The STALLING Thread to ACTION.

[86_90]

If you feel the product on the mat--the wrestling we all watch-- is going in the wrong direction, take ACTION.

Recently is has become apparent that more and more wrestling fans, especially the fans who care to follow the sport are concerned about the state of Division 1 College Wrestling. The product on the mat is no longer a product that is likely to get fans excited in a positive way. It has become a strategic endurance match where the best tactics--often viewed by many as stalling-- prevails. Offensive action is now often the exception, not the norm, and in many matches the winner scores no offensive points. This is not a recipe for growing the sport or even maintaining the current level of support.

The time is now to take the sport back to it's offensive tradition.

The goal of this thread is to keep the pressure on. Let those who make up the structure of the sport and enforce the rules know we need to fix the problem. This thread needs to be the first thing people see when they visit this forum.

For those who don't post and only read: Please post a comment in this thread regarding your opinion. Many read this forum, but seldom if ever post any messages here. Please take the time to set up an account if you don't have one and post an opinion or attach a link on this extremely important subject. The more fans that express an opinion the better. This is not an invisible problem only a few see. Let your opinion be known and let it matter.


To keep this thread fresh and alive in the minds of readers, please post links to any stories or articles you find regarding stalling or ways to improve the product on the mat to this thread.

 

[86_90]

Link to Craig Sesker stalling article. Many of his ideas were thinks I have seen written in this forum. The momentum is building.

Craig Sesker stalling article

 

[86_90]

Augiehawk comment in Ironside Big 10 Tourny stalling comment thread:



During the break when Brooks got the medical forfeit, Ironside was talking about the stalling that is being allowed by the refs. He blames the wrestlers for not creating action, but also the refs for allowing them to get away with it. He was even calling out Evans saying that in the Evans and Storley match, they both should have been disqualified out of the match for stalling. Said that it was an overtime match, in which neither guy made a real attempt to score, and there were zero stall warnings. He just couldn't believe it.

I got completely fed up watching the finals. Tomasello took one shot, scored, and then did nothing the rest of the match. It took Gilman 6 or 7 shots with Tomasello backing to the edge, then half circling back in, to get 1 stall call. Right then I knew he would never get another. Many other finals matches were the same.

I think most refs feel they don't want to decide the match by calling stalling, but they are deciding the match by allowing stalling. If one guy does nothing but back up and they allow it, they are affecting the match.

 

[86_90]

Reply by Neo_hawk regarding Craig Sesker article:


Excellent piece. Now will the people that make/enforce the rules read it? I hope so, I don't mind good defense, but when combined with constant back petal, that's not D, that's running. It seems to get worse every year and is beginning to feel like the wrestling equivalent of baseballs "Deadball Era".

 

[86_90]

Auger comment on stalling after Big 10 Tourny:



I live out West where wrestling fans only exist in small pockets. It has been really hard to grow the sport partially due to stalling. Yesterday I was at a bar watching the tourney with two buddies who have partial interest in wrestling and they were both turned away because of the stalling. One friend even stated that he thought wrestlers were tough and didn't understand the cowardly actions of back stepping after having the lead. I couldn't argue with him. When half the match is two guys slapping at each other and the other half is one guy back stepping it doesn't make for great TV sports watching to casual fans. Wrestling has been a very important sport for my family so it is hard to see it viewed so harshly by other sport fans but I can't blame them after watching yesterday's championship.

This post was edited on 3/11 9:26 AM by 86_90

 

[86_90]

Posted by Houndedhawk after Big 10 Tourny:



I used to take numerous people with me to college wrestling, but now I can't. It's just too stinking boring.

Look at the B1G tourney. Evans doesn't record a single TD and manages 3rd. What does that say? Both him and Storley should have been stalled out and each disqualified by the end of the 1st.



Look at the mindset of our wrestlers. Tomasello wins the B1G title and in an interview brags about keeping on his offense!! He took ONE shot, and even the absolutely pathetically slow to call stalling refs gave him stall calls.

People are winning by stinking riding time with not even a hit of back exposure. BOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Either the refs have to radically enforce the actual rules, or new rules are needed. I've already advocated the pushout. I think that would help fix it, too.



This will be my 21st NCAA championships I've gone to. I'm appalled at how most matches have slowly evolved into an event in which my mind actually starts wandering.

 

[86_90]

Posted by wyldhawk9:


I'm not sure how this stuff actually gets changed (and who the actual decision makers are), but according to the document below, some of the things we're complaining about are on the docket regarding stalling. However, would one of you more politically-savvy individuals be willing to tell us how we go about making our complaints a little more effective? IE, who should we contact and what is the most receivable way to communicate our concerns? The rules committee will be meeting again April 13-15, 2015...

NCAA Rules Committee meeting notes from 2014.

 

[86_90]

Posted by MVPFAN regarding the current rules on stalling and how they are NOT enforced:


Here are the rules and if the gutless refs actually followed them like they are supposed to things would be fine. Someones ass needs to be on the line! In no other sport do they not enforce the rules. I agree with the poster who said the 5 count sucks, it has created more stalling because before a ref could hit a guy anytime he felt they needed it and now they just stall their asses off and know full well they won't get called because they can hear the count. They just move up for a second and the count starts over, it is a friggin joke. Meanwhile they have totally forgot about calling all the other stalling listed below that has nothing to do with a count. If they see stalling then call it, screw the counting crap! Call it like you are supposed to and how the rules say and people will adjust and quick. Take all the damn refs and have off season training watching all these bullshit matches and instruct them about all the places they should be calling stalling. Refs who don't follow the book can be let go.

I do like the push out if they are going to continue to not do their jobs. I do worry about it leading to teams getting a bunch of meat heads to win matches just by pushing people and it would really get boring. I'd maybe have it be a point if they step out on their own or to avoid a shot or wrestling hold like underhooks etc. If they do a push out they still need to call stalling if a guy runs all over inside the circle avoiding action. I guess people will learn to stay away from the edge either way.

I like getting rid of riding time for sure, the sooner the better.

I also like an action clock and if on the mat no one can get a turn or escape in 30 seconds then put them back up. If you get backs you can get another 30 seconds to work.




5.9 Stalling


5.9.1 Initiating Action. Action is to be maintained throughout the match by the contestants staying near the center of the mat and wrestling aggressively in all positions (top, bottom or neutral). Stalling is defined as one or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy. When a referee recognizes stalling, the first violation will be a warning; the second violation will result in 1 point being awarded to the opponent; the third violation is 1 point being awarded to the opponent; the fourth violation is 1 point being awarded to the opponent; and the fifth violation will result in a disqualification. A "double stalling" violation is given when both wrestlers fail to initiate an offense. (See Penalty Table for sequence of penalties.)


5.9.2 Neutral Position Stalling. Each wrestler must attempt to work toward the center of the mat and continue wrestling in an attempt to secure a takedown, RULE 5 / INFRACTIONS WR-57regardless of the time or score of the match. Stalling in the neutral position is defined as follows: [/B]


5.9.2.1 Continually backing away from the opponent without creating offensive action. This happens all the time.[/B]


5.9.2.2 Near the edge of the wrestling area, a wrestler shall not leave the wrestling area unless it is to sprawl from an opponent's takedown attempt or when interlocked in wrestling. Over and over with this one[/B]


5.9.2.3 A wrestler shall be called for stalling if kicking out from a lower leg hold when this action results in the defending wrestler going out of the wrestling area. Happens a lot, have not called it for 2 or 3 years[/B]


5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.) Have not seen this called much if at all but happens a lot.[/B]


5.9.3 Stalling-Offensive and Defensive Position. Offensive and defensive wrestlers shall make an attempt to sustain active wrestling and remain in the center. The offensive and defensive stalling situations include:


5.9.3.1 The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent. This is big time abused.[/B]


5.9.3.2 Either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring. Big time abused, people are constantly pushing or pulling people OB to avoid an escape. This is even easy to call, should be automatic.


5.9.3.3 The offensive wrestler grasping the defensive wrestler's leg(s) with both hands or arms, unless such action is designed to break down the opponent for the purpose of securing a fall or to prevent an escape or reversal. Big time stall tactic.


5.9.3.4 Repeatedly grasping or interlocking hands around a leg without attempting an offensive move. Big time stall tactic.


5.9.3.5 The defensive wrestler must initiate action to escape or reverse the opponent. Done some but not as bad as top guy stalling.


5.9.3.6 Repeatedly applying the legs while in the rear-standing position is stalling. With the defensive wrestler in a standing position, the offensive wrestler is allowed reaction time to attempt to bring the opponent back to the mat. Waters


5.9.4 Stalling by Delaying Match. Delaying the match-such as straggling back from out of bounds or unnecessarily changing or adjusting equipment-shall be penalized as stalling. This crap is non stop, guys dinking around and slowly getting back to the center while the other guy and ref wait. If the ref and one guy are ready and waiting then nail em don't wait on em.

 

[HAWKNROLL]

+1 for the Craig Sesker stalling article. The stalling has to stop. It has a choke hold on our great sport.

 

[86_90]

Comment by Old_wr...ng_fan regarding officials use or non-use of subjective judgement when applying the rules on stalling:



In the main, I very much agree with you...but in this one key area, I see it differently.

A case could be made that in football, virtually offensive play could draw one or more offensive holding or defensive interference penalties. A case could be made that in basketball, virtually every trip down the floor could draw a whistle(foul) on someone, etc.

While there are fouls called and penalty flags thrown of course, it is probably only for about 20% of the infractions that actually occur. As long as there is a referee involved, there's always going to be problems IMO. In other words, I think there is an uneven enforcement of the rules in just about any athletic competition...so let's design a contest that does not rely on someone else.

Jump the shark wrestling world...make changes to the rules to reward an aggressive wrestler and minimize the role of the ref. Relying on the disinterested 3rd party to decide a contest is asking for the shameful crap that we see so often now.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" -Alexis de Tocqueville (1835)

 

[86_90]

Comment by BDB57:


As I glanced over the various posts which include rule book explanations of stalling as writen, it is quite obvious why so many fans and wannabe fans would be going crazy. stalling is quite well discribed and adressed in the rule book privious to the many recent tweaks. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO ENFORCE??? It is as many have suggested up to the people in stripes to give our sports the the "kick start" that is needed. Until the rule is enforced wrestling will suffer plain and simple.

The tweaks that have come into being have done little more than lead to confusion. In addition to the rediculous count to five to determine if an ankle rider is stalling, the confusion on fleeing the mat makes it literally imposible to defend an attack as one would do in the center of the mat. And talk about confusion..... one of the top officials in the country and one who participated with his father in a video to explain the rule blows it in the Minny/PSU dual.

 

[86_90]

A post by LutherAce explains how to directly take action and inform the ruling bodies exactly what is wrong. It includes a list of names to WRITE or EMAIL:

Originally posted by IaPhoneMan4Hawks:

Originally posted by wyldhawk9:
I'm not sure how this stuff actually gets changed (and who the actual decision makers are), but according to the document below, some of the things we're complaining about are on the docket regarding stalling. However, would one of you more politically-savvy individuals be willing to tell us how we go about making our complaints a little more effective? IE, who should we contact and what is the most receivable way to communicate our concerns? The rules committee will be meeting again April 13-15, 2015...

NCAA Rules Committee meeting notes from 2014.

Well, I'm guessing most of the names on the last page are public figures of some type and can be communicated with (email, social media, etc) I'm sure they already hear it from fans, coaches, and current and former wrestlers but it can't hurt to let them know. I am of the same vein, was really boring to watch even as a die hard fan. It has to be fixed if this sport is to survive.

[/QUOTE]One thing to realize: You can't just bombard them with "Hey, call stalling more...this is stupid to watch ballroom dancing"

Support your email with facts and examples across the board (recent versus 5 years ago, versus 10 years ago). Show that you care. Provide your YouTube matches of what stalling was like in 90s and compare it to a match today where even less goes on, yet no stalling. Provide insight as to why 2-1 scores are killing the sport.

 

[86_90]

Comment by Shafthawk regarding how D1 wrestlers now do not even attempt to follow certain rules regarding stalling because they are not enforced:

MVP, it is amazing to think back on the season and reflect on how many times I witnessed the things listed above. And there was absolutely no thought by the refs to call any of it. The wrestler would have been shocked to get many of these called on him at this point, because the refs have taught them they don't need to worry about it.

It's just sad.



This post was edited on 3/11 9:25 AM by 86_90

 

[86_90]

Comment by Huck after Big 10 Tourny:


Totally agree and there's no way our sport is going to grow and grab casual fans with the product we're putting on the mat now. I'm as big as a fan as there is and it's sometimes painful for me to watch. I feel like they should just start the matches in overtime and save us all the hand fighting, boundary dancing, and fleeing out of bounds. It really is comical sometimes, the only thing I wish I could figure out is if I should be blaming the wrestlers or the officials.
As far as rules, we have to keep in consideration that they need to be "clean" and "clear cut"...easy for the new or casual fan to understand.
One things for sure, it really would be an easy fix if officials would just call the stuff the way it needed to be called. Hell I'd love officials to be overzealous with the stall calls and "fleeing/avoiding" calls than the way it's being called now. Everyone of them just swallows the whistle.
I wonder how many stalling points were actually called this weekend...not warnings but stalling points actually awarded.

 

[86_90]

Comment by HAWKNROLL:


Most refs don't want action in match. It makes their job a lot harder. Refs should read the damm rule book for stalling before each match. Maybe then it would sink in

 

[86_90]

Comment by 255 regarding why stalling might not always be called by an official even though he may want to make the call:


A friend out of Chicago ref's D1 and said coaches have a lot of input on ref assignments.
If you make a tough call against certain coaches it can eliminate you from getting good matches to ref.
Strangely, not making a call seems not to go against you. IF this has any truth to it, then it goes a ways to explain part of the problem.

Most states high school level ref's assign independent of popularity among coaches. A few states have a process where if a coach has a strong complaint against a ref, that ref is evaluated via a training official watching a couple of duals or video review if available and either dismiss the concerns or provide training. Not perfect by any stretch but I have seen it help. Other states allow coaches a "black-ball" list where they can request a ref not be assigned to their home duals. This gives the coaches a feeling of input as most states are stretched to having enough refs but at least it is communication.

While I like my friend, I don't have enough insight to know if what he says happens in D1 does.

As stated, coaches and athletes have a large role in this in the guise of strategy. Getting ahead and use a series of half/fake shots, blocking tie-ups or just plain back peddle until the warning. Play the edge, blanket rides or "position fight" on the bottom are also common.

I don't know why people, the NCAA and National High School committees are so against the push out. It does add another way to score that has no subjectivity, forces wrestlers to not play the edge and could cure a large part of the problem. Yes, a new problem of top guys just pushing the bottom guy out but thems the breaks. A match where a guy simply tries to push his opponent out of bounds 4 times and wins 4-1 or 4-2 is worlds better than the 2-1 win with riding time.

 

[86_90]

Comment by Huck[/B] regarding why the pool of officials seems very limited and his response:



I have to disagree on the shortage situation. I won't pretend to know all the workings but it seems to me there is "good old boys" club going on. As someone stated, for whatever reason, younger or different guys don't even get a chance at the "big time".
Think for a second on how many officials there are across the United States. There is no way with as many good hs officials there are that many of them could not be doing college matches. Are you telling me if the NCAA or Mike Allen were to talk to the State HS Associations and get their recommendations that those officials are going to turn down the chance to officiate at the college level? Guys simply have a hard time getting their shot at it.

I have a college buddy that has been doing NCAA stuff. He actually was the asst. in the Rutgers dual this year. I talk to him every year at the NCAA's and he tells me every year that he's hoping to get his shot at the big show...still hasn't happened. He's in his lower 40's, now sure how long he's been doing NCAA stuff but it's been awhile.

One of our state's best hs officials also does a lot of NCAA stuff. I talked to him this year at a tournament and he told me a story of how he made a call a big time coach didn't like and next thing you know his "assignments" changed. This gentleman is one hell of an official guys but it's just like anything else....you piss the wrong person off and it can change your career. Now that might be a little "dramatic" but there's no doubt it can have a big effect on your officiating assignments. All it takes is making a coach mad and him calling up Mr. Allen. To me this is why so many officials are afraid to call stalling the way they should. It boils down to them not want to take a chance and putting their neck on the line. Those that have "made it" are in a pretty good situation and don't want to blow it. I'm sure most already know this and understand it, the question becomes how do you fix it? What are the checks and balances in the situation? I'm sure the coaches all rate officials which to me really shouldn't be taken into deep consideration for assignments. To me, some sort of "committee" should be rating officials from an unbiased point of view.

Bottom line IMHO, officials are afraid to make the proper calls (mainly stalling) because it will have a direct affect on their pocketbooks/status. Until that fear is eliminated, same old, same old.

 

[86_90]

Comment by wyldhawk9 regarding stalling and what the emphasis should be focused on:


However, the easiest fix for everyone is to enforce stalling upon lack of activity during the match by either wrestler. [/B]

Officials have become increasingly reluctant to call stalling - I assume out of a desire not to be the deciding factor - because match scoring is so low. I used to put onus on the wrestlers to make stalling so obvious that it must be called until this weekend. The light bulb for me was that I didn't see a single fleeing the mat call this weekend, and in several instances the fleeing wrestler was gripping the edge of the mat to pull himself out of bounds (and Iowa was guilty of this on at least one occasion). I don't know a more obvious example of fleeing than grabbing a stationary object out of bounds to pull yourself off the mat.

Emphasizing activity and penalizing inactivity will at the very least 1. promote more offense, which will lead to more offense & thus 2. Minimize the official's role in the outcome of the match.

 

[86_90]

If you feel the product on the mat--the wrestling we all watch-- is going in the wrong direction, take ACTION.--Post your own comments below.

Recently is has become apparent that more and more wrestling fans, especially the fans who care to follow the sport are concerned about the state of Division 1 College Wrestling. The product on the mat is no longer a product that is likely to get fans excited in a positive way. It has become a strategic endurance match where the best tactics--often viewed by many as stalling-- prevails. Offensive action is now often the exception, not the norm, and in many matches the winner scores no offensive points. This is not a recipe for growing the sport or even maintaining the current level of support.

The time is now to take the sport back to it's offensive tradition.

The goal of this thread is to keep the pressure on. Let those who make up the structure of the sport and enforce the rules know we need to fix the problem. This thread needs to be the first thing people see when they visit this forum.

For those who don't post and only read:[/B] Please post a comment in this thread regarding your opinion. Many read this forum, but seldom if ever post any messages here. Please take the time to set up an account if you don't have one and post an opinion or attach a link on this extremely important subject. The more fans that express an opinion the better. This is not an invisible problem only a few see. Let your opinion be known and let it matter.


To keep this thread fresh and alive in the minds of readers, please post links to any stories or articles you find regarding stalling or ways to improve the product on the mat to this thread.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Originally posted by 86_90:
If you feel the product on the mat--the wrestling we all watch-- is going in the wrong direction, take ACTION.

Recently is has become apparent that more and more wrestling fans, especially the fans who care to follow the sport are concerned about the state of Division 1 College Wrestling. The product on the mat is no longer a product that is likely to get fans excited in a positive way. It has become a strategic endurance match where the best tactics--often viewed by many as stalling-- prevails[/B]. ...

86_90 - great idea, let's turn our collective griping into a force for change. I think your statement above, that I bolded, really gets to the essence of the problem. Well written!

FWIW, I took our whole family, including our boys' girlfriends to the IA-Mich match this year and if there was an exciting moment in the WHOLE DUAL, I cannot remember it now. I remember thinking, "Sheesh, good luck getting them to come to another meet.", on the assumption that the on the mat product was pretty boring really.

Let's get something going to make a positive out of this, I am all for that. I am, after all, a wrestling fan, not "strategic endurance match" fan!

 

[WEH8ST8HAWK]

Originally posted by 86_90:
Posted by MVPFAN regarding the current rules on stalling and how they are NOT enforced:


Here are the rules and if the gutless refs actually followed them like they are supposed to things would be fine. Someones ass needs to be on the line! In no other sport do they not enforce the rules. I agree with the poster who said the 5 count sucks, it has created more stalling because before a ref could hit a guy anytime he felt they needed it and now they just stall their asses off and know full well they won't get called because they can hear the count. They just move up for a second and the count starts over, it is a friggin joke. Meanwhile they have totally forgot about calling all the other stalling listed below that has nothing to do with a count. If they see stalling then call it, screw the counting crap! Call it like you are supposed to and how the rules say and people will adjust and quick. Take all the damn refs and have off season training watching all these bullshit matches and instruct them about all the places they should be calling stalling. Refs who don't follow the book can be let go.

I do like the push out if they are going to continue to not do their jobs. I do worry about it leading to teams getting a bunch of meat heads to win matches just by pushing people and it would really get boring. I'd maybe have it be a point if they step out on their own or to avoid a shot or wrestling hold like underhooks etc. If they do a push out they still need to call stalling if a guy runs all over inside the circle avoiding action. I guess people will learn to stay away from the edge either way.

I like getting rid of riding time for sure, the sooner the better.

I also like an action clock and if on the mat no one can get a turn or escape in 30 seconds then put them back up. If you get backs you can get another 30 seconds to work.




5.9 Stalling


5.9.1 Initiating Action. Action is to be maintained throughout the match by the contestants staying near the center of the mat and wrestling aggressively in all positions (top, bottom or neutral). Stalling is defined as one or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy. When a referee recognizes stalling, the first violation will be a warning; the second violation will result in 1 point being awarded to the opponent; the third violation is 1 point being awarded to the opponent; the fourth violation is 1 point being awarded to the opponent; and the fifth violation will result in a disqualification. A "double stalling" violation is given when both wrestlers fail to initiate an offense. (See Penalty Table for sequence of penalties.)


5.9.2 Neutral Position Stalling. Each wrestler must attempt to work toward the center of the mat and continue wrestling in an attempt to secure a takedown, RULE 5 / INFRACTIONS WR-57regardless of the time or score of the match. Stalling in the neutral position is defined as follows: [/B]


5.9.2.1 Continually backing away from the opponent without creating offensive action. This happens all the time.[/B]


5.9.2.2 Near the edge of the wrestling area, a wrestler shall not leave the wrestling area unless it is to sprawl from an opponent's takedown attempt or when interlocked in wrestling. Over and over with this one[/B]


5.9.2.3 A wrestler shall be called for stalling if kicking out from a lower leg hold when this action results in the defending wrestler going out of the wrestling area. Happens a lot, have not called it for 2 or 3 years[/B]


5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.) Have not seen this called much if at all but happens a lot.[/B]


5.9.3 Stalling-Offensive and Defensive Position. Offensive and defensive wrestlers shall make an attempt to sustain active wrestling and remain in the center. The offensive and defensive stalling situations include:


5.9.3.1 The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent. This is big time abused.[/B]


5.9.3.2 Either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring. Big time abused, people are constantly pushing or pulling people OB to avoid an escape. This is even easy to call, should be automatic.


5.9.3.3 The offensive wrestler grasping the defensive wrestler's leg(s) with both hands or arms, unless such action is designed to break down the opponent for the purpose of securing a fall or to prevent an escape or reversal. Big time stall tactic.


5.9.3.4 Repeatedly grasping or interlocking hands around a leg without attempting an offensive move. Big time stall tactic.


5.9.3.5 The defensive wrestler must initiate action to escape or reverse the opponent. Done some but not as bad as top guy stalling.


5.9.3.6 Repeatedly applying the legs while in the rear-standing position is stalling. With the defensive wrestler in a standing position, the offensive wrestler is allowed reaction time to attempt to bring the opponent back to the mat. Waters


5.9.4 Stalling by Delaying Match. Delaying the match-such as straggling back from out of bounds or unnecessarily changing or adjusting equipment-shall be penalized as stalling. This crap is non stop, guys dinking around and slowly getting back to the center while the other guy and ref wait. If the ref and one guy are ready and waiting then nail em don't wait on em.

These should be printed out and given to Mike Allen and every ref before day 1 at Nationals. The onus should be, enforce them or you will be sent to the jr high meets. End of story. We don't really need new rules if the cowardly refs would enforce the rules. Name 1 other sport where the refs don't enforce the rules and there are no ramifications. This is the only one.

 

[86_90]

This article, written by Mark Palmer for Intermat, is essentially an interview with an NCAA rules committee member regarding the rules that went into effect earlier this year. These rule changes include the now infamous "5 count" which has turned into essentially repeated 4 counts by savvy wrestlers. Interesting read. The committee says all the things we want to hear: want more shots, aggressiveness, offense, grow the sport ect. However, enforcement and the actual application has been a complete and utter disaster. These new rules as they are applied by the officials have made things much worse, if that is even possible.

This post was edited on 3/11 10:06 AM by 86_90

Intermat article on the rule changes for this year

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by Old_wrestling_fan:

Originally posted by 86_90:
If you feel the product on the mat--the wrestling we all watch-- is going in the wrong direction, take ACTION.

Recently is has become apparent that more and more wrestling fans, especially the fans who care to follow the sport are concerned about the state of Division 1 College Wrestling. The product on the mat is no longer a product that is likely to get fans excited in a positive way. It has become a strategic endurance match where the best tactics--often viewed by many as stalling-- prevails[/B]. ...

86_90 - great idea, let's turn our collective griping into a force for change. I think your statement above, that I bolded, really gets to the essence of the problem. Well written!

FWIW, I took our whole family, including our boys' girlfriends to the IA-Mich match this year and if there was an exciting moment in the WHOLE DUAL, I cannot remember it now. I remember thinking, "Sheesh, good luck getting them to come to another meet.", on the assumption that the on the mat product was pretty boring really.

Let's get something going to make a positive out of this, I am all for that. I am, after all, a wrestling fan, not "strategic endurance match" fan!

Yes, exactly. Your comment is what this is about--let's fix this thing before it's too late. We, the hardcore fans, bitch and moan the most about many things, but we are also the most passionate. We love the sport and what is can do to shape lives, but the premier product is currently broken. WE can help fix it. No more excuses.

 

[86_90]

Win Magazine did an interview with Gable regarding how International wrestling had to change to promote action and Gable said the same regarding college wrestling. Short article.

Gable Win-Magazine article on getting more action

 

[86_90]

Very good Andy Hamilton article that ties many of the issues facing college wrestling together.

Andy Hamilton article on stalling/lack of action

 

[86_90]

Posted by Artradley regarding rules change survey from NCAA:


1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one countEliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count.Push-out, but not from a scramble situationAllow MMA-type gear instead of singletsHome team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams.First takedown in the first period is worth three pointsFalls are worth 7 pointsMajor Decision at 6 points instead of 8Tech Fall at 10 points instead of 15Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back pointsWhen defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso.

 

[RDJ5]

"Patience is such a waste of time." Anon

 

[86_90]

Post by AsicsFanatic, How to Make Wrestling more exciting:



1. Push out rule, 1 point awarded to opponent.
2. Eliminate Riding time. This encourages stalling a lot more times than not. Most will disagree but college is the only one with this rule.
3. Eliminate escape, makes takedowns more rewarding.
4. Scoreless period results in a point giving to the more aggressive wrestler, determined by number of shots. Have a shot count like boxing does with punch counts.
5. First stall call the opponent gets choice of position; up, down, or neutral.
6. Major decision 8 to 11 point victory, 4 team points awarded.
7. Superior decision 12 to 14 point victory, 5 team points awarded.
8. Technical fall 15 or more point victory, 6 team points awarded.
9. Fall worth 7 team points.
10. Make the mat size minimum of 36 feet, currently 32. Would like 42 foot like Iowa's but would be hard to get 8 mats in arena at nationals. Increase high schools to 32, currently 28.
11. Back exposure, less than a 2 count, worth 1 point. 2 and 3 point near falls stay the same, 2 count and 5 count respectfully.
12. All wrestling competitions start at 125.

 

[86_90]

Simply use the 2nd Referee as the person responsible for action or lack of action;only the 2nd official could call stalling and that would be his/her primary responsibility. Right now the 2nd official essentially does nothing but lend moral support to the lead official and helps keep the coaches off the mats. That's pretty much it.

Let the 2nd official call stalling and make that official responsible for "forcing the action. " He/she could be called the "Action Official."

The 1st official simply would continue doing what's he's currently doing in matches, which very seldom involves calling stalling in the first place.

Specifics:

The 2nd official could not be addressed by the bench coaches during a match, only between matches. Each Action Official gets graded by each match he/she officiates.

The grading of the #2 official would be easy--base it on points scored in the individual matches. The officials that grade highest as a #2 Action Official get the post-season tourny work.

Example of Grading Scale would maybe look something like this:
15 points for a pin
15 points when both wrestlers score 7 points or more
10 tech fall or when both wrestlers score at least 6 points
8 points major decision
6 points when both wrestlers score at least 5 points
3 points when both wrestlers score at least 4 points
2 points when both wrestlers score at least 3 points
0 points when total points scored is 4 points in total
-5 when 3 points or less is scored in total

This takes away nothing from safety or control because the #1 is focused on those areas. The #2 is simply there to promote action. Needless to say stalling would go up drastically until the wrestlers adapted to the new system. It's simple and does not require any additional resources and no new rules.

This post was edited on 3/11 11:10 AM by 86_90

 

[Stanley75]

I do see a lack of scoring as do many others. We point to stalling as the problem. I don't think that is the entire problem. Take the top 4, 174 guys at the BIG tournament. These guys are all so equal in talent and skill that is why there is no scoring going on. When equal talent wrestles equal talent you don't get much action. The 141 weight finals is a testament to that. There was a bunch of scoring going on because the talent level was not equal. 149 finals is another example 2 guys of equal talent and no points scored. Look at all the matches and tell me I'm wrong? 157 may be the exception that match was a good one with lots of action.That kid from Illinois is a hammer. Could be the next 4 time phenom.

We can blame the refs, but in reality it is the scoring system that is outdated. There is no incentive for a wrestler to gamble on a shot. The wrestlers actions should determine the match not stalling calls by the refs. We need to come with some scoring ideas instead of saying stalling/refs calls are ruining the sport. I get sick of watching a video of some guy that says stalling is killing the sport and then gives not one solution. Vidios like that help ruin the sport in my opinion they do nothing to provide a solution.

I say put together a panel of some of the best wrestling minds in the country and come up with some scoring solutions. If a guy like me with limited knowledge can see the problem, some of the better wrestling IQ people should be able to come up with some solutions.Lets quit stalling about bettering the scoring system.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This should be an easy question:

Why isn't stalling immediately called when a wrestler "runs" at the very end of a match?

Examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q7nEmnSJlxw#t=186

Obviously this heartbreaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wkU6RN7X-6E#t=74


What could be more obvious stalling than running away from someone?

Is there a legitimate reason it isn't, or is it just another in the long list of complaints?

Stalling isn't, per the rules "Stalling is defined as one or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy", a totality-of-the-circumstances test. (or am I wrong?)

It isn't, "well he has been really active until now...."

"When
a referee recognizes stalling, the first violation will be a warning;
the second violation will result in 1 point being awarded to the
opponent." This certainly seems to say that any time a ref recognizes it, it should be called, not when it becomes so prevalent it must be called.

 

[86_90]

Ramos vs Stieber 2013. The difference here is that the wrestler each took legitimate shots and chances.

If the two near-fall had been called correctly, as Robles (the announcer) said he thought the 2-count was there, it's Ramos match to win. It was all Ramos in the 3rd.

To that point, even without the nearfall points Ramos was so close to the tie with a short ride-out. I thought it was a mistake to by Brands and Company to call for the review. This gave Stieber a chance to recover. The extra time to recover was all he needed to hold on in the end.

This is still an action packed, entertaining final. Two equally talented guys.

Action in a Recent NCAA Final

 

[theIowaHawk]

I've posted my thoughts before, but might as well add them to this thread.

The rules are out there, they NEED to be enforced. That is what needs to be fixed.

I am on board with requiring NF points in order to "earn" riding time.

I am on board with a push-out rule.

But I do not think that these rules improve wrestling, even if they did force "action" as some on here define it, and I think they would damage the sport:
1. removing riding time altogether.
2. removing an escape point.
3. 3 points for a first period takedown.

Wrestling is about control. Riding = control. Takedown = control. But losing control = escape. A takedown is worth 2 points if you sustain control. If you lose control it really is worth only 1, hence the escape point. A takedown at any point in the match is a takedown, it does not signify more, or better, control if it is done in the first period. I think it would actually lead to more stalling as wrestlers would be even more afraid of that first period takedown.

4. Giving a point for a "more aggressive" wrestler after scoreless first period.

I'm not sure what this would even do. An "aggressive" wrestler who fails every time shouldn't be awarded with an automatic point. Also, this would put more subjectivity into the hands of referees, which is clearly the overall problem.

5. First stall call allows a wrestler to choose position.

Again, not sure what this is supposed to improve. The vast, vast majority of wrestlers choose the down position, so presumably they would here as well. If the other wrestler is stalling, especially on top, how would this help? Also, the first stall call is, properly, a warning for a reason.

Lastly, changing the overall points for pins/techs/majors won't have much effect. If the scores we are concerned about are 2-1....making pins worth more won't change those outcomes. It would simply reward those who are already going for a pin, which may or may not be a good thing, but I don't think it will have any effect.

I enjoyed watching Metcalf as much as the next guy, and I use him as the epitome of relentless attack, but his isn't the only correct way of wrestling. Taking away dominance on top is not a good answer, I'm not sure it would even create the "action" so many on here want.

The rules are there, make them enforce them. No improvement on top? Call it. Stop with the chicken-sht stalemates when it is, in fact, stalling.

 

[overeasy]

Originally posted by 86_90:
Post by AsicsFanatic, How to Make Wrestling more exciting:



1. Push out rule, 1 point awarded to opponent.
2. Eliminate Riding time. This encourages stalling a lot more times than not. Most will disagree but college is the only one with this rule.
3. Eliminate escape, makes takedowns more rewarding.
4. Scoreless period results in a point giving to the more aggressive wrestler, determined by number of shots. Have a shot count like boxing does with punch counts.
5. First stall call the opponent gets choice of position; up, down, or neutral.
6. Major decision 8 to 11 point victory, 4 team points awarded.
7. Superior decision 12 to 14 point victory, 5 team points awarded.
8. Technical fall 15 or more point victory, 6 team points awarded.
9. Fall worth 7 team points.
10. Make the mat size minimum of 36 feet, currently 32. Would like 42 foot like Iowa's but would be hard to get 8 mats in arena at nationals. Increase high schools to 32, currently 28.
11. Back exposure, less than a 2 count, worth 1 point. 2 and 3 point near falls stay the same, 2 count and 5 count respectfully.
12. All wrestling competitions start at 125.

Point 3 renders point 5 much less effective.

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
I've posted my thoughts before, but might as well add them to this thread.

The rules are out there, they NEED to be enforced. That is what needs to be fixed.

I am on board with requiring NF points in order to "earn" riding time.

I am on board with a push-out rule.

But I do not think that these rules improve wrestling, even if they did force "action" as some on here define it, and I think they would damage the sport:
1. removing riding time altogether.
2. removing an escape point.
3. 3 points for a first period takedown.

Wrestling is about control. Riding = control. Takedown = control. But losing control = escape. A takedown is worth 2 points if you sustain control. If you lose control it really is worth only 1, hence the escape point. A takedown at any point in the match is a takedown, it does not signify more, or better, control if it is done in the first period. I think it would actually lead to more stalling as wrestlers would be even more afraid of that first period takedown.

4. Giving a point for a "more aggressive" wrestler after scoreless first period.

I'm not sure what this would even do. An "aggressive" wrestler who fails every time shouldn't be awarded with an automatic point. Also, this would put more subjectivity into the hands of referees, which is clearly the overall problem.

5. First stall call allows a wrestler to choose position.

Again, not sure what this is supposed to improve. The vast, vast majority of wrestlers choose the down position, so presumably they would here as well. If the other wrestler is stalling, especially on top, how would this help? Also, the first stall call is, properly, a warning for a reason.

Lastly, changing the overall points for pins/techs/majors won't have much effect. If the scores we are concerned about are 2-1....making pins worth more won't change those outcomes. It would simply reward those who are already going for a pin, which may or may not be a good thing, but I don't think it will have any effect.

I enjoyed watching Metcalf as much as the next guy, and I use him as the epitome of relentless attack, but his isn't the only correct way of wrestling. Taking away dominance on top is not a good answer, I'm not sure it would even create the "action" so many on here want.

The rules are there, make them enforce them. No improvement on top? Call it. Stop with the chicken-sht stalemates when it is, in fact, stalling.

theIowaHawk, what do you think of simply using the 2nd official to aggressive call stalling independent of the lead official? Essentially, making it his only responsibility to call stalling based on his aggressive interpretation of the current rules, then grading these 2nd officials based on individual points scored in the matcheswhere they act as the 2nd, thus assuring that this 2nd official is actually promoting action by allowing them to officiate in the post season tournys as the #2.

Perhaps this would work out that certain refs would only want to be 2nd officials while others would only want to act at the lead official or #1.

This post was edited on 3/11 12:26 PM by 86_90

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
This should be an easy question:

Why isn't stalling immediately called when a wrestler "runs" at the very end of a match?

Examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q7nEmnSJlxw#t=186

Obviously this heartbreaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wkU6RN7X-6E#t=74


What could be more obvious stalling than running away from someone?

Is there a legitimate reason it isn't, or is it just another in the long list of complaints?

Stalling isn't, per the rules "Stalling is defined as one or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy", a totality-of-the-circumstances test. (or am I wrong?)

It isn't, "well he has been really active until now...."

"When
a referee recognizes stalling, the first violation will be a warning;
the second violation will result in 1 point being awarded to the
opponent." This certainly seems to say that any time a ref recognizes it, it should be called, not when it becomes so prevalent it must be called.

You make a very good point and it may be one of the biggest hurdles. How do the refs interpret this? If a guy is very active in the 1st, does he get a "pass" for doing things that are definitively defined as stalling in the 2nd and 3rd periods? IMO, and to your point, I see this happen often as well. It is indeed a major part of the problem.

 

[wyldhawk9]

Originally posted by 86_90:
Posted by Artradley regarding rules change survey from NCAA:


1 point Near Fall for back exposure of one countEliminate two-point near fall; instead award three back points for a three count.Push-out, but not from a scramble situationAllow MMA-type gear instead of singletsHome team wears dark uniform and Away team wears light uniform to make it easier for fans to identify the teams.First takedown in the first period is worth three pointsFalls are worth 7 pointsMajor Decision at 6 points instead of 8Tech Fall at 10 points instead of 15Riding time is only awarded if you have scored back pointsWhen defending a takedown it is illegal to claps hands around the attacker's torso.Post by AsicsFanatic, How to Make Wrestling more exciting:



1. Push out rule, 1 point awarded to opponent.
2.
Eliminate Riding time. This encourages stalling a lot more times than
not. Most will disagree but college is the only one with this rule.
3. Eliminate escape, makes takedowns more rewarding.
4.
Scoreless period results in a point giving to the more aggressive
wrestler, determined by number of shots. Have a shot count like boxing
does with punch counts.
5. First stall call the opponent gets choice of position; up, down, or neutral.
6. Major decision 8 to 11 point victory, 4 team points awarded.
7. Superior decision 12 to 14 point victory, 5 team points awarded.
8. Technical fall 15 or more point victory, 6 team points awarded.
9. Fall worth 7 team points.
10.
Make the mat size minimum of 36 feet, currently 32. Would like 42 foot
like Iowa's but would be hard to get 8 mats in arena at nationals.
Increase high schools to 32, currently 28.
11. Back exposure, less than a 2 count, worth 1 point. 2 and 3 point near falls stay the same, 2 count and 5 count respectfully.
12. All wrestling competitions start at 125.

These are all very interesting suggestions. I would love to see most of Artradley's suggestions.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by 86_90:

theIowaHawk, what do you think of simply using the 2nd official to aggressive call stalling independent of the lead official? Essentially, making it his only responsibility to call stalling based on his aggressive interpretation of the current rules, then grading these 2nd officials based on individual points scored in the matcheswhere they act as the 2nd, thus assuring that this 2nd official is actually promoting action by allowing them to officiate in the post season tournys as the #2.

Perhaps this would work out that certain refs would only want to be 2nd officials while others would only want to act at the lead official or #1.

This post was edited on 3/11 12:26 PM by 86_90

Sure, why not? Not sure "grading" them based on points scored should be a determination. Low scoring matches =/= stalling. Sure, lots of times, true, but it isn't per se. I've been saying this enough now, match points are not a good indicator of active wrestling, nor stalling.

But, yes, maybe making the second ref call stalling would help.

 

[bluroptimo]

Backing up and circling away is probably the most frustrating stalling tactic to me as a fan because it's so easy to see and so rarely called by the refs. I watched Garnett of Cornell wrestle just about the entire match with his reverse lights on. He should have been called for stalling the first time he did it not the 18th.

Do the refs have no idea how much harder it is to score on a guy who keeps releasing the tie and backing up and circling away?

 

[86_90]

In honor of the upcoming NCAA Tourney, who will be the first seeded wrestler to win a match without a takedown or backpoints?