My frustration with college wrestling

[shieldofpistis 156]

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. 

[ugarte 526]

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.

[whaletail 240]

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.

 

[Marcus Cisero 342]

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.

[Housebuye 2,449]

Welcome! You obviously are a knowledgeable fan. Looking forward to learning from you. 
  
I think a 1 point pushout mostly solves this. It is much harder to not engage if you can’t skirt the edge. 

[russelscout 1,573]

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.

[Crotalus 592]

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.

[kgschalhoub 58]

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.

[1032004 1,514]

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 February 10, 2020 by 1032004

[jackwebster 330]

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 February 10, 2020 by jackwebster

[russelscout 1,573]

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.

[MedicineMan 495]

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?

[jackwebster 330]

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. 

[Mokoma 326]

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. 

[Mphillips 1,810]

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?

[jackwebster 330]

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 February 11, 2020 by jackwebster

[russelscout 1,573]

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 February 10, 2020 by russelscout

[jackwebster 330]

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. 

[shieldofpistis 156]

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. 

[shieldofpistis 156]

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. 

[shieldofpistis 156]

8 hours ago, Housebuye said:

Welcome! You obviously are a knowledgeable fan. Looking forward to learning from you. 
  
I think a 1 point pushout mostly solves this. It is much harder to not engage if you can’t skirt the edge. 

I agree.  

[Mphillips 1,810]

1 minute ago, shieldofpistis said:

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

Agreed.  But even the refs will tell you they all call it differently.

[shieldofpistis 156]

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. 

[Fletcher 1,131]

Context matters. If you only defend in the first period when it's 0-0, it doesn't benefit you. If you only defend when you're up 2-0, taking time of the clock gets you closer to a win.

[shieldofpistis 156]

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.