Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tirapell

Push-out rule in folkstyle?

Recommended Posts

The Greco problem is not eitnrely from the push-out rule but it has turned many matches into a circlefest with not even an attempt to score. A large percentage of guys will not take a chance because a single push-out will win the period.

 

 

I have a problem with bringing in a bad rule for a test prorgam in any event because unfortunatly just like the government once adopted it cannot be gotten rid of.

 

Greco has problems, but it's not the pushout. Go read some thread on the international board to see why nobody takes risk in Greco. Guys don't want to initiate action because a match is split into 2 minute "mini-matches", and if you go down 0-1 you probably will lose the period, and because there is no passivity and the refs don't make you keep you head up anymore, any initiation of action is very risky and probably loses you the period. Folkstyle has none of those problems. Also, despite greco being terrible at the Olympics this year, I didn't see any matches that looked like Sumo. They were all handfighting stall-fests with no scoring, but nobody stood there and simply tried to push each other out like sumo. It sure was boring nonetheless, for other reasons, but damned if they didn't stay in the center most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't one of the justifications for adding the push-out to remove the political subjectivity of the passivity call? IF so then adding the push-out was 100% responsible for the issue with Greco.

Moving to period scoring only exacerbated the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't one of the justifications for adding the push-out to remove the political subjectivity of the passivity call? IF so then adding the push-out was 100% responsible for the issue with Greco.

Moving to period scoring only exacerbated the problem.

To say it was just one rule is simply ignorant. There were three major changes to the rules at that time. I don't think Greco was particularly exciting in 2000 or 2004 either, but that will be left up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greco has never been exciting and yes there were other rules that were changed as well but eliminating passivity in favour of the push-out fundamentally changed everything. It is most obvious in Greco because of the limitation on leg attacks but this crosses over into freestyle as well.

There was a freestyle world title a few years ago that was won by some foreigner 1-0, 1-0 on two push- outs without a single shot attempt by the winning wrestler.

That match is not the only example of this happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is actually a legitimate suggestion. Players hit/tackled with much different technique before full body armor was used. Self preservation dictated as much. Far fewer deaths in boxing in the bare knuckle era, skull broke hands before hands got supported/protected.

 

The football thing is a tough call. There were lots of deaths in the first few decades of football. It was a different game then, but still. For your brain, it's basically a game that's unsafe whether you wear protective gear or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zebra, if you don't think that a defensive wrestler going out-of-bounds does not aid him in preventing the offensive wrestler from scoring, then you just don't understand the sport at a very high level. You can keep responding until you're blue in the face but get on a mat, have your opponent stand near the out-of-bounds line and instruct him to do anything possible not to get scored on. Report back on how well you did.

 

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who has wrestled at a high level can tell you the biggest obstacle to scoring is not stalling, but a guy who won't remain in the wrestling area (aka using the out-of-bounds area to prevent scores). You are COMPLETELY reliant on the referee to call stalling or fleeing the mat when a person leaves the wrestling area. Which I think we can all agree has not, is not, and will not be called "properly" in our lifetimes.

 

We can either keep hoping for referees to "call stalling/fleeing properly" OR we can change the rules to make calls easier to make by making them more objective. Maybe it's not a push-out. But arguments like the out-of-bounds doesn't matter in a sport where you have to physically control your opponent is really untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which rules say this?

5.9.1 and 5.9.2 puts the responsibility on both/each wrestler to try to work toward the middle. 5.9.2.2 allows for wrestlers interlocked in wrestling to go out of bounds.

Although 5.9.3 refers to mat wrestlinhg, 5.9.3.2 specifically cites "either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out" as stalling.

Thank you for your response. The rules are clear, and it's also evident that wrestlers routinely ignore the spirit and the letter of these rules.

Bottom line: collegiate wrestling is about control of, or losing control to, your opponent. The wrestling area is where this activity takes place. Although controlling the area is important strategically, it is not, and shouldn't be, a part of the scoring surface. That would be the opponent.

I don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make. We already have out of bounds rules that affect whether or not an opponent is a "scoring surface."

If stalling was called properly (Mills/Gonzales scored near 30 points combined, yet each got a stall warning) this wouldn't be an issue. Part of good offense is being able to finish in bounds.

Finishing in bounds still allows you to score back points, pin, etc. No matter what the out of bounds rules are.

Perhaps we should penalize a wrestler who allows the opponent to get OB when he's got a single up and can't keep the action in? Same as a push out, nobody has gained control.

If you think about this for a moment, I think you will quickly come to the conclusion that it would turn the sport into a farce. You may think that the pushout turns the sport into a farce, but you also have said that you haven't watched international wrestling lately. It looks nothing like sumo wrestling.

 

Anyway, it's my opinion that controlling the mat space and your own body are critical elements of the sport. I think the pushout helps to emphasize those skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zebra, if you don't think that a defensive wrestler going out-of-bounds does not aid him in preventing the offensive wrestler from scoring, then you just don't understand the sport at a very high level. You can keep responding until you're blue in the face but get on a mat, have your opponent stand near the out-of-bounds line and instruct him to do anything possible not to get scored on. Report back on how well you did.

 

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who has wrestled at a high level can tell you the biggest obstacle to scoring is not stalling, but a guy who won't remain in the wrestling area (aka using the out-of-bounds area to prevent scores). You are COMPLETELY reliant on the referee to call stalling or fleeing the mat when a person leaves the wrestling area. Which I think we can all agree has not, is not, and will not be called "properly" in our lifetimes.

 

We can either keep hoping for referees to "call stalling/fleeing properly" OR we can change the rules to make calls easier to make by making them more objective. Maybe it's not a push-out. But arguments like the out-of-bounds doesn't matter in a sport where you have to physically control your opponent is really untrue.

At no point did I say that going out of bounds didn't matter OR that it doesn't help the defensive wrestler, what I did say is that the push-out rule will not make folk-style better. These are two entirely different issues.

Implementing a rule that has thus far not been effective in the one arena will not alter the outcome in a different but very similar arena. All you will get is guys bending at the waist in an ear-to-ear tie pushing and circling for the entire period.

 

 

The last two years college wrestling has had a ton of exciting scrambles all around the mat including when both guys are 90% out of bounds. The new rules have added an estimated 500 sq feet to the wrestling surface without havng to make any physicial changes to equipment. To my way of thinking that is a huge improvement already.

 

Again just go back and look at this years NCAA brackets. There was a ton of scoring so this percieved massive stalling problem preventing any action simply does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who has wrestled at a high level can tell you the biggest obstacle to scoring is not stalling, but a guy who won't remain in the wrestling area (aka using the out-of-bounds area to prevent scores).

 

Yep, and this has become the biggest mechanism for stalling now in high school and college. And guys are getting away with it. I've never had sympathy for wrestlers who complain that their opponent is stalling simply because they controlled ties and never took a shot (but stayed in the center). If a wrestler cannot score on an opponent who is standing in the center and engaging in ties, then the problem is not stalling, but a lack of offense and setups from the losing wrestler. However, even the best wresters in the world can't score if their opponent could legally keep running out of bounds and never be penalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again just go back and look at this years NCAA brackets. There was a ton of scoring so this percieved massive stalling problem preventing any action simply does not exist.

 

But we can't just spot check the brackets and conclude that everything is fine. If you look at the whole NCAA season, there were a lot of high scoring matches, sure, but there were also a lot of 3-2 matches where the only points came from escapes and 1 takedown by the winning wrestler. One takedown in 7 minutes of wrestling is a very low rate of scoring. But in those 7 minutes, there were generally half a dozen or more instances where a takedown would have occurred if only they had been in bounds. The reason they weren't in bounds? No penalty for living on the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which rules say this?

5.9.1 and 5.9.2 puts the responsibility on both/each wrestler to try to work toward the middle. 5.9.2.2 allows for wrestlers interlocked in wrestling to go out of bounds.

Although 5.9.3 refers to mat wrestlinhg, 5.9.3.2 specifically cites "either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out" as stalling.

Thank you for your response. The rules are clear, and it's also evident that wrestlers routinely ignore the spirit and the letter of these rules.

Bottom line: collegiate wrestling is about control of, or losing control to, your opponent. The wrestling area is where this activity takes place. Although controlling the area is important strategically, it is not, and shouldn't be, a part of the scoring surface. That would be the opponent.

I don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make. We already have out of bounds rules that affect whether or not an opponent is a "scoring surface."

If stalling was called properly (Mills/Gonzales scored near 30 points combined, yet each got a stall warning) this wouldn't be an issue. Part of good offense is being able to finish in bounds.

Finishing in bounds still allows you to score back points, pin, etc. No matter what the out of bounds rules are.

Perhaps we should penalize a wrestler who allows the opponent to get OB when he's got a single up and can't keep the action in? Same as a push out, nobody has gained control.

If you think about this for a moment, I think you will quickly come to the conclusion that it would turn the sport into a farce. You may think that the pushout turns the sport into a farce, but you also have said that you haven't watched international wrestling lately. It looks nothing like sumo wrestling.

 

Anyway, it's my opinion that controlling the mat space and your own body are critical elements of the sport. I think the pushout helps to emphasize those skills.

 

 

It is also my opinion that controlling mat space and your own body are critical skills, but utilizing those skills to gain control of the opponent from neutral is when scoring should occur.

 

"If you think about this for a moment, I think you will quickly come to the conclusion that it would turn the sport into a farce. You may think that the pushout turns the sport into a farce, but you also have said that you haven't watched international wrestling lately. It looks nothing like sumo wrestling"

Yes, that was facetious. It would be just like freestyle where defending the cinch with no scoring gets rewarded with the period won.

I have tried to watch, but am too pissed that such hard working athletes are forced to compete under these arbitrary, contrived, created to appease the IOC and broadcast partners rules I just give up.

I know it doesn't resemble Sumo, they don't wear "show buns". But they score by push outs.

 

"Part of good offense is being able to finish in bounds.

Finishing in bounds still allows you to score back points, pin, etc. No matter what the out of bounds rules are.".

That's my point, demonstrate control by not allowing the opponent to avoid being scored on in bounds. Keep him in. Aren't back points and fall allowed OB as long as any part of pinning area is inbounds, and wrestling continues as long as it is possible the wrestler may be brought back inbounds? Rule 2.4

 

"I don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make. We already have out of bounds rules that affect whether or not an opponent is a "scoring surface.""

The distinction is that the OB rules affect WHETHER you may score on your opponent, push out CAUSES you to "score" without scoring on the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again just go back and look at this years NCAA brackets. There was a ton of scoring so this percieved massive stalling problem preventing any action simply does not exist.

 

But we can't just spot check the brackets and conclude that everything is fine. If you look at the whole NCAA season, there were a lot of high scoring matches, sure, but there were also a lot of 3-2 matches where the only points came from escapes and 1 takedown by the winning wrestler. One takedown in 7 minutes of wrestling is a very low rate of scoring. But in those 7 minutes, there were generally half a dozen or more instances where a takedown would have occurred if only they had been in bounds. The reason they weren't in bounds? No penalty for living on the edge.

Actually the NCAA bracket is a good place to look as it is theoretically the top 33 wrestlers in each weight. This would indicate the best at offense and or defense.

 

The matches throughout all the weight classes from the first round to the last had a very high average of bonus point wins. For that to be the case action had to take place and in many cases a ton of it. And when you look at the matches which were not bonus point you will find several there the total scores were actually fairly high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point, demonstrate control by not allowing the opponent to avoid being scored on in bounds. Keep him in. Aren't back points and fall allowed OB as long as any part of pinning area is inbounds, and wrestling continues as long as it is possible the wrestler may be brought back inbounds? Rule 2.4

The current folkstyle rules are set up to encourage wrestlers to keep one another in bounds. They don't work -- wrestling goes out of bounds constantly. Forcing the attacker to keep his opponent in bounds might demonstrate control for dominant individuals, but it creates a culture of wrestlers who learn to play the edge instead of avoiding it.

 

 

"I don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make. We already have out of bounds rules that affect whether or not an opponent is a "scoring surface.""

The distinction is that the OB rules affect WHETHER you may score on your opponent, push out CAUSES you to "score" without scoring on the opponent.

For me, the question is: what does scoring signify?

 

I'd have to go back and look, because the rules have evolved many times over the years, but at some point wrestling continued until someone was pinned. In order to speed matches along, points were created to demonstrate control. In other words, if you destroy your opponent's position (takedown, etc.) or improve your own (escape, etc.), you get points. A pushout destroys your opponent's position. If you've pushed him off of the wrestling surface, you've demonstrated control of him, and you've demonstrated his inability to control his own body position or the mat space. Who cares if his body is the physical scoring surface?

 

Probably the ideal solution would be to wrestle in a cage, as Stovepipe suggested at some point in this thread. But that would be prohibitively expensive and it would fundamentally alter match tactics even more than the discussion that we're having about out of bounds rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The current folkstyle rules are set up to encourage wrestlers to keep one another in bounds. They don't work -- wrestling goes out of bounds constantly. Forcing the attacker to keep his opponent in bounds might demonstrate control for dominant individuals, but it creates a culture of wrestlers who learn to play the edge instead of avoiding it."

 

If wrestlers scramble all over, neither can quite gain control but so close several times (Kolat v Mohammadi semi) wind up out and return to center, is lost because of arbitrary change in what wrestling is as a sport we lose many of the most exciting matches.

 

 

"For me, the question is: what does scoring signify?"

Exactly. We seem to fundamentally disagree on the intent and objective of wrestling.

 

"I'd have to go back and look, because the rules have evolved many times over the years, but at some point wrestling continued until someone was pinned. In order to speed matches along, points were created to demonstrate control. In other words, if you destroy your opponent's position (takedown, etc.) or improve your own (escape, etc.), you get points. A pushout destroys your opponent's position. If you've pushed him off of the wrestling surface, you've demonstrated control of him, and you've demonstrated his inability to control his own body position or the mat space. Who cares if his body is the physical scoring surface?"

The Historian's book has the history well documented. All I'll suggest is that rules have always evolved over time. What happened to international in 2004 was completely throwing out the rules and formatting new sports with old names and including parts of the former sports. Folkstyle does not need any part of that.

Points were created to assign value to levels of control demonstrated rather than rely solely on riding time. It had nothing to do with position on the mat other than it needed to be within the wrestling area. Pushing a wrestler out demonstrates control of an area, excluding him from it, but not control of him. That isn't evolution of the system. It is introducing an entirely foreign and new objective to the sport, and a new type of scoring. Folk style has always been about control demonstrated over the opponent, so I think all of history cares what the scoring surface is.

 

"Probably the ideal solution would be to wrestle in a cage, as Stovepipe suggested at some point in this thread. But that would be prohibitively expensive and it would fundamentally alter match tactics even more than the discussion that we're having about out of bounds rules."

 

True. But I suggest that altering match tactics is far less damaging to the sport than altering the objective of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to chime in with an example. Take it for what you wish:

 

Just wanted the Russian 55kg Olympic Champ (Otarsultanov -- love this guy by the way) down by 1 point with 18 seconds left. He jammed an underhook on the whistle and drove the Georgian to the edge under control. The Georgian, knowing if he just went out of bounds, it'd cost him a point, tried to counter by whizzering. The Russian hit a sweet limp arm off that whizzer for the takedown and the Olympic Championship. He's down by 1 and scored in less than 10 seconds.

 

In folkstyle (presently), the Georgian would have just backed off the mat for a restart, maybe a stall warning (big deal). If he already had a stall warning, then the ref has to decide if he wants to tie the match up on a penalty, a call that is rarely made even when deserving.

 

But the best part was, then the Georgian still had time to score and nearly did at the buzzer (about 10 seconds left), all because the Russian couldn't just back away and go out of bounds. We would have missed 18 seconds that almost resulted in 2 takedowns without the push-out rule.

 

Does this mean 100% that we should have a push-out rule? No. But as Wille and I have argued for, it forces both wrestlers to actually "wrestle" where you can see takedowns, counters, and incredible technique rather than leaving the wrestling area for a restart when you don't like your position and the crowd yelling at the ref to call stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to sound harsher than I mean it but here goes anyway. Ok there are a lot of you that are in favor of the push out. Ok you can have it. It’s called freestyle and Greco. You can attend it, you can coach it, and you can devote your life to it. It’s already there for you. Just don’t push (pun intended) for something that will screw up American folkstyle. Ok, I’m done and off to the lake for the weekend. No computer no phone. Just water and walleyes.

 

silverback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wanted to chime in with an example. Take it for what you wish:

 

Just wanted the Russian 55kg Olympic Champ (Otarsultanov -- love this guy by the way) down by 1 point with 18 seconds left. He jammed an underhook on the whistle and drove the Georgian to the edge under control. The Georgian, knowing if he just went out of bounds, it'd cost him a point, tried to counter by whizzering. The Russian hit a sweet limp arm off that whizzer for the takedown and the Olympic Championship. He's down by 1 and scored in less than 10 seconds.

 

In folkstyle (presently), the Georgian would have just backed off the mat for a restart, maybe a stall warning (big deal). If he already had a stall warning, then the ref has to decide if he wants to tie the match up on a penalty, a call that is rarely made even when deserving.

 

But the best part was, then the Georgian still had time to score and nearly did at the buzzer (about 10 seconds left), all because the Russian couldn't just back away and go out of bounds. We would have missed 18 seconds that almost resulted in 2 takedowns without the push-out rule.

 

Does this mean 100% that we should have a push-out rule? No. But as Wille and I have argued for, it forces both wrestlers to actually "wrestle" where you can see takedowns, counters, and incredible technique rather than leaving the wrestling area for a restart when you don't like your position and the crowd yelling at the ref to call stalling.

 

 

Again, not trying to be jerk, but exactly what wrestling action did Otarsultanov initiate with the undertook other than driving to the dreaded edge that the rule is supposed to discourage? Was he not using OB in the inverse in order to try to gain a win?

 

I've seen similar occurrences in college and HS, but I've seen more where they use the underhook to initiate an attack, to pull the opponent in or keep him from fleeing. Basically they wrestle rather than use the threat of a step out to require the opponent to react, or concede a point. I don't begrudge the FS guys doing it because that is the rules they suffer under now. But that doesn't mean it is any less using OB than fleeing is, and would introduce scoring not involving control or penalty if brought to folkstyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We seem to fundamentally disagree on the intent and objective of wrestling.

I think that's the problem. It might be why people get very animated about the pushout rule.

 

The Historian's book has the history well documented. All I'll suggest is that rules have always evolved over time. What happened to international in 2004 was completely throwing out the rules and formatting new sports with old names and including parts of the former sports. Folkstyle does not need any part of that.

I was actually referring to folkstyle's evolution out of catch as catch can.

 

I think that freestyle has changed less than you think it has. They've toned down passivity calls and added an objective reason to keep wrestling in the middle, but otherwise the sport's fundamentals are unchanged.

 

Pushing a wrestler out demonstrates control of an area, excluding him from it, but not control of him.

We disagree here. If I don't want to leave the mat, and you force me to do so, you've controlled me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying freestyle hasn't changed that much in the decade, or over a longer period of timecsay since 1952 which was the first Olympics the Soviet Union competed in wrestling? If it is the latter, i'll type up a short story and paste it on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying freestyle hasn't changed that much in the decade, or over a longer period of timecsay since 1952 which was the first Olympics the Soviet Union competed in wrestling? If it is the latter, i'll type up a short story and paste it on the forum.

 

 

I really can't comment on what the sport looked like back in the 1950s. I think the changes in freestyle have been gradual, and the scoring criteria have not changed in a very long time. The big changes recently have been taking away passivity (adding the pushout) and giving people far less time to work for turns on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying freestyle hasn't changed that much in the decade, or over a longer period of timecsay since 1952 which was the first Olympics the Soviet Union competed in wrestling? If it is the latter, i'll type up a short story and paste it on the forum.

 

 

I really can't comment on what the sport looked like back in the 1950s. I think the changes in freestyle have been gradual, and the scoring criteria have not changed in a very long time. The big changes recently have been taking away passivity (adding the pushout) and giving people far less time to work for turns on top.

 

 

As BigApple can tell you freestyle has always evolved through rule alterations, often felt to be made to offset perceived advantages countries were gaining or losing. Changes were somewhat gradual...until 2004.

If you don't think the changes of 2004 were changes WAY beyond anything that had happened before...I don't think there is anything to say, except I hope you are so young you have no actual memory of when FS was wrestling.

Change from cumulative scoring to winning tennis sets.

Eliminated passivity.

You can win a round although behind.

You can win a round without scoring.

You can win a round while tied (even if he freight train doubles you, but steps out while trying to do it again)

You can block and back in circles with impunity.

You can score by forcing the other out.

Single elimination, finalist pull back in. 15 min between match minimum, wt class completed in 1 day.

Introduction of random chance in giving huge advantage of leg cinch to one of the two evenly matched contestants in tie breaker. (never liked the chest cinch either, but it was closer to fair)

To me the biggest changes during the prior 4 decades was the introduction of the tech superiority(fall), the significant reduction of match duration, and reducing the number of wt classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quanon:

 

I'm fairly aware of wrestling history and evolution from civil war times, untimed match to fall or forfeit...fall required 3 of 4 points held to the ground (the hips and shoulders being the pinning areas), introduction of RT to decide the more dominant wrestler over 20 or more min matches with no fall, intro of scoring system and it's many alterations since. All the various eras had one primary, some say very American thing. You scored or won by demonstrating control of the opponents person, not the area the contest is held. Dominating the area is usually a good indicator and strategy, but it is not scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As BigApple can tell you freestyle has always evolved through rule alterations, often felt to be made to offset perceived advantages countries were gaining or losing. Changes were somewhat gradual...until 2004.

If you don't think the changes of 2004 were changes WAY beyond anything that had happened before...I don't think there is anything to say, except I hope you are so young you have no actual memory of when FS was wrestling. Change from cumulative scoring to winning tennis sets. Eliminate passivity. You can win a round although behind. You can score by forcing the other out. Single elimination, finalist pull back in. 15 min between match minimum, wt class completed in 1 day. Introduction of random chance in giving huge advantage of leg cinch to one of the two evenly matched contestants in tie breaker.

To me the biggest changes during the prior 4 decades was the introduction of the tech superiority(fall), the significant reduction of match duration, and reducing the number of wt classes.

 

In general, the sport's fundamentals haven't changed. A takedown is still 1, a turn is still 2, feet to back is still 3, etc. It's not as though the rules have added strikes or submissions.

 

Almost eliminating passivity and adding pushouts were interlinked rules. Passivity calls had become a problem because of the widespread belief that refs were corrupt. I've already pointed out why the pushout does not bother me (and why I think it is an excellent rule).

 

The leg clinch is a serious problem. Since there will be a new set of rules changes after the Olympics, I've spent a lot of time on the international board laying out just what a problem it is. The impression I get from Stan Dziedzic is that there is no support for getting rid of it anytime soon.

 

Otherwise, the changes you've mentioned are basically cosmetic/irrelevant (tennis sets, winning on criteria, lack of full wrestlebacks).

 

Match time reduction matters a lot, but matches have been around 5-6 minutes for decades. Weight classes being completed in 1 day goes a long way toward adding conditioning (or at least recovery abilities) into the skill set that wrestlers need. It doesn't change the fundamentals of the sport.

 

I can't recall when they got rid of the black mark system, but that obviously would have been a very important change. Again, I think it was a move in the right direction, but I'm sure that it has reduced action, just like changing the interpretation of passivity has reduced action.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...