In Fairness To Gilman (Terao match)

[rcoates1 155]

I'm pretty new here but it seems all Missiuri fans do is hype their guys up to be mortal gods or complain about things that happened to their guys.

[boconnell 1,632]

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

[boconnell 1,632]

I'm pretty new here but it seems all  Missiuri  fans do is hype their guys up to be mortal gods or complain about things that happened to their guys.

[tbert 563]

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 January 5, 2017 by tbert

[tbert 563]

Im not sure if there is a consistent rule. Sometimes they start counting when top guy has tight waist and grabs ankle to break bottom guy down.

[npope 174]

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.

[Perry 1,429]

I thought the ref was supposed to stalemate the first time the position occurs and then call stalling each subsequent time. Didn't that position come up a lot in one of the Metcalf/Palmer matches?

[VakAttack 4,041]

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.

[npope 174]

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 January 5, 2017 by npope

[VakAttack 4,041]

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

[LordNelson 553]

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.