Jump to content

BLT

Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BLT

  1. I see parallel riding all the time now and counting to 4 and letting go for a second and then counting again is still ankle riding. I agree the claw and all that other crap is just as much stalling.
  2. Don't even pretend since Iowa is less metropolitan that all the schools are big time into wrestling. There are tons of schools that may have a team but that is about all you can say about them as they have half filled lineups of poorly talented wrestlers. Most D1 caliber wrestlers in Iowa come from the same few schools. Half or more of the schools are just plain not real good, having to use "coaches" they pull out of the faculty best they can as their budget allows. Not even close to the level of club access or high caliber coach access as other some states.
  3. This would never help in a million years! Way back they did not let the top guy ride parallel and hold only legs and ankles etc. etc. Both guys should be trying to improve their position and that means one trying to get an escape or reversal and one trying to turn. The top guys don't work for points now, they just cling to the bottom guy watching the clock run. In most matches the bottom guy is getting up and the top guy pushes them off the mat or drops to a leg to work back up to cover (hover) some more. There is nothing more boring than watching mat wrestling where nothing really happens and that is what this thought would bring more of.
  4. No way do you factor previous years results into the seeding. A new year is a new year and any number of factors (last years draw, injury, weight cutting issues, wrestler losing his edge etc etc) make what they did before not relevant to now. Why do you think they changed the selection criteria to not use historical data? Yes there are some seeds this year that make you wonder like Eblen seeded at 4 but what people did last year being factored into seeding has nothing to do with the poor choices this year.
  5. No one wants to take a risk because they know if they end up on the wrong side of the risk that the refs will let the other guy stall the match out thus no one want to be behind. If there are new rules in place or existing rules are enforced enough to get rid of the stalling and allow people to feel they have a real shot at making up points the action will pick up.
  6. Bottom line is there needs to be a penalty for lack of action no matter what you call it. If they called stalling like it is supposed to be called all the time people would start getting after it. The problem is they don't call it as written and no one seems to be making them. So then you get into what else can be done, Sesker had many great thoughts IMO. I like no riding time or at the very least no riding time without backs scored. I like returning them to neutral after 20 or 30 seconds on the mat with no escape or progression for backs. I like a leaving the mat penalty from neutral if a guy steps out to avoid action. I don't like it for guys getting carried or pushed off where the offensive guy has a leg and then just walks the guy off the mat, if you have a leg finish your TD. It is easy to tell if a guy is backing out of underhooks vs just being pushed out. Keep the same edge of the mat scoring rules as now, just add or don't add the penalty point based on if a guy goes out to avoid or was shoved out. I like the no grabbing the ankle/leg at all by the top guy to prevent an escape, if they do it then give the escape and go to neutral. They should only be grabbing the ankle/leg during TDs or while working for a fall not holding it to prevent his opponent from getting away, make it no grabbing below the knee to prevent an escape.. Also when on the mat if the top guy pushes the bottom guy out to try and prevent an escape they should just give the escape, either you can return a guy or not, pushing them off is not returning them. I kind of like a shot clock from neutral as well for scoreless situations where one guy is not being aggressive.
  7. The 5 second crap has backfired and made it even worse. Now refs are not only not calling stalling all the times they are supposed to that has nothing to do with the 5 second count but the wrestlers now purposely stall until they ref gets around to starting a count and then adjust quick when it gets to 4 and then start over again. Get rid of the damn count and just call the crap! The 1 stalemate followed by an auto stall was better than this garbage. If the refs won't call the rules as stated find some who will!
  8. Well,considering how crappy Camp has been using him to gage how good Mike Evans was does not hold much water.
  9. Not other peoples fault he is wrestling hurt. They don't have to avoid his elbows.
  10. Here is the full set, would be nuts if the refs actually followed the rule book: 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-57 regardless of the time or score of the match. Stalling in the neutral position is defined as follows: 5.9.2.1 Continually backing away from the opponent without creating offensive action. 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. 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. 5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.) 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. 5.9.3.2 Either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring. 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. 5.9.3.4 Repeatedly grasping or interlocking hands around a leg without attempting an offensive move. 5.9.3.5 The defensive wrestler must initiate action to escape or reverse the opponent. 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. 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.
  11. Acutally the rules say it is stalling: 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.
  12. You better stick to directing the handle on your toilet.
  13. There are all kinds of positions where I am sure over the years some sort of spinal issue has happened to a wrestler. Knowing some of the posters on here are in society without fully functioning brains seems like a lot more danger.
  14. Palacio and Meyer had nothing to do with this. #1 the Iowa guy was not blocking the path, there was plenty of space to get by. #2 if you have eyes you can see him talking to another Iowa wrestler at the time. Waters chose to run into him, he was not blocked. Waters had more chippy moments in that match than Gilman.
  15. BLT

    The Iowa way

    Are all these clowns arguing with themselves? Who has said what Gilman did was ok? The ref made the friggin call. They penalized according to the call that was made. Iowa does not control the refs and the head of officials was right there. Wipe up the tears already!
  16. What happened yesterday is means nothing. That is like saying if Mizzou committed an unsportsmanlike yesterday then it was ok for Gilman to do one today.
  17. Gilman grabbing his legs was in responce to waters elbow to the back of the head. The elbow is where the point to Gilman came from.
  18. Waters was not blocked on the way out, he had all kinds of space to run by and he chose to run into the Iowa guy. Path was not blocked.
  19. I am not going to base anyone being the second coming based off beating Josh Dziewa.
  20. Pickett was acting chippy with Storley earlier, he is no angel. The push was nothing, foot was still in when the motion started, if camera people are not so close it is a non issue. Peope were not booing blood time, they were booing Cornell coaches trying to claim Evans did something wrong when Pickett got cut. Replay clearly showed an accidental clash of heads. Pickett seems to enjoy sticking his head in first and was already taped up before the match.
  21. It is up to Illinois to hold him out vs tough competition but his seed should suffer to some extent as a result.
×
×
  • Create New...