Jump to content
hammerlockthree

In Fairness To Gilman (Terao match)

Recommended Posts

Does the 5 seconds to return a guy apply when the top man is clinging with legs in?

It should ...But it's not being called lately even without legs being in.

Edited by tbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The factor of "control" may not be specifically referenced but being in a "hold" is definitely inferred.  You aren't controlling the guy that is draped across your back.  In no way are you holding him.  He is the one holding you.  If he wanted to, at any time, he could release that hold and no longer be in any danger.  Allowing a guy to hold on for dear life in the top position goes against every other call we now make.  Hold onto an ankle, you will(or are supposed to anyway) get called for stalling.  Ride parallel you are suposed to be called for stalling.  The impetus is supposed to be on you to improve position.  In no way does this do so!

 

I am not sure that anything should be inferred in the reading of the rule. It's pretty clear as it stands, if you lift an opponent off of the mat then you are responsible for his safe return. If you want to start "inferring," what is a hold? That's an undefined term in the rule book, isn't it? I know that we all have our own image as to what a "hold" might look like, but I bet that image varies wildly across the readership.

 

I'm just saying, if the ref wanted to call Gilman for a slam in that moment, I think he would be on solid ground in the rule book. I think if Brands were attempting to argue that there was no "hold" and therefore, no foul, in that moment, he would lose that argument with the ref, based on what the rule book explicitly says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the theoretical discussion of the position, there's no reason the position should ever be called stalling on the bottom man.  Getting to a standing position from being on the ground is clearly bettering your position regardless of what the top man is doing.  It is easier to clear legs when you can more readily grab them.  And, as MSU has stated, it's the top man's responsibility to return the bottom man to the ground once they've stood up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the theoretical discussion of the position, there's no reason the position should ever be called stalling on the bottom man.  Getting to a standing position from being on the ground is clearly bettering your position regardless of what the top man is doing.  It is easier to clear legs when you can more readily grab them.  And, as MSU has stated, it's the top man's responsibility to return the bottom man to the ground once they've stood up.

 

Not that I would expect you to actually get into the rule book and cite the clause (seriously), but what if there is no "top" man, i.e., a neutral situation where one man lifts the other off of the mat and slams him? My point it that the rules, as written, do not contemplate the existence of a someone in control but rather, ANY TIME one competitor lifts another competitor off of the mat, they are responsible for his safe return - period. That's what the rule say. Some may want to impose inferences or read into the minds of those writing the rule book, but that does not supersede what has been written. What has been written is that if you take someone off of the mat, you are responsible for his "safe" return. That's pretty straight forward in my book.

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I would expect you to actually get into the rule book and cite the clause (seriously), but what if there is no "top" man, i.e., a neutral situation where one man lifts the other off of the mat and slams him? My point it that the rules, as written, do not contemplate the existence of a someone in control but rather, ANY TIME one competitor lifts another competitor off of the mat, they are responsible for his safe return - period. That's what the rule say. Some may want to impose inferences or read into the minds of those writing the rule book, but that does not supersede what has been written. What has been written is that if you take someone off of the mat, you are responsible for his "safe" return. That's pretty straight forward in my book.

I personally am not arguing about the slam. It was a slam and Gilman should have been penalized under folkstyle rules. I'm arguing theoretically about how stalling is called in those situations.

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things here.

 

1. OT is when it happens.  :30 periods are to be called like the normal match.

 

2. Since they are to be called as normal, the rule states that if the top man has a leg in before the bottom guy gets to his feet, then stalling could be called on the bottom guy.  If the top guy puts a leg in after the bottom man is standing then the top guy could be called for stalling.   In HS, the stalemate comes quick, in college you let it go.

 

3. Not sure if swipes were in that season....if they were the official should've been swiping the side headlock Waters had on, if old rules then technically Gilman should've cleared the leg before getting to his feet.

 

**Bad strategy by Gilman to donkey stand up in the :30 OT.  Against a legger, it takes too much time and while effective in a 2 minute period just not smart there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...