Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shieldofpistis

My frustration with college wrestling

Recommended Posts

First, let me say that it is an honor to be part of this board. I have followed it for some time.  I finally made an account, and it has been nice engaging with members. 

I love college wrestling.  But there is one aspect of the sport that is very frustrating to me.  And it actually has had unfair consequences in certain cases.  

This is the issue.  In the first two periods one wrestler will clearly be the aggressor.  Say he takes 5 shots and gets 1 or 2 takedowns.  The other wrestler just defends. He may push the wrestler who is doing the shooting back, but besides pushing he does no offensive moves of his own. 

So under this scenario the wrestler who has been offensive has a 1 or 2 point lead with 45 seconds to go.  Then with 45 seconds to go the wrestler who has been defensive the whole match does halfway shots and pushing.  The ref calls stalling on the guy who has been offensive the entire match except for the very end.  Why do refs do this?  If one wrestler has 5 full shot attempts over 6 minutes, when the other wrestler begins making half-shot attempts with a minute to go, why should the ref stall calling?  This drives me crazy.  It happens in so many matches.  The guy who has been the aggressor will be defensive for the last 40 seconds to protect the lead, and the guy who has been passive will get stall calls in his favor for just pushing him back. 

Unfortunately, this unfair stall call will sometimes forces the winning wrestler into a comprising position, and gets taken down.  

I think refs should be consistent.  If a guy is not shooting in the first period, or continues to go backwards, it should be judged the same as the 3rd. 

Wrestling is a great sport.  But I think reffing inconsistencies will hurt it long term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer is that you have to stay engaged. even if you aren't taking shots, if you aren't backing away you probably don't get dinged. what you see a lot from people winning by just a few is that they throw it in reverse to run out the clock and that isn't wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shieldofpistis said:

First, let me say that it is an honor to be part of this board. I have followed it for some time.  I finally made an account, and it has been nice engaging with members. 

I love college wrestling.  But there is one aspect of the sport that is very frustrating to me.  And it actually has had unfair consequences in certain cases.  

This is the issue.  In the first two periods one wrestler will clearly be the aggressor.  Say he takes 5 shots and gets 1 or 2 takedowns.  The other wrestler just defends. He may push the wrestler who is doing the shooting back, but besides pushing he does no offensive moves of his own. 

So under this scenario the wrestler who has been offensive has a 1 or 2 point lead with 45 seconds to go.  Then with 45 seconds to go the wrestler who has been defensive the whole match does halfway shots and pushing.  The ref calls stalling on the guy who has been offensive the entire match except for the very end.  Why do refs do this?  If one wrestler has 5 full shot attempts over 6 minutes, when the other wrestler begins making half-shot attempts with a minute to go, why should the ref stall calling?  This drives me crazy.  It happens in so many matches.  The guy who has been the aggressor will be defensive for the last 40 seconds to protect the lead, and the guy who has been passive will get stall calls in his favor for just pushing him back. 

Unfortunately, this unfair stall call will sometimes forces the winning wrestler into a comprising position, and gets taken down.  

I think refs should be consistent.  If a guy is not shooting in the first period, or continues to go backwards, it should be judged the same as the 3rd. 

Wrestling is a great sport.  But I think reffing inconsistencies will hurt it long term. 

I'm not a fan of those "rubberband" stall calls either, especially when the leading wrestler presents himself and stays in the center, but I doubt they'll ever go away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shieldofpistis said:

First, let me say that it is an honor to be part of this board. I have followed it for some time.  I finally made an account, and it has been nice engaging with members. 

I love college wrestling.  But there is one aspect of the sport that is very frustrating to me.  And it actually has had unfair consequences in certain cases.  

This is the issue.  In the first two periods one wrestler will clearly be the aggressor.  Say he takes 5 shots and gets 1 or 2 takedowns.  The other wrestler just defends. He may push the wrestler who is doing the shooting back, but besides pushing he does no offensive moves of his own. 

So under this scenario the wrestler who has been offensive has a 1 or 2 point lead with 45 seconds to go.  Then with 45 seconds to go the wrestler who has been defensive the whole match does halfway shots and pushing.  The ref calls stalling on the guy who has been offensive the entire match except for the very end.  Why do refs do this?  If one wrestler has 5 full shot attempts over 6 minutes, when the other wrestler begins making half-shot attempts with a minute to go, why should the ref stall calling?  This drives me crazy.  It happens in so many matches.  The guy who has been the aggressor will be defensive for the last 40 seconds to protect the lead, and the guy who has been passive will get stall calls in his favor for just pushing him back. 

Unfortunately, this unfair stall call will sometimes forces the winning wrestler into a comprising position, and gets taken down.  

I think refs should be consistent.  If a guy is not shooting in the first period, or continues to go backwards, it should be judged the same as the 3rd. 

Wrestling is a great sport.  But I think reffing inconsistencies will hurt it long term. 

I think the refs get caught up in the flow of the match. They call stalling when it feels right instead of what actually makes sense. They are human. Im not sure how you fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ugarte said:

I think the answer is that you have to stay engaged. even if you aren't taking shots, if you aren't backing away you probably don't get dinged. what you see a lot from people winning by just a few is that they throw it in reverse to run out the clock and that isn't wrestling.

Yeah, this is the answer. Stalling is not something that is supposed to be averaged over the course of the match. If you are actively avoiding wrestling, you should get dinged right then an there regardless of how many shots you have taken in the match.

Take the Gross/RBY match. Gross was not supplying any of the offense, but stayed engaged throughout the match (except maybe at the end). Just because one guy takes a lot of shots, like RBY did, doesn't mean the other guy should be hit with stalling.

Speaking of that match and stalling. New emphasis needs to be placed on sitting on the ankle trying to wrack up riding time. If they need to add it to the list of things that start a 5 count, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kgschalhoub said:

What drives me crazy is when the ref calls stalling on the bottom man when the top guy sits on top with a parallel ride.

I feel like I have noticed this a little more this year.  The Barnett/Meredith match was a good example IMO (and I’m not a PSU fan).

I think the OP has a point, although it’s usually a lot more obvious in the 3rd period.  That’s when you see a lot more backing up, etc compared to earlier in the match.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shieldofpistis said:

First, let me say that it is an honor to be part of this board. I have followed it for some time.  I finally made an account, and it has been nice engaging with members. 

I love college wrestling.  But there is one aspect of the sport that is very frustrating to me.  And it actually has had unfair consequences in certain cases.  

This is the issue.  In the first two periods one wrestler will clearly be the aggressor.  Say he takes 5 shots and gets 1 or 2 takedowns.  The other wrestler just defends. He may push the wrestler who is doing the shooting back, but besides pushing he does no offensive moves of his own. 

So under this scenario the wrestler who has been offensive has a 1 or 2 point lead with 45 seconds to go.  Then with 45 seconds to go the wrestler who has been defensive the whole match does halfway shots and pushing.  The ref calls stalling on the guy who has been offensive the entire match except for the very end.  Why do refs do this?  If one wrestler has 5 full shot attempts over 6 minutes, when the other wrestler begins making half-shot attempts with a minute to go, why should the ref stall calling?  This drives me crazy.  It happens in so many matches.  The guy who has been the aggressor will be defensive for the last 40 seconds to protect the lead, and the guy who has been passive will get stall calls in his favor for just pushing him back. 

Unfortunately, this unfair stall call will sometimes forces the winning wrestler into a comprising position, and gets taken down.  

I think refs should be consistent.  If a guy is not shooting in the first period, or continues to go backwards, it should be judged the same as the 3rd. 

Wrestling is a great sport.  But I think reffing inconsistencies will hurt it long term. 

Best example ( ... err, to be fair, you just described the orange-tinted-deluded(?)-pov of every cowboy fan ever (like me) when they watch a match @ CHA . . .)

https://www.flowrestling.org/video/5088617-no-1-coleman-scott-osu-dec-no-2-joe-slaton-iowa-8-6

Edited by jackwebster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Best example ( ... err, to be fair, you just described the orange-tinted-deluded(?)-pov of every cowboy fan ever (like me) when they watch a match @ CHA . . .)

https://www.flowrestling.org/video/5088617-no-1-coleman-scott-osu-dec-no-2-joe-slaton-iowa-8-6

Haha ya, those are bad. I didnt remember this match. I thought Coleman smoked Slaton every match. 

I do have a soft spot for Joey Slaton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, shieldofpistis said:

First, let me say that it is an honor to be part of this board. I have followed it for some time.  I finally made an account, and it has been nice engaging with members. 

I love college wrestling.  But there is one aspect of the sport that is very frustrating to me.  And it actually has had unfair consequences in certain cases.  

This is the issue.  In the first two periods one wrestler will clearly be the aggressor.  Say he takes 5 shots and gets 1 or 2 takedowns.  The other wrestler just defends. He may push the wrestler who is doing the shooting back, but besides pushing he does no offensive moves of his own. 

So under this scenario the wrestler who has been offensive has a 1 or 2 point lead with 45 seconds to go.  Then with 45 seconds to go the wrestler who has been defensive the whole match does halfway shots and pushing.  The ref calls stalling on the guy who has been offensive the entire match except for the very end.  Why do refs do this?  If one wrestler has 5 full shot attempts over 6 minutes, when the other wrestler begins making half-shot attempts with a minute to go, why should the ref stall calling?  This drives me crazy.  It happens in so many matches.  The guy who has been the aggressor will be defensive for the last 40 seconds to protect the lead, and the guy who has been passive will get stall calls in his favor for just pushing him back. 

Unfortunately, this unfair stall call will sometimes forces the winning wrestler into a comprising position, and gets taken down.  

I think refs should be consistent.  If a guy is not shooting in the first period, or continues to go backwards, it should be judged the same as the 3rd. 

Wrestling is a great sport.  But I think reffing inconsistencies will hurt it long term. 

The wrestler who takes no shots in the first two periods should be dinged with stalling during those periods.  Why is that not happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MedicineMan said:

The wrestler who takes no shots in the first two periods should be dinged with stalling during those periods.  Why is that not happening?

I don't  necessarily agree with this argument, but here it goes: you can wrestle agressively but not take a commited shot. You can stalk your opponent, wrestle with your hands, create angles, and keep him flinching until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, russelscout said:

Haha ya, those are bad. I didnt remember this match. I thought Coleman smoked Slaton every match. 

I do have a soft spot for Joey Slaton.

To be fair, he pretty much did smoke him.  Sure the final score was close, but Coleman was up 7-1 about midway through the 3rd period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackwebster said:

I don't  necessarily agree with this argument, but here it goes: you can wrestle agressively but not take a commited shot. You can stalk your opponent, wrestle with your hands, create angles, and keep him flinching until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

Sasso?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 7:36 AM, kgschalhoub said:

What drives me crazy is when the ref calls stalling on the bottom man when the top guy sits on top with a parallel ride.

I agree. I argued about this with russelscout a couple of weeks ago re Marinelli's spiral ride. 

One particular technique that really bugs me and that usually gets the bottom guy dinged is when the top guys flattens the bottom man out, sinks the tight waist, and pushes the near elbow away with a v-block. The top guy looks active because his butt is in the air and he is driving the guy into the mat (laces up!). The bottom guy can't do jack. The best example was Borshel's ride on Henrich  in the semis

 

Edited by jackwebster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

I agree. I argued about this with russelscout a couple of weeks ago re Marinelli's spiral ride. 

One particular technique that really bugs me and that usually gets the bottom guy dinged is when the top guys flattens the bottom man out, sinks the tight waist, and pushes the near elbow away with a v-block. The top guy looks active because his butt in the air and he is driving the guy into the mat (laces up!). The bottom guy can't do jack. The best example was Borshel's ride on Henrich  in the semis

 

 

3 hours ago, jackwebster said:

I don't  necessarily agree with this argument, but here it goes: you can wrestle agressively but not take a commited shot. You can stalk your opponent, wrestle with your hands, create angles, and keep him flinching until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

Why can't your philosophy here also be an effective strategy for the top man? 

You can wrestle aggressively on top, but not go for a committed turn. You can apply forward pressure, tight waist, spiral ride, and break down until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

What is the difference?

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, russelscout said:

 

Why doesn't your philosophy here also be an effective strategy for the top man? 

You can wrestle aggressively on top, but not go for a committed turn. You can apply forward pressure, tight waist, spiral ride, and break down until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

What is the difference?

No difference. I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ugarte said:

I think the answer is that you have to stay engaged. even if you aren't taking shots, if you aren't backing away you probably don't get dinged. what you see a lot from people winning by just a few is that they throw it in reverse to run out the clock and that isn't wrestling.

On that same token, the same rule should apply to the guy who is not taking shots in the first two periods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Marcus Cisero said:

Welcome to the board shield!  Like someone else already said, the goal should be to stay engaged for the entire 7 minutes to avoid involvement from the refs.

I get that Marcus. I am saying the same standard that goes for period 1 and 2 should go for 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crotalus said:

Yeah, this is the answer. Stalling is not something that is supposed to be averaged over the course of the match. If you are actively avoiding wrestling, you should get dinged right then an there regardless of how many shots you have taken in the match.

Take the Gross/RBY match. Gross was not supplying any of the offense, but stayed engaged throughout the match (except maybe at the end). Just because one guy takes a lot of shots, like RBY did, doesn't mean the other guy should be hit with stalling.

Speaking of that match and stalling. New emphasis needs to be placed on sitting on the ankle trying to wrack up riding time. If they need to add it to the list of things that start a 5 count, so be it.

I wasn't thinking of the Gross-RBY match.  That was a great match though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jackwebster said:

I don't  necessarily agree with this argument, but here it goes: you can wrestle agressively but not take a commited shot. You can stalk your opponent, wrestle with your hands, create angles, and keep him flinching until he breaks his position. Then you score. This strategy might take several minutes to work. 

I disagree. I have never been taken down by a guy just stalking me.  I have been taken down on guys shooting on me. 

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...