Jump to content


Photo

My new rule of the day


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 epek

epek

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:02 PM

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.

#2 cornercoach

cornercoach

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:48 PM

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.

#3 tightwaist

tightwaist

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,246 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:55 PM

[quote name="epek"]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.

#4 zeeb

zeeb

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 567 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:56 PM

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.

#5 headshuck

headshuck

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 15,421 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:57 PM

Tightwaist, the Penn State teams prior to Cael did exactly that. :)

#6 DocRevue

DocRevue

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:46 AM

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.

#7 DocRevue

DocRevue

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:52 AM

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.

#8 epek

epek

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

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.

#9 epek

epek

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

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.

#10 epek

epek

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:10 PM

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.

#11 oldrules

oldrules

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 498 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:17 PM

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.
uww is the same corrupt sh*t organization it always was

#12 epek

epek

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:00 PM

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.

#13 cornercoach

cornercoach

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:54 PM

it's the difference between a red tailed hawk and a turkey buzzard. one attacks its prey, the other waits around and picks the carcass......

#14 hawkeye73

hawkeye73

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:52 AM

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

#15 tightwaist

tightwaist

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 3,246 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:54 AM

it's the difference between a red tailed hawk and a turkey buzzard. one attacks its prey, the other waits around and picks the carcass......


But, they still get a meal...correct?

#16 Voice_of_the_Quakers

Voice_of_the_Quakers

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 749 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:06 AM

Or, more kids could wrestle freestyle and learn to finish their takedowns cleanly...

Dan McDonald
danmc167@yahoo.com


#17 DocRevue

DocRevue

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:09 AM

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.

#18 BobDole

BobDole

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,443 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:26 AM

My new rule of the day...

No more new rule threads.

#19 wrestlingnerd

wrestlingnerd

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 6,620 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:40 AM

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

#20 tirapell

tirapell

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:45 AM

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.
Twitter: @adamtirapelle @ClovisWrestling




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users