Where the heck is this number 7 ref from?

[minnhawkeye]

Hey, Zain is outstanding don't get me wrong. But why can't these reffs do there job. Sorensen stood up four times when he had both legs in and the reff just let them stand there. No stall call no nothing. No wonder some guys do like Gillman did to Walters last year stupid reff not going do there job this is what really gets me worked up. Zain would have won but should have called for stalling twice or give up that ride. If they don't call this he could get hurt and then the people gonna blame the other wrestler.

 

[bammhawk1]

Hey, Zain is outstanding don't get me wrong. But why can't these reffs do there job. Sorensen stood up four times when he had both legs in and the reff just let them stand there. No stall call no nothing. No wonder some guys do like Gillman did to Walters last year stupid reff not going do there job this is what really gets me worked up. Zain would have won but should have called for stalling twice or give up that ride. If they don't call this he could get hurt and then the people gonna blame the other wrestler.

I was going to mention this also. Even after handing there the 2nd time and then Zain dropped back to the mat and then ran Sorenson off the mat??? Come on refs, do your job thats all we ask!

 

[Onceafish]

You guys should crack open the rule book. Legs don't become stalling just because the guy on the bottom stands up. I am surprised he didn't call a stalemate sooner, but he might have been giving BS a chance to get the escape.

 

[hawknut]

Because Sorenson clearly would have dominated if the ref didn't let Zain do that?

 

[bammhawk1]

Because Sorenson clearly would have dominated if the ref didn't let Zain do that?

No, obviously not saying that. The rule is when your on top you need to try to do something. Locking in the arms and legs and when the bottom person stands up and your still locked in there not even touching the ground or trying to do anything is stalling

 

[Chuck C]

Because Sorenson clearly would have dominated if the ref didn't let Zain do that?

Reading comprehension is hard.

 

[ih8iast8]

Reading comprehension is hard.

Must be harder than being a douche tonight

 

[goiahawkeyes]

If the legs are in and then Sorenson stands up, that's fair game. If Sorensn stands up and then Rethorford puts the legs in, that's stalling. The ref made the right call in all these situations tonight.

 

[JBJRFL]

If the legs are in and then Sorenson stands up, that's fair game. If Sorensn stands up and then Rethorford puts the legs in, that's stalling. The ref made the right call in all these situations tonight.

Except, it is the duty of bottom man to get to his feet. It is the duty of top man to return him to the mat. If top man makes no attempt to return him then it is the true definition of stalling.

 

[nitlion6]

As was suggested. Read the book.
By rule. If legs are already in when bottom man gets to his feet it is not stalling it is a stalemate.
I get you guys believe in your hearts that every wrestler opposing a Hawk is always stalling but holy rip
At least bitch about it within a realm that includes some knowledge.

 

[Pennstate1985]

If the legs are in and then Sorenson stands up, that's fair game. If Sorensn stands up and then Rethorford puts the legs in, that's stalling. The ref made the right call in all these situations tonight.

not only that, the rules state that if the bottom man stands up repeatedly while legs are in, the ref has the choice of stalemate or stall on the BOTTOM man. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I guess they felt it was an attempt to make the top man look like he is stalling by doing so repeatedly.

 

[minnhawkeye]

Ok then I was wrong. Kind of a stupid rule if u ask me what is bottom to do guy has both legs in laying or sitting on top of him and not turning him the bottom man gets hit for stalling. I also said it would not have made any difference in the match just that hey someone some time is going to get hurt when the top guy is riding like that. It happen to Fleeger (purdue sp) in nationals against Mn he was riding like that and the Mn kid just reached back and got ahold of his head and pulled him right over, Mn kid got hit for illegal move and purdue kid took the win with the injiury and then came back next round and took out the number one seed.

 

[bammhawk1]

If bottom stands up (attempt to get out) and if the top just locks himself onto him and IS NOT TOUCHING THE GROUND AT ALL than it should be stalling on top man EVERY TIME. Just seems like common sense to me, because top cant do anything in that position but is just clinging on and killing time (stalling)

 

[Big Fall]

As was suggested. Read the book.
By rule. If legs are already in when bottom man gets to his feet it is not stalling it is a stalemate.
I get you guys believe in your hearts that every wrestler opposing a Hawk is always stalling but holy rip
At least bitch about it within a realm that includes some knowledge.

Actually by the rule book, if the bottom man repeatedly stands up with legs in, it's stalling on bottom. I don't agree with the rule but that's what it is.

 

[minnhawkeye]

Actually by the rule book, if the bottom man repeatedly stands up with legs in, it's stalling on bottom. I don't agree with the rule but that's what it is.

Thanks bigfall know u do lots of reffing. Funny when my son wrestled in high school back in early 80's he liked to use the guillitone however: if he didn't get the guys armwraped around him and pull him over they would break it and warn him the first time if he threw in the leg and tried again with no success would hit him with a stall guess that is why I was thinking with both legs in and just riding when standing up would be stalling

 

[bammhawk1]

Actually by the rule book, if the bottom man repeatedly stands up with legs in, it's stalling on bottom. I don't agree with the rule but that's what it is.

Rule needs to be changed

 

[cidhawkeye]

So it's either a stalemate or stalling, which one was called?

 

[bammhawk1]

So it's either a stalemate or stalling, which one was called?

Believe stalemate was called everytime, except when he actually dropped to the ground and then ran him right out of bounds

 

[Big Fall]

The way most officials will call it is a stalemate and encourage the top guy to work them if you're going to put them in. You might also tell the bottom guy if he keeps standing up with the legs in it's going to be stalling. Most officials don't like that rule but it is what it is. It reads:

No104—POSSIBLE STALL, STALEMATE OR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS - The defensive wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly stands to cause a stalemate. The top (offensive) wrestler is stalling if he repeatedly applies legs after the defensive (bottom) wrestler is already standing. If neither wrestler can improve this position, a stalemate may be called. If, in the opinion of the referee, this situation becomes unstable, “potentially dangerous” may be called.

Obviously lots of room for interpretation for the official but it specifically states if the bottom wrestler keeps standing up with legs in, it's stalling. Again, I don't agree. If the top guy has legs in, he's not using them effectively if the bottom guy can stand up.

 

[Grappler85]

Most refs interpret it this way:

• If the bottom man comes to his feet and then the top guy throw his legs in, it is stalling on the top man.
• If bottom man tripods, top man puts legs in trying to break down bottom man, then bottom man comes on up to his feet, it is potentially dangers or a stalemate.

 

[bammhawk1]

Most refs interpret it this way:

• If the bottom man comes to his feet and then the top guy throw his legs in, it is stalling on the top man.
• If bottom man tripods, top man puts legs in trying to break down bottom man, then bottom man comes on up to his feet, it is potentially dangers or a stalemate.

Either way top is doing nothing!

 

[crablegs1]

Either way top is doing nothing!

Neither is bottom. Have you ever seen someone escape if they stand to both feet when the top guy has the legs in? It is not how you get out from the legs. Never seen a coach teach that ever in my life. So the bottom guy isn't trying to get out if all he does is stand up.

 

[bammhawk1]

Neither is bottom. Have you ever seen someone escape if they stand to both feet when the top guy has the legs in? It is not how you get out from the legs. Never seen a coach teach that ever in my life. So the bottom guy isn't trying to get out if all he does is stand up.

So you dont think when someone gets to their feet they arent trying to escape...........OK

 

[crablegs1]

So you dont think when someone gets to their feet they arent trying to escape...........OK

Not when the top guy has both legs in. If you do that you're just looking for a stalemate.

 

[bammhawk1]

Not when the top guy has both legs in. If you do that you're just looking for a stalemate.

Seriously? You think thats the only reason they do that????

 

[crablegs1]

Seriously? You think thats the only reason they do that????

How is that supposed to help them get out. It doesn't that is why the rule book has it called accurately. It is not a technique that does anything for getting out from the legs. Show me the match where it happened