Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
epek

My new rule of the day

Recommended Posts

If a wrestler causes a stalemate they are warned for stalling. With the advent of scrambling skills introduced into the sport, it has become quite obvious to me that the diving for the ankle, or the wizzer to an ankle grab is not an attempt to score off a defensive effort, but an attempt to tie up an offensive shot with the hopes of ending up in a stalemate and back to the center. That is stalling by definition, and should be called stalling. Use a stalemate and risk giving up a point if already warned, or wrestle out of the predicament and try to score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything considered "funk" should be illegal. the ref would show the normal "illegal" motion, both hands laced behind the head, followed by grabbing the back of his left knee with his right hand and back of right knee with left hand- penalty sequence would be 1 , 1 , 4 , 5 , dq. seriously, i agree- "funk" is junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a wrestler causes a stalemate they are warned for stalling. With the advent of scrambling skills introduced into the sport, it has become quite obvious to me that the diving for the ankle, or the wizzer to an ankle grab is not an attempt to score off a defensive effort, but an attempt to tie up an offensive shot with the hopes of.... "

 

So, if the offensive wrestler is close to scoring, the defensive wrestler should be mandated to just give him the two instead of trying to stop his momentum? Ben Askren totally agrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree with this idea. We need to do something to increase the risk/reward equation for wrestlers to take shots. I believe this would also significantly reduce stalling and hand slapping in neutral, as the risk of a non-perfect shot is greatly reduced, while the risk of standing around waiting for your opponent to take a shot is greatly increased.

 

And I also don't believe this would kill counter wrestling - a good counter wrestler is looking to score off of his opponents shot, not grab an ankle and hold on for dear life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just choreograph matches.

 

Terrible suggestion for multiple reasons.

 

1 Reaching a stalemate is a subjective call, as is who caused the stalemate. The rule places the outcome of key scrambles in a ref's hands. Result - most refs will never call a stalemate.

 

2 Defense =/= stalling.

 

3 A wrestler will gladly take a warning or penalty point over a two point takedown.

 

4 The Mega-Delgado final, where Delgado turned a near-stalemate position into points, shows why refs should just let wrestlers wrestle through positions. The wrestlers know positions a hell of a lot better than the refs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

epek - I had a preamble to my first post stating that I am pretty sure I know who you are and, if so, have the highest respect for you but couldn't fit it in due to the new character limit. So don't take my post personally. I just think it's a bad rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a wrestler causes a stalemate they are warned for stalling. With the advent of scrambling skills introduced into the sport, it has become quite obvious to me that the diving for the ankle, or the wizzer to an ankle grab is not an attempt to score off a defensive effort, but an attempt to tie up an offensive shot with the hopes of.... "

 

So, if the offensive wrestler is close to scoring, the defensive wrestler should be mandated to just give him the two instead of trying to stop his momentum? Ben Askren totally agrees with you.

 

Here is what you don't understand, Ben Askren didn't tie things up to a stalemate, he scored with his funk. Quite frankly I did also. It is the mind set of a wrestler that gets shot on, and goes to a defense that is not intended to score with but instead is used to simply tie up to a non scoring stalemate and waste time in the match and is quite frankly stalling. If one wrestler shoots a good outside single and the defense to that is to throw in a wizzer and grab his own ankle, he is absolutley not trying to score, he is wasting time and stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anything considered "funk" should be illegal. the ref would show the normal "illegal" motion, both hands laced behind the head, followed by grabbing the back of his left knee with his right hand and back of right knee with left hand- penalty sequence would be 1 , 1 , 4 , 5 , dq. seriously, i agree- "funk" is junk.

 

 

Sorry you don't get it, funk is good funk is great and we should thank funk for our food.... I am not talking about good funk, I am talking about stalling funk, wasting time funk, stopping action funk. Scrambles are the greatest thing in competitive wrestling if someone scores, but if you are stopping the action and causing a stalemate, you are stalling, waisting time, and stopping the action. This would promote more scoring, and less boring matches. Randy Lewis was a funk master, but stalemates were not his forte', he would give up 12 to get 15, and he knew he was coming out ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just choreograph matches.

 

Terrible suggestion for multiple reasons.

 

1 Reaching a stalemate is a subjective call, as is who caused the stalemate. The rule places the outcome of key scrambles in a ref's hands. Result - most refs will never call a stalemate.

 

2 Defense =/= stalling.

 

3 A wrestler will gladly take a warning or penalty point over a two point takedown.

 

4 The Mega-Delgado final, where Delgado turned a near-stalemate position into points, shows why refs should just let wrestlers wrestle through positions. The wrestlers know positions a hell of a lot better than the refs.

 

again, Mega'Delgado is a perfect example of good scrambling and the results of that scenario was not a stalemate, it was points and a victory. Defense is stalling unless the defense is effective in scoring. I won many of my points in many of my matches off of my opponents attempt at offense, but I scored off of there shot. I felt that if I would have stopped there offense only to tie things up to a stalemate, I was stalling and wasting time. There are only a few moments in a wrestling match and everyone of those moments should be going for points or pins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more we fark with the rules, the more likely we will end up in a fila-esque monstrosity. Unless a position is potentially dangerous, we should just let them/make them wrestle through the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more we fark with the rules, the more likely we will end up in a fila-esque monstrosity. Unless a position is potentially dangerous, we should just let them/make them wrestle through the position.

 

Do you really think this is a rule change? Ya sort of, but maybe more so just catching up with a new style of wrestling. This did not use to happen, but now there is a ton more stalemates than I can remember. Maybe not change the rule, but change the dynamic of calling stalling if it is blatent that one wrestler can only stop an offensive move by stopping the action with technique that is really not designed for scoring.... which is stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds good to me . But refs don't call stalling enough now so would they do the job right ?

I hate when a guy backs up to the edge and then the other guy shoots for a takedown and they just grap and hold on and the ref just lets them keep a going wasting to much time either call the stall or get them back to the center of mat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more we fark with the rules, the more likely we will end up in a fila-esque monstrosity. Unless a position is potentially dangerous, we should just let them/make them wrestle through the position.

 

Actually, why not just ****can "potentially dangerous"? If a wrestler has allowed himself to get to a bad position, why bail him out? Make him wrestle his way out of it or bail. Potentially dangerous kills a ton of scoring opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I too don't love the idea of too many new rules, I think Epek has a point here, because there is an inconsistency in how stalling is called with funk versus when the top man (in control already) drops to the ankle.

 

If you're on top and drop to the ankle and just hold on for dear life (e.g. Chris Perry during the first OT versus Brown in the finals, Delgado after scoring a TD to gain riding time, etc.), you are dinged for stalling and get a warning. If you do it again, you're docked a point for stalling.

 

But if you're defending a TD and do the same with a funk roll through with an ankle and make no attempt at gaining a positional advantage to try to get a TD yourself, you're not called for stalling. But in effect, this is the same situation as the top man dropping to an ankle with the same intent: burn time and/or try for a stalemate to get reset to a safer position.

 

The tricky part is identifying which situations to ding once the funk is executed. Even Ben Askren sometimes hung on for a bit before he found enough of an opening for a follow-through move to try to convert, because these funk counters often require that the opponent respond in a certain way to be able to score off of them. If the guy who took the shot just sits there and waits for a stalemate himself, it is unfair to ding the funker who may be waiting for a reaction to hit his defensive scoring move.

 

So if this rule were to pass, I think it would have to be with the following provisions:

1. Refs need to let scramble situations in which at lease one of the wrestlers is actively trying to score go on for a while longer. Right now, I feel stalemate is called too soon in these situations

2. The funker cannot be dinged for stalling if the guy who took the shot does absolutely nothing himself in response to the funk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

epek,

 

I think the real crux of the problem is in the way the rules read. I have never understood why a stalemate could not ALSO be a stalling warning. Right now, it's one or the other. Same with potentially dangerous. Why can a situation that is obviously going to result in a score not be a score AND a potentially dangerous to continue any further.

 

The only problem with this is that it introduces yet another element of subjectivity and when referees have been conditioned for so long one way, it's difficult to change. But I do agree with you that creating a stalemate has never been called stalling and in some instances, it should be right along with the stalemate call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epek,

 

I think the real crux of the problem is in the way the rules read. I have never understood why a stalemate could not ALSO be a stalling warning. Right now, it's one or the other. Same with potentially dangerous. Why can a situation that is obviously going to result in a score not be a score AND a potentially dangerous to continue any further.

 

The only problem with this is that it introduces yet another element of subjectivity and when referees have been conditioned for so long one way, it's difficult to change. But I do agree with you that creating a stalemate has never been called stalling and in some instances, it should be right along with the stalemate call.

 

The frustration with the Stalemate rule, isn't in the RULE... it's in the APPLICATION and/or interpretation of it.

 

A 'TRUE' stalemate is where neither wrestler can't improve with out giving up their position.

Over many years, it has migrated it's way to "let's get a fresh start".

EVEN at the NCAA tournament it is being called incorrectly (thus leading to many fans frustration with stalling)

Don't mistake a stoppage and return to the center, due to a lack of action on the edge call for a stalemate.

This IS the correct call.... (but often times the signal for a stalemate is show - which is incorrect)

 

In the neutral position - 50/50 collar tie ups, over/under tie ups, IS often Stalemated... WHY...??

There used to be a REGULAR official at the DI's that would call these stalemates ALL DAY LONG...

He even produced a DVD in order to TEACH his officiating techniques..

In one match he called 8 Stalemates in the 1st period... in neutral tie ups...WHERE there was NO Stalemate.

That's an average of about a stalemate every 22 seconds... !!

 

Those Neutral stalemates are outright ridiculous, and really don't have ANY rule to support their call.

 

There was one match (either in the semi's of finals) that a stalemate was called when the top wrestler had a collar and waist ... I was floored....

I can't get away with that call...it's kind of a use it or loose it deal... it was a stall call... gone bad...

 

By calling some of these stalemates (when there isn't one.) This leads all of our "...we need more stall calls.." posters to stand up and scream..

 

A coach once said to me (after his top wrestler was called for stalling for 'riding' legs with NO improvement),

"...what's he supposed to do.. take the legs out... ", and you guessed it... I responded with "....well, yeah.."

Mind you, the leg ride was stalemated 2x prior to the Stall call...

I'm just stating this... :

You may think it... but this is the reality...

The coaches may say they want more stalling... BUT not when it's their guy....

Therefore, the result it that there are MORE and MORE bizarre stalemates being called.

 

If the coaches could live with more stall calls (against their own guys) ... we'd probably see some of these Stalemates turned into stall calls... or even better... the wrestlers would voluntarily improve their position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epek,

 

I think the real crux of the problem is in the way the rules read. I have never understood why a stalemate could not ALSO be a stalling warning. Right now, it's one or the other. Same with potentially dangerous. Why can a situation that is obviously going to result in a score not be a score AND a potentially dangerous to continue any further.

 

The only problem with this is that it introduces yet another element of subjectivity and when referees have been conditioned for so long one way, it's difficult to change. But I do agree with you that creating a stalemate has never been called stalling and in some instances, it should be right along with the stalemate call.

 

The frustration with the Stalemate rule, isn't in the RULE... it's in the APPLICATION and/or interpretation of it.

 

A 'TRUE' stalemate is where neither wrestler can't improve with out giving up their position.

Over many years, it has migrated it's way to "let's get a fresh start".

EVEN at the NCAA tournament it is being called incorrectly (thus leading to many fans frustration with stalling)

Don't mistake a stoppage and return to the center, due to a lack of action on the edge call for a stalemate.

This IS the correct call.... (but often times the signal for a stalemate is show - which is incorrect)

 

In the neutral position - 50/50 collar tie ups, over/under tie ups, IS often Stalemated... WHY...??

There used to be a REGULAR official at the DI's that would call these stalemates ALL DAY LONG...

He even produced a DVD in order to TEACH his officiating techniques..

In one match he called 8 Stalemates in the 1st period... in neutral tie ups...WHERE there was NO Stalemate.

That's an average of about a stalemate every 22 seconds... !!

 

Those Neutral stalemates are outright ridiculous, and really don't have ANY rule to support their call.

 

There was one match (either in the semi's of finals) that a stalemate was called when the top wrestler had a collar and waist ... I was floored....

I can't get away with that call...it's kind of a use it or loose it deal... it was a stall call... gone bad...

 

By calling some of these stalemates (when there isn't one.) This leads all of our "...we need more stall calls.." posters to stand up and scream..

 

A coach once said to me (after his top wrestler was called for stalling for 'riding' legs with NO improvement),

"...what's he supposed to do.. take the legs out... ", and you guessed it... I responded with "....well, yeah.."

Mind you, the leg ride was stalemated 2x prior to the Stall call...

I'm just stating this... :

You may think it... but this is the reality...

The coaches may say they want more stalling... BUT not when it's their guy....

Therefore, the result it that there are MORE and MORE bizarre stalemates being called.

 

If the coaches could live with more stall calls (against their own guys) ... we'd probably see some of these Stalemates turned into stall calls... or even better... the wrestlers would voluntarily improve their position.

 

Or bottom man just get off the bottom. It's a little perplexing to me that people familiar with folkstyle wrestling think the bottom man should be rewarded with a restart or even a stall call for letting the legs come in and laying on his belly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good points here, I appreciate ref's input on these forums. Bob Dole, I am not asking for us to turn a horse into a camel, I am just selfish and rarely like low scoring, hand fighting, tie ups with little action slow mo matches. This is just an attempt to have a definite opportunity to hit a staller with a stalling call. Like I said, lots of good points here and I don't think that the rules committee cares what I, or us, think I am just chatting on my favorite board. Viva wrestling, go get em freestylers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×