You are really naive to think that big bruiser of theirs couldn't get back in bounds if he really tried.
Stoll!!!!
- Thread starter rossel 33
- Start date
Not naive just took my homer glasses off for a second. Doesn't take much to see that Smith was tired and tried to get back in bounds twice and that Stoll cut him off twice. Smith is big, but Sam is bigger and his conditioning was better.
Stoll was pushing him out of bounds on purpose. I know it. The ref knew it. Smith knows it. Rutgers knew it. Hell, even Stoll probably knew it.
Agree completely. That said, by the letter of the rule, it can be argued that Sam should have been called. This is why the rule is flawed, IMO. And I'm telling you, this rule is going to cause some serious controversy down the road. Way too nebulous.
A PUSH-OUT RULE SOLVES THE WHOLE PROBLEM AND MAKES THE SPORT MORE EXCITING. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR THE RULES COMMITTEE TO GRASP?
Interesting debate, and I'm in the middle. Stall calls go mostly our way--true. Hard to justify a stall call for someone who is moving forward--true. Was Stoll trying to score or trying to push him OOB? I think the latter. Unless we actually implement a push-out rule, we don't want to have a de-facto push-out rule--meaning we don't want to encourage people to push people OOB simply to get their 1 point. Based on all that, I would've simply called them OOB, verbally warned Stoll for pushing without an offensive move, verbally warned Smith for backing out, and re-started them with no points or official stall warnings.
Per the rules, it was interpreted as pushing out of bounds, and while I don't agree, I can see how it can be called and so I don't have an issue with it. The difference between Smith and Macki (SDSU) that was DQ'd on stall calls, is that Macki did not posses the upper body strength to hold Stoll off the throw attempt so he either had to belly up or back out quickly. Smith was able to hold off the double under or whatever body lock Stoll was able to throw at him, long enough to slowly back up and make it seem as though we was being pushed out, when it reality, he was simply trying to not move forward and step into the throw. Just my opinion and just another nuance that the refs are going to have to be watching for with this new rule.
My argument is that the whole match Smith put himself on the edge by back pedaling. He was plenty capable of staying in bounds if he wanted to. Some naive people think he made an effort to get in bounds. Sam absolutely pushed him out without an offensive move in that one instance. The other times he was in position to score as Smith danced around and back pedaled.
This is one of those things that smart wrestlers need to adjust to. I'm not arguing in favor of the rule, I don't like it at all and agree with those that say go to a push-out, but it is written clearly. If you're on the edge of the mat, regardless of positioning, you need to be aware of what the rules say, make an effort to stay in bounds and/or make an effort to score. Oklahoma State wrestled like they had no idea they knew this rule existed when they visited Iowa and from watching many dual meets thus far this year there seems to be a vast disparity between guys who understand the rule and wrestle accordingly and those that don't. Its going to cost people matches this year and the rule won't change before NCAAs. Any wrestler who wants to win should be paying attention to what that means.
Sam was locking over/unders and marching Smith toward the edge throughout the match. I'm sure he was looking for other scoring opportunities, however it was clear on a number of occasions that he was also looking for a push out. We saw him do it with great results last week and have seen him execute the exact same technique in his Greco matches.
Personally, I think that we have gotten a lot of benefit from the new rule thus far this year due to our Iowa style, however if we exploit it and try to intentionally push people out then as the rules are written it should be a stall. If one of our opponent's is initiating moving out of bounds to avoid offense then they should get the stall warning.
Thus far this year I think we've seen the new stall rule called very aggressively, and I think that we should expect to see it called less frequently away from the confines of CHA. Additionally, I think the two gentlemen who reffed last night have worked most of our matches this year (correct me if I'm mistaken), I doubt we get it called nearly as much from here on out this year. Does that mean we should just have a push-out rule similar to freestyle? Perhaps. I'd like to see how it plays out this year before passing judgement. Overall I think the new rule changes have been successful at pushing the action.
I don't care what the rule is. The refs should call the guy that couldn't stay on the wrestling mat or no one for stalling. This push rule is stupid.
Frost and Stahl -- two of the best refs out there, IMO. Both very sharp guys. They're clearly up on the new rule, such as it is, and I agree -- I don't think we'll see it called as aggressively down the road.
I still say one very simple solution to all of this debate is to institute a push-out rule. Much easier for the refs to call, encourages action in the center of the mat, makes the edge a very exciting place for action when it does get there, and lots less gray area/controversy. And I'm tellin' ya -- there's going to be controversy with this new rule.
I will say I think it's an improvement -- I just think they need to take it all the way and put in the push-out. I also understand that no change will be made before next season, so we're stuck with it for now. Let the controversy commence. . . .
I will say I think it's an improvement -- I just think they need to take it all the way and put in the push-out. I also understand that no change will be made before next season, so we're stuck with it for now. Let the controversy commence. . . .
I agree with WWDM - both refs have been fair and consistent AND the pushout rule would end all the talk of the stall calls.
Does anyone know when Iowa had its last 4x AA at hwt, or if it has happened? I think Stoll could accomplish it if he can AA this year, and I think he will, as well as manage to stay healthy. Bobby Telford would've been a 4x AA if he hadn't injured his knee at NCAAs his Sophomore year, I'm sure of it.
Yes, and the tragedy is that he had the kid pinned (from my view point) for about 30 seconds before the kid got away. A short time later the kid grabbed Bobby's leg and twisted it and that ended Bobby's season.
Was there also and could not believe why the fall was not called then the dam injury like u said was horrific to witness.
Same situation happened my SR yr of High School at State Tournament...our HWT was in the semi-finals and first period gets a take down to his back and we all think he's stuck and kid somehow squirms and wiggles out of bounds. Reset, kids gets out, and there is so much sweat on the mat from where he was on his back that our heavy slips in a tieup and injures his knee...Inj Def to 6th
Just wait till that spare tire is all gone and he finishes his dance class if u think he is quick now.
No 4x AAs at heavyweight for Iowa.
Lou Banach was 1-3-1 (Phinney placed 3rd when Banach was a RSF).
Telford was 5-4-DNP-5.
Bowlsby was 3-5-5-DNP (he was seeded 3rd as a senior, got pinned in the first round and was eliminated when his opponent lost in the next round).
Mocco was 2-1 (then 1-2 @ OSU).
Oosie was R12-R12-5-3.
Hawk heavweight AAs since '75:
75: Bowlsby 3rd
76: Benschoter 5th
77: Bowlsby 5th
78: Bowlsby 5th
80: Phinney 3rd
81: Banach 1st
82: Banach 3rd
83: Banach 1st
87: Sidlinger 4th
88: Sidlinger 6th
92: Oostendorp 5th
93: Oostendorp 3rd
98: Hand 8th
00: Hand 2nd
02: Mocco 2nd
03: Mocco 1st
08: Fields 5th
09 Erekson 4th
10: Erekson 7th
12: Telford 5th
13: Telford 4th
15: Telford 5th
16: Stoll ??
75: Bowlsby 3rd
76: Benschoter 5th
77: Bowlsby 5th
78: Bowlsby 5th
80: Phinney 3rd
81: Banach 1st
82: Banach 3rd
83: Banach 1st
87: Sidlinger 4th
88: Sidlinger 6th
92: Oostendorp 5th
93: Oostendorp 3rd
98: Hand 8th
00: Hand 2nd
02: Mocco 2nd
03: Mocco 1st
08: Fields 5th
09 Erekson 4th
10: Erekson 7th
12: Telford 5th
13: Telford 4th
15: Telford 5th
16: Stoll ??
