be one mean sob.
IIRC..... the New Stall Rule includes something about pushing an opponent out of bounds. That's probably what they called on him.
Meh...titties...fatty...eat less cookies...will struggle with the top 15...learn to get takedowns...butterbean...
Not impressed. Going to be a long 4 years.
Not impressed. Going to be a long 4 years.
Sammy dug deep and really turned up the heat in OT... Forced Smith into a mistake. Young man is just scratching the surface and is going to be one BAMF!
Pathetic nonetheless. Blows my mind how he decided to call Sam there. He pushed Smith around the mat and Smith was clearly staying on the edge for a safety valve if Sam decided to try to launch him.
This is gonna be an unpopular post, but per the new rules, the stall call on Sam for pushing the guy out of bounds was technically stalling on Sam.
Refs made the correct call.
Sam had an underhook on him and was pushing him out of bounds. Smith tried to circle back in twice and Sam cut him off and kept pushing him out of bounds. Per rule, that is stalling on the guy pushing his opponent out and not letting him back to center of the mat.
I think if Sam tried a throw or something more offensive at that point instead of bulldozing him out of bounds, the ref would have called stalling on Smith.
Refs made the correct call.
Sam had an underhook on him and was pushing him out of bounds. Smith tried to circle back in twice and Sam cut him off and kept pushing him out of bounds. Per rule, that is stalling on the guy pushing his opponent out and not letting him back to center of the mat.
I think if Sam tried a throw or something more offensive at that point instead of bulldozing him out of bounds, the ref would have called stalling on Smith.
what about the other 8 times that Smith back across the mat when Sam had over/under locked up?
Smith did a really good job of circling back to the center of the mat everytime Sam had his underhooks near the edge.
I do think Smith should have been dinged for stalling once for backing up even if they didn't end up going out of bounds. Backing up is still backing up regardless of going out of bounds.
Rutger boys must have been watching the SDSU vs Iowa meet on repeat on their bus trip over here.
- Smith circling in to prevent pushout by Sam
- Gravina doing his tripod post or whatever the hell it was he did to stick Brooks mid tilt.
This is a problem with the rule. I have a hard time believing that the rules committee is so dense that they actually believe what Stoll did was stalling. If anyone was the aggressor in that position, it was Stoll. Smith did try to circle in -- to avoid a stall call, himself, but certainly not to initiate any action.
I'm all for calling stalling when it happens -- and goodness knows, it happens too much in college wrestling -- but why invent reasons to call it when it's not occurring? This was one instance where you just blow the whistle, indicate OOB, and return to the center. There was no competitive advantage achieved by Stoll; he wasn't avoiding any kind of scoring attempt by Smith; and he was initiating the action. By no definition was that stalling, except in what seems to me like a totally whacked-out writing of that rule. Sure, when the top man runs the bottom man OOB to avoid giving up the escape, that's stalling. Of course, when a guy backs straight OOB, that's stalling. But when you're tied up with a guy, you're moving forward, and you happen to go OOB, I'm sorry -- that's not a stall by any measure except the letter of this rule, which needs to be modified. . . or better yet, scrapped and replaced with a push-out rule.
To add one more thing, what's the alternative for a guy like Stoll in that position? To back toward the center, or stay there. If you have a guy in a body lock, you want to hold your ground or move forward. Unless you want to initiate a lateral drop, you're not going to be backing up consciously. Stoll doesn't have any other reasonable option in that position but to keep his pressure forward. There's a chance he might be able to hoist him up and throw him, and there's a chance he might go OOB. By any reasonable appraisal, the latter is anything but a stall.
"...you're moving forward, and you happen to go OOB..." Ok, i'm really liking Sam Stoll. I'm going to enjoy rooting for him for the next four years and beyond when he wrestling internationally in Greco. He has by far the best walk out music of any wrestler. The only thing that'd make it better would be if he walked out with a black cap on. But, I'm pretty certain Sam didn't just "happen" to go out of bounds there. Sam was looking for the pushout there. Smith tried to circle back twice and Sam intentionally cut him off and kept pushing. The refs saw that, so they dinged him for stalling per the rule.
This is the problem I anticipated with this rule. So now refs are going to have to make the sometimes incredibly subjective decision as to whether one guy is backing out or one guy is "looking for the push out".
First of all, by what measure is "looking for the push out" a stall? Answer: zero. If a guy is backing out, absolutely. If the other guy is coming forward and they go OOB, absolutely not. By the letter of the rule, it apparently is a stall, but the fact is that it's not a stall. They can penalize it all they want -- that doesn't change the fact that it's not a stall.
Mark my words. This rule will create MASSIVE controversy at some point this season, probably in some big matches in late-season tournaments.
There's a simple solution as plain as the noses on the faces of the members of the rules committee: A FRICKIN' PUSH-OUT RULE! Just be done with all of the subjectivity and award 1 point to the guy who leaves the circle last or pushes his opponent out of the circle. It's straightforward, objective, and much easier for the refs to call, plus it adds another scoring opportunity along with excitement. . . not to mention the fact that it keeps the action the center much more effectively than the current rules. If anyone is skeptical about how well the push-out rule keeps action in the center, check out freestyle. Those guys generally avoid the edge like the plague. . . and when they get near the edge, the action really picks up. It's a win-win.
First of all, by what measure is "looking for the push out" a stall? Answer: zero. If a guy is backing out, absolutely. If the other guy is coming forward and they go OOB, absolutely not. By the letter of the rule, it apparently is a stall, but the fact is that it's not a stall. They can penalize it all they want -- that doesn't change the fact that it's not a stall.
Mark my words. This rule will create MASSIVE controversy at some point this season, probably in some big matches in late-season tournaments.
There's a simple solution as plain as the noses on the faces of the members of the rules committee: A FRICKIN' PUSH-OUT RULE! Just be done with all of the subjectivity and award 1 point to the guy who leaves the circle last or pushes his opponent out of the circle. It's straightforward, objective, and much easier for the refs to call, plus it adds another scoring opportunity along with excitement. . . not to mention the fact that it keeps the action the center much more effectively than the current rules. If anyone is skeptical about how well the push-out rule keeps action in the center, check out freestyle. Those guys generally avoid the edge like the plague. . . and when they get near the edge, the action really picks up. It's a win-win.
ok - at the end of the day - I'm happy Sam was the better guy and he got the win as he should have. The only downer is - he let the guy out in 3 seconds - c-mon man! Sam is a beast on top - and he did not prove it tonight. but a win is a win
The call on Stoll was iffy but in the end I like the new rules this year better than the push out because with the push out you have guys create a whole "offense" around trying to bait a guy to get near enough to the edge to shove them out. The current rule still encourages wrestling near the edge not a pushing contest.
I actually agree with Sandor. Hate the rule, but by the rule, that was stalling.
The only thing that I think can keep Sammy off the podium is double OT. His ground game is not going to be where he wins against top heavies. If he wrestles with urgency and gives 'er hell for 7-8 minutes, he should be fine. It gets beyond that, that is not water we want Sammy swimming in this year.
The only thing that I think can keep Sammy off the podium is double OT. His ground game is not going to be where he wins against top heavies. If he wrestles with urgency and gives 'er hell for 7-8 minutes, he should be fine. It gets beyond that, that is not water we want Sammy swimming in this year.
I was thinking that in the meet last night, once it went into overtime I said he better in this now.
Again, that's NOT what happens in reality. Look at freestyle. It's foolish and unrealistic to create your offense around trying to push a guy out. It ends up burning you if you do. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. The effect is that the action stays in the center. If the push-out is there, sure, guys will look for it, but guys learn to counter push-out attempts very well and can just as easily score off the opponent's attempt to push them out. I had the same "sumo" concern, but it's unfounded.
Agree. I'm surprised so many people are worried about why might happen with a pushout rule, when we already know exactly how it would look in action. The only significant difference in strategy that I cant think of, is that when you get a guy's leg in the air and are having trouble bringing him down, sometimes guys use the hold to pull him out of bounds. Which I think is fine because it creates more scoring.
This rule isn't terrible, but it's too fuzzy.
Considering Stoll didn't take one legitimate shot, I'm not sure how you guys can complain about that stall call. Stoll continuously tied up and pushed forward with no offensive moves. He really should of been hit multiple times.
Solid win for him. I wasn't surprised one bit to see him win. And I have to say I agreed with the stall call on Stoll. He was just trying to push him out of pounds, no real attempt to do anything from there. If he would have taken a shot attempt on the edge then no it's not a stall, but since he was just bull dogging him off the mat then it had to be called.
Iowa is winning most of the stall calls, can't be upset when we get dinged for one.
Iowa is winning most of the stall calls, can't be upset when we get dinged for one.
I agree with this guy. I love Sam. But you can't just lock up over and over again. Without trying and offensive move.
FEWER cookies, not less. Dammit, people, how many times do I have to tell you?!
It's hard to do anything with an upper body hold when all the guy does is back pedal while you have it. Smith did not step forward once, which may have been smart on his part, but I fail to see how that is stalling on Stoll. Why do you talk trash on our program on every other board and then even bother posting on this board? You've made it clear how much you hate Iowa, so you can take the nonsense someplace else.
Last edited:
Did you watch the first period. Smith back pedaled the whole period. He should have been dinged at least twice. Since you want to bring up rules lets talk about how you don't have to go out of bounds to call stalling. Smith stall the whole period. Also, Smith is a big strong guy. Why was he always on the verge of going out of bounds?
Two words, 1stplace -- ignore button. I've weeded out almost all of the knuckleheads, and it's a much more pleasant experience now. Seriously -- do yourself a favor and just ignore the yahoos. It makes a huge difference.
Tell you what I like about Stoll's upper body lock. His arms are sufficiently long that often he can lock up, but his opponent either can't return the favor because of a size mismatch (which I think was often the case last night) or doesn't want to because of Stoll's superior Greco skills. As a result, when Stoll locked up Smith, I thought there was no risk that Smith would be able to put Stoll in any jeopardy. It was all upside for Stoll, and we all know he has a variety of throws and trips that he can deploy from that position.
My two cents on the stall call: Not stalling. When Stoll has an opponent locked up, he has every reason to push an opponent who starts to back up to the edge of the mat. The way that Stoll can most effectively score off of a lock up is by pushing the opponent into a more vertical type of stance, where Stoll can throw or trip the opponent. With an opponent backing up like Smith, Stoll has no choice but to push the opponent to the edge of the mat and force the opponent either to go out of bounds or to stop retreating and to risk getting thrown or tripped. A stall call on Stoll? Not seeing it. You're penalizing the wrestler who's creating all of the action. The referee needs to put an opponent like Smith to the choice of having a stall warning called against him or standing straight up and getting launched into the atmosphere.
My two cents on the stall call: Not stalling. When Stoll has an opponent locked up, he has every reason to push an opponent who starts to back up to the edge of the mat. The way that Stoll can most effectively score off of a lock up is by pushing the opponent into a more vertical type of stance, where Stoll can throw or trip the opponent. With an opponent backing up like Smith, Stoll has no choice but to push the opponent to the edge of the mat and force the opponent either to go out of bounds or to stop retreating and to risk getting thrown or tripped. A stall call on Stoll? Not seeing it. You're penalizing the wrestler who's creating all of the action. The referee needs to put an opponent like Smith to the choice of having a stall warning called against him or standing straight up and getting launched into the atmosphere.
I think Stoll likes to have that body lock on the edge of the mat. If everything goes well he gets the pin (Quean Smith) but if it doesn't go in his favor then he can get out of bounds. I might be completely wrong but it appears that he likes to throw it on the edge of the mat.
