Jump to content
Jimmy Cinnabon

POLL: Most egregious form of "stall ride"?

Most egregious form of "stall ride"  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the most egregious form of "stall ride"?

    • Tony Nelson spiral ride of death
    • Double boots a la Zain
    • Kyle Dake claw
    • Penn State ankle pinch
    • Other (specify in your post)


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

Here is the problem. One group of fans hates what they describe as sitting on the ankle. They call it stalling. 

Ok. then what do you make of the top wrestler simply "looking busy" on top but not actually coming close to generating any additional offense or improvement in position. Just sort of bouncing around, able to just keep his weight on the bottom man, not do much if anything else, but able to "just ride" for 2 minutes. I think by your definition and that of plenty of others that this top wrestler is surely stalling. Is this what you believe? 

That can still be stalling, but as someone else mentioned, it’s not as egregious as the holds in this list.  If someone is “looking busy” by getting out to the side; that’s not stalling because it gives the bottom guy a chance to do something.  If they’re laying parallel and just playing with wrists…stalling.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

157,  I don’t think that people not understanding stalling happens. I think it’s the egregious stuff that you used to not be able to get away with with so long and so blatantly. Good stalling with the way it used to be called was much more entertaining and strategic.That's part of my point. Obvious/egregious stalling is not smart stalling and should be called. Smart stalling is hard to detect and if/when it is called, it will have no bearing on the outcome of the match.  Al least that's my experience with it. Back in the day, the bottom man was expected to have been taught the prevention and counters to whatever and to wrestle his way out. If he didn't create movement or action, he got called for stalling. By having to do so, he may also wrestle his way into more serious predicaments. Now he doesn't have to do that. There are at least 8 transitions for me on top if the bottom man is forced to wrestle when I go below his waist or from an ankle catch/hook. His reactions have two outcomes; more trouble for him or an escape/reversal. I see virtually no reason to be ahead of a good opponent, and then take unnecessary risks by being aggressive, whether top, bottom ,or neutral. This is where smart stalling..."looking busy" becomes a the weapon. He's the one behind and if I understand the rules, and wrestle within those parameters of expectation, two things should occur: 1) I shouldn't get called, and if so, it will be too late to make a diff. and 2) He will have to press and is prone to taking desperate risks... that makes it much easier for me to anticipate and defend. My dad always made the point that you will generally beat a good wrestler by 1 or 2 points...it's more of a chess match. I know most people think a 12-10 score might be construed as a great match...I see it as two wrestlers who made a lot of mistakes. You score points because someone made a mistake (unless you cut him loose intentionally).  Just my take. I've seen many incredibly exciting low scoring  2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc., matches with lots of action. I also notice that the bottom man in OT seems to wrestle with a lot more enthusiasm to get out, thus making the top man wrestle with more of the same. I find it very troublesome that if the top man goes below the waist and anchors/traps the ankle, the bottom guy is not obligated to fight out of it.  Why then is there not a 5 count on a 2/1 wrist ride, spiral, thrown legs, russian tie, inside tie, underhook, overhook, whizzer, etc.? In all those situations you are doing the same thing;  Isolating your opponent and waiting for a reaction that will lead to something else. Your hands can always come back to help your ankles but your ankles can not come up to help your wrists. So why is it deemed a disadvantage to be on bottom? You get the opportunity to score 1, 2, maybe 2 plus back points, and limit RT on top or reverse and accrue more for you, and let the top guy know he can't control you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Obvious/egregious stalling is not smart stalling and should be called.


That's what this whole thread is about. The "PSU ankle ride" where you hook an ankle and make no attempt to break the opponent down, let alone turn them, is as obvious/egregious as it gets. The only goal is to gain riding time or stall out the end of a period. But I guess it's smart, tactically, because it rarely gets called.

They should make it a 5 second count like dropping to an ankle or grabbing a side headlock.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call the "ankle pinch" a Sundevil ride....have called it that since the '70's.  In any case, I know a guy who would love you to "ankle pinch" him, and he would sideroll you to your back, and could do it very well....

Share this post


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

157,  I don’t think that people not understanding stalling happens. I think it’s the egregious stuff that you used to not be able to get away with with so long and so blatantly. Good stalling with the way it used to be called was much more entertaining and strategic.That's part of my point. Obvious/egregious stalling is not smart stalling and should be called. Smart stalling is hard to detect and if/when it is called, it will have no bearing on the outcome of the match.  Al least that's my experience with it. Back in the day, the bottom man was expected to have been taught the prevention and counters to whatever and to wrestle his way out. If he didn't create movement or action, he got called for stalling. By having to do so, he may also wrestle his way into more serious predicaments. Now he doesn't have to do that. There are at least 8 transitions for me on top if the bottom man is forced to wrestle when I go below his waist or from an ankle catch/hook. His reactions have two outcomes; more trouble for him or an escape/reversal. I see virtually no reason to be ahead of a good opponent, and then take unnecessary risks by being aggressive, whether top, bottom ,or neutral. This is where smart stalling..."looking busy" becomes a the weapon. He's the one behind and if I understand the rules, and wrestle within those parameters of expectation, two things should occur: 1) I shouldn't get called, and if so, it will be too late to make a diff. and 2) He will have to press and is prone to taking desperate risks... that makes it much easier for me to anticipate and defend. My dad always made the point that you will generally beat a good wrestler by 1 or 2 points...it's more of a chess match. I know most people think a 12-10 score might be construed as a great match...I see it as two wrestlers who made a lot of mistakes. You score points because someone made a mistake (unless you cut him loose intentionally).  Just my take. I've seen many incredibly exciting low scoring  2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc., matches with lots of action. I also notice that the bottom man in OT seems to wrestle with a lot more enthusiasm to get out, thus making the top man wrestle with more of the same. I find it very troublesome that if the top man goes below the waist and anchors/traps the ankle, the bottom guy is not obligated to fight out of it.  Why then is there not a 5 count on a 2/1 wrist ride, spiral, thrown legs, russian tie, inside tie, underhook, overhook, whizzer, etc.? In all those situations you are doing the same thing;  Isolating your opponent and waiting for a reaction that will lead to something else. Your hands can always come back to help your ankles but your ankles can not come up to help your wrists. So why is it deemed a disadvantage to be on bottom? You get the opportunity to score 1, 2, maybe 2 plus back points, and limit RT on top or reverse and accrue more for you, and let the top guy know he can't control you.

I think people also don’t realize how much top wrestling compared to bottom wrestling has improved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people also don’t realize how much top wrestling compared to bottom wrestling has improved

Really? I would submit that because of the freestyle influences, both bottom and top wrestling has deteriorated. The older generation spent considerable time working on those positions. I believe most time in a practice today is spent on neutral. Not to say time isn't spent there. I do not believe that "wrestlers/wrestling" can become infinitely better. Look at mat returns. Once a guy gets to his feet, he's virtually guaranteed an escape. Not so back in the heyday. Eliminated fig 4 around the head, fig 4 around the waist, crotching an ankle, full nelson from the side to name a few. Also, back in the day, if you were going to your back, you had two options, fight it or go over.  Very rare to call potentially dangerous.  When you get the option to wrestle 3 periods from neutral, something has to suffer, and from what I see, that would be top/bottom skills. They also do not keep RT in high school anymore. So, that impacts building off previous technique, strategy, scoring, and using  RT when you get to college and then it counts. It's partly why the efforts are made to change folk style to free...eliminate top/bottom...easier for coaches to teach flattening out on the mat, easier for wrestlers to learn flattening out on the mat. Watch the bottom guys in the NCAA's who can't get off their stomach, wrestle on their elbows, and generally just wallow around on bottom in their own ignorance. Mostly freestyle mentality that they can't adopt to folk. I think every wrestler should take his turn at top and bottom and not get the choice to avoid a personal weakness or an opponent's strength. But that's just me and I believe in stalling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, patmilkovich said:

I think people also don’t realize how much top wrestling compared to bottom wrestling has improved

Really? I would submit that because of the freestyle influences, both bottom and top wrestling has deteriorated. The older generation spent considerable time working on those positions. I believe most time in a practice today is spent on neutral. Not to say time isn't spent there. I do not believe that "wrestlers/wrestling" can become infinitely better. Look at mat returns. Once a guy gets to his feet, he's virtually guaranteed an escape. Not so back in the heyday. Eliminated fig 4 around the head, fig 4 around the waist, crotching an ankle, full nelson from the side to name a few. Also, back in the day, if you were going to your back, you had two options, fight it or go over.  Very rare to call potentially dangerous.  When you get the option to wrestle 3 periods from neutral, something has to suffer, and from what I see, that would be top/bottom skills. They also do not keep RT in high school anymore. So, that impacts building off previous technique, strategy, scoring, and using  RT when you get to college and then it counts. It's partly why the efforts are made to change folk style to free...eliminate top/bottom...easier for coaches to teach flattening out on the mat, easier for wrestlers to learn flattening out on the mat. Watch the bottom guys in the NCAA's who can't get off their stomach, wrestle on their elbows, and generally just wallow around on bottom in their own ignorance. Mostly freestyle mentality that they can't adopt to folk. I think every wrestler should take his turn at top and bottom and not get the choice to avoid a personal weakness or an opponent's strength. But that's just me and I believe in stalling.

 

You are from Illinois right? Not everywhere in the country just  focuses mostly on neutral the way they do in Illinois and Ohio. Even John Smith has talked about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1032004 said:

That can still be stalling, but as someone else mentioned, it’s not as egregious as the holds in this list.  If someone is “looking busy” by getting out to the side; that’s not stalling because it gives the bottom guy a chance to do something.  If they’re laying parallel and just playing with wrists…stalling.

103, the language you used "getting out to the side, that's not stalling because it gives the bottom wrestler a chance to do something" is nowhere in the rulebook. Nothing even remotely close to that is in the rulebook either. Not in the Stalling section Rule 5.7 and not in the illustrations either. 

We have two videos posted in this thread that I believe I have commented on. RBY vs Gross and Hall vs Kutler. In the RBY vs Gross match there is one point in that match where RBY was stalling according to the rule book. At the end of period 2 he had "dropped down to a lower leg". What he did was virtually textbook stalling (5.7.12), but only would be called if he did not come back up above the waist within a 5 count. Since he failed to come back up within a 5 count he was called for stalling. He broke the rule, he got called on it, what is the problem? As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, but you and others want him to be called again and again but without a rule to govern against what he was doing.  

In the Hall match no such infraction exists by the letter of the rulebook, and the rulebook does not have a rule explaining how a wrestler must ride to be considered "not stalling". The impetus is not on the top wrestler to prove he is not stalling, and the only language dealing with "mat wrestling" in the rule book reads this way.

5.7.15 reads "Offensive and Defensive stalling situations also include

a) the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent

b) the defensive wrestler not initiating action to escape or reverse the opponent

The above language speaks to the aggressiveness of both wrestlers, not just the top wrestler. It does not mention anywhere anything about sitting on the ankle, top wrestler must move to the side to allow bottom wrestler to have a better chance or anything like that. Also, the NCAA put out a Casebook that covers issues deemed important in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 years. The Preface to that book reads like this:

The format of the book follows the official NCAA Wrestling Rules Book, with interpretations listed rule by rule. The NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee believes this case book will greatly assist officials, coaches, wrestlers and spectators to better apply and appreciate the rules of wrestling.

That casebook has 38 questions dealing with Infractions, many of those questions dealing with stalling. Not one of them deals with what you and others in this thread believe is stalling. 

Maybe I am missing something here. Can you show me where I can find it in the rule book? I looked, and I can't find it. Maybe its there and I just missed it. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, patmilkovich said:

both bottom and top wrestling has deteriorated

2 hours ago, jp157 said:

You are from Illinois right? Not everywhere in the country just  focuses mostly on neutral the way they do in Illinois and Ohio. Even John Smith has talked about it

As a whole you disagree with what Milkovich said above? You believe top/bottom wrestling is just as good or better than it's ever been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




5.7.15 reads "Offensive and Defensive stalling situations also include
a) the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent


Most cases of stalling are going to be somewhat subjective. But I would consider sitting on an ankle without so much as an attempt to chop an elbow to fall under a).

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mphillips said:

As a whole you disagree with what Milkovich said above? You believe top/bottom wrestling is just as good or better than it's ever been?

I think top wrestling has dramatically improved more so than bottom has stagnated 
Top wrestling has increased dramatically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, patmilkovich said:

157....Me, from Illinois?  Ha...and who's John Smith?  You're trollin....

I thought I saw you on the Illinois boards when I wandered over to see what happened with Izzy. If I am wrong. My bad

And yes. Smith talks about it in one of his clinics on YouTube 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

103, the language you used "getting out to the side, that's not stalling because it gives the bottom wrestler a chance to do something" is nowhere in the rulebook. Nothing even remotely close to that is in the rulebook either. Not in the Stalling section Rule 5.7 and not in the illustrations either. 

We have two videos posted in this thread that I believe I have commented on. RBY vs Gross and Hall vs Kutler. In the RBY vs Gross match there is one point in that match where RBY was stalling according to the rule book. At the end of period 2 he had "dropped down to a lower leg". What he did was virtually textbook stalling (5.7.12), but only would be called if he did not come back up above the waist within a 5 count. Since he failed to come back up within a 5 count he was called for stalling. He broke the rule, he got called on it, what is the problem? As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, but you and others want him to be called again and again but without a rule to govern against what he was doing.  

In the Hall match no such infraction exists by the letter of the rulebook, and the rulebook does not have a rule explaining how a wrestler must ride to be considered "not stalling". The impetus is not on the top wrestler to prove he is not stalling, and the only language dealing with "mat wrestling" in the rule book reads this way.

5.7.15 reads "Offensive and Defensive stalling situations also include

a) the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent

b) the defensive wrestler not initiating action to escape or reverse the opponent

The above language speaks to the aggressiveness of both wrestlers, not just the top wrestler. It does not mention anywhere anything about sitting on the ankle, top wrestler must move to the side to allow bottom wrestler to have a better chance or anything like that. Also, the NCAA put out a Casebook that covers issues deemed important in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 years. The Preface to that book reads like this:

The format of the book follows the official NCAA Wrestling Rules Book, with interpretations listed rule by rule. The NCAA Wrestling Rules Committee believes this case book will greatly assist officials, coaches, wrestlers and spectators to better apply and appreciate the rules of wrestling.

That casebook has 38 questions dealing with Infractions, many of those questions dealing with stalling. Not one of them deals with what you and others in this thread believe is stalling. 

Maybe I am missing something here. Can you show me where I can find it in the rule book? I looked, and I can't find it. Maybe its there and I just missed it. 

Some more quotes from the rulebook:

Quote

Section 7. Stalling Art. 1. Description. One or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy

Art. 2. Initiating Action. Action is to be maintained throughout the match by the wrestlers staying near the center of the mat and wrestling aggressively in all positions (top, bottom or neutral).

...

Art. 4. Double Stalling. A “double stalling” violation is given when both wrestlers fail to initiate an offense

...

Art. 11. Stalling — Offensive and Defensive Position. Offensive and defensive wrestlers shall make an attempt to sustain active wrestling and remain in the competition circle.

Sitting on an ankle = avoiding wrestling action, not wrestling aggressively, failing to initiate an offense, not sustaining active wrestling.  Take your pick really.

Getting out to the side is usually considered wrestling aggressively and sustaining active wrestling.   I maybe could have used a better word choice, but "sustaining active wrestling" is essentially the same as "giving the bottom guy a chance to do something." 

Edited by 1032004
sorry bottom part shouldn't be part of quote but can't change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

103, 

Section 7. Stalling Art. 1. Description. One or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy

Applies to both wrestlers, but does not address what you call "sitting on an ankle" as stalling.

Art. 2. Initiating Action. Action is to be maintained throughout the match by the wrestlers staying near the center of the mat and wrestling aggressively in all positions (top, bottom or neutral).

Again, applies to both wrestlers and does not address "sitting on an ankle"

Art. 4. Double Stalling. A “double stalling” violation is given when both wrestlers fail to initiate an offense

Again, applies to both wrestlers, does not address "sitting on (pinching) an ankle"

Art. 11. Stalling — Offensive and Defensive Position. Offensive and defensive wrestlers shall make an attempt to sustain active wrestling and remain in the competition circle.

Again, applies to both wrestlers, does not address "sitting on an ankle"

 

Sitting on an ankle = avoiding wrestling action, not wrestling aggressively, failing to initiate an offense, not sustaining active wrestling.  Take your pick really.

That is your opinion, but it is not shared by the rule book or a great many fans and media. I will address the media comment in a moment. Btw, did you watch today's Iowa-Illinois dual? 

Getting out to the side is usually considered wrestling aggressively and sustaining active wrestling.   I maybe could have used a better word choice, but "sustaining active wrestling" is essentially the same as "giving the bottom guy a chance to do something." 

I have no issue with a top wrestler getting to the side, so I actually agree with you on that specific point. But that point does not make what Mark Hall or anyone else who pinches an ankle equate to stalling. 

Here is why I asked if you watched today's Iowa-Illinois dual. In their 133 match Lucas Byrd gets a 2nd period TD and starts to ride Cullan Schreiver. Puts a good ride on him. At one point as Byrd is riding near the end of the 2nd period Tim Johnson, as much a Hawkeye fan in wrestling media as there is, states on his broadcast call "Right now Lucas Byrd doing a great job pinching the ankle, keeping the weight on the front of Schreiver ..........."   The second announcer adds in "Nice job by Byrd here all the way around on this ride in the 2nd period. Byrd kept that same ride going for the entire 3rd period as well, amassing about 4 minutes of riding time and nary a stall call but instead praise from Tim Johnson and, I guess the other announcer might have been Gibbons.

Now, let's talk about the match at Hwt. The match between Big Tony Cassioppi and Luke Luffman. Luffman is a good wrestler, but he is just not nearly as good as Tony Cassioppi. These two wrestled last year and Tony is indeed the guy I was referring to above where I describe a top wrestler "looking busy" but never really improving his situation. It was that very match from last year. Cassioppi rode Luffman a long time in that match, and he went side ride, parallel for a bit, he got a leg in at one point, he had a tight wrist. Luffman did nothing to get out. Not good enough to ESC big Tony.

They basically re enacted that same exact match today with one difference. At one point with maybe 20 or 25 seconds to go the ref warns Luffman. Luffman tries to stand and Tony seizes the opportunity and puts him to his back for big points. 

A lot of guys turtle up against better wrestlers, even against better wrestlers who wrestle for *cough cough* Penn State. Depending on the mood of the ref, instead of hitting the bottom guy he warns the top guy. That's life. You want to win, work harder.

That match between Mark Hall and Jordan Kutler is a great example. 0-0 after 1 period. Hall chooses bottom and has to work his tail off the get the ESC, but he did get it after standing up for the 3rd time and prying loose Kutler's grip. 12 seconds later he gets a TD. He rides not all that differently in that match from the way Cassioppi rides vs Luffman, but the ref gave Kutler a bunch of stalemates, including one with 5 seconds left in the 2nd period. Same thing when Kutler chose down in period 3. Jordan eventually got out, but only to be taken down again. Had Hall gotten the same ref Cassioppi had he may have ridden Kutler as long as Tony rode Luffman. Different ref, so Hall rode a different skill set to victory.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting on an ankle = avoiding wrestling action, not wrestling aggressively, failing to initiate an offense, not sustaining active wrestling.  Take your pick really.
That is your opinion, but it is not shared by the rule book


You did notice that the rule book doesn't mention any specific positions in those stalling rules above, right? So not specifically mentioning sitting in the ankle does not mean it doesn't qualify as stalling? The point of this thread is a great many fans feel that hooking the ankle and making no attempt to do anything else falls under "avoiding wrestling" or "the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent".

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

 


You did notice that the rule book doesn't mention any specific positions in those stalling rules above, right? So not specifically mentioning sitting in the ankle does not mean it doesn't qualify as stalling? The point of this thread is a great many fans feel that hooking the ankle and making no attempt to do anything else falls under "avoiding wrestling" or "the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent".

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

 

He knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mphillips said:

He knows...

It’s kind of amusing really. Especially when someone I’m pretty sure is a former DI all American just said it is stalling and the argument isn’t whether it is or not but whether it’s acceptable and countered by bottoms man’s mythical advantage. 
 

Tbar picked a weird hill to die on in defense of his beloved lions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mphillips said:

As many lives as he's had, you can be sure he's a cat.  

Given how he just described a textbook cross face cradle as an example of Kerks “strong right arm just folding his opponent up”. I’m honestly embarrassed I got sucked into arguing with him about this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2022 at 12:50 PM, TBar1977 said:

Mine comes under the heading of Other. This was so egregious they basically put an end to it so that you don't really see it any more. It was where the top wrestler grabbed an ankle and picked it up and creatively walked the bottom wrestler out of bounds. Guys used to melt whole periods away doing this, but thankfully they adjusted the rules to put an end to it.

 

41 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

You did notice that the rule book doesn't mention any specific positions in those stalling rules above, right? So not specifically mentioning sitting in the ankle does not mean it doesn't qualify as stalling? The point of this thread is a great many fans feel that hooking the ankle and making no attempt to do anything else falls under "avoiding wrestling" or "the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent".

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

 

The NCAA rulebook contrary to your claim they in fact DO mention specific positions. They mention the very specific positions in some detail that they want called stalling. Here they are. With a detailed list such as this one can presume if they wanted pinching the ankle to be called stalling it would in fact be in the rule book. 

15.7.5   and 15.7.10   Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds

15.7.6   Stalling by Continually Backing Up

15.7.8   Stalling by Kicking Out of Bounds. A wrestler kicks out of a lower leg hold and this kick requires the referee to make an out of bounds call.

15.7.9  Stalling by Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area

5.7.12   Stalling by Dropping Down to a Lower Leg

5.7.13   Stalling by Waist and Ankle ride (the one I mentioned on page 1 of this thread, here it is specifically written into the rule book)

5.7.14   Stalling by Side Headlock

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

 

The NCAA rulebook contrary to your claim they in fact DO mention specific positions. They mention the very specific positions in some detail that they want called stalling. Here they are. With a detailed list such as this one can presume if they wanted pinching the ankle to be called stalling it would in fact be in the rule book. 

15.7.5   and 15.7.10   Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds

15.7.6   Stalling by Continually Backing Up

15.7.8   Stalling by Kicking Out of Bounds. A wrestler kicks out of a lower leg hold and this kick requires the referee to make an out of bounds call.

15.7.9  Stalling by Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area

5.7.12   Stalling by Dropping Down to a Lower Leg

5.7.13   Stalling by Waist and Ankle ride (the one I mentioned on page 1 of this thread, here it is specifically written into the rule book)

5.7.14   Stalling by Side Headlock

 

Make sure if you ever coach to teach cross face cradles the way you saw kerk do it. Teach short arm strong kids to just muscle it and use just their arms to fold up their opponents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

103, 

Section 7. Stalling Art. 1. Description. One or both wrestlers attempting to avoid wrestling action as an offensive or defensive strategy

Applies to both wrestlers, but does not address what you call "sitting on an ankle" as stalling.

Art. 2. Initiating Action. Action is to be maintained throughout the match by the wrestlers staying near the center of the mat and wrestling aggressively in all positions (top, bottom or neutral).

Again, applies to both wrestlers and does not address "sitting on an ankle"

Art. 4. Double Stalling. A “double stalling” violation is given when both wrestlers fail to initiate an offense

Again, applies to both wrestlers, does not address "sitting on (pinching) an ankle"

Art. 11. Stalling — Offensive and Defensive Position. Offensive and defensive wrestlers shall make an attempt to sustain active wrestling and remain in the competition circle.

Again, applies to both wrestlers, does not address "sitting on an ankle"

 

Sitting on an ankle = avoiding wrestling action, not wrestling aggressively, failing to initiate an offense, not sustaining active wrestling.  Take your pick really.

That is your opinion, but it is not shared by the rule book or a great many fans and media. I will address the media comment in a moment. Btw, did you watch today's Iowa-Illinois dual? 

Getting out to the side is usually considered wrestling aggressively and sustaining active wrestling.   I maybe could have used a better word choice, but "sustaining active wrestling" is essentially the same as "giving the bottom guy a chance to do something." 

I have no issue with a top wrestler getting to the side, so I actually agree with you on that specific point. But that point does not make what Mark Hall or anyone else who pinches an ankle equate to stalling. 

Here is why I asked if you watched today's Iowa-Illinois dual. In their 133 match Lucas Byrd gets a 2nd period TD and starts to ride Cullan Schreiver. Puts a good ride on him. At one point as Byrd is riding near the end of the 2nd period Tim Johnson, as much a Hawkeye fan in wrestling media as there is, states on his broadcast call "Right now Lucas Byrd doing a great job pinching the ankle, keeping the weight on the front of Schreiver ..........."   The second announcer adds in "Nice job by Byrd here all the way around on this ride in the 2nd period. Byrd kept that same ride going for the entire 3rd period as well, amassing about 4 minutes of riding time and nary a stall call but instead praise from Tim Johnson and, I guess the other announcer might have been Gibbons.

Now, let's talk about the match at Hwt. The match between Big Tony Cassioppi and Luke Luffman. Luffman is a good wrestler, but he is just not nearly as good as Tony Cassioppi. These two wrestled last year and Tony is indeed the guy I was referring to above where I describe a top wrestler "looking busy" but never really improving his situation. It was that very match from last year. Cassioppi rode Luffman a long time in that match, and he went side ride, parallel for a bit, he got a leg in at one point, he had a tight wrist. Luffman did nothing to get out. Not good enough to ESC big Tony.

They basically re enacted that same exact match today with one difference. At one point with maybe 20 or 25 seconds to go the ref warns Luffman. Luffman tries to stand and Tony seizes the opportunity and puts him to his back for big points. 

A lot of guys turtle up against better wrestlers, even against better wrestlers who wrestle for *cough cough* Penn State. Depending on the mood of the ref, instead of hitting the bottom guy he warns the top guy. That's life. You want to win, work harder.

That match between Mark Hall and Jordan Kutler is a great example. 0-0 after 1 period. Hall chooses bottom and has to work his tail off the get the ESC, but he did get it after standing up for the 3rd time and prying loose Kutler's grip. 12 seconds later he gets a TD. He rides not all that differently in that match from the way Cassioppi rides vs Luffman, but the ref gave Kutler a bunch of stalemates, including one with 5 seconds left in the 2nd period. Same thing when Kutler chose down in period 3. Jordan eventually got out, but only to be taken down again. Had Hall gotten the same ref Cassioppi had he may have ridden Kutler as long as Tony rode Luffman. Different ref, so Hall rode a different skill set to victory.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Crotalus said:

 


You did notice that the rule book doesn't mention any specific positions in those stalling rules above, right? So not specifically mentioning sitting in the ankle does not mean it doesn't qualify as stalling? The point of this thread is a great many fans feel that hooking the ankle and making no attempt to do anything else falls under "avoiding wrestling" or "the offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent".

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

 

This.

Tbar, I didn’t say that the bottom wrestler was never stalling if the top guy is sitting on an ankle.

Honestly I think we need to differentiate between hooking an ankle temporarily as a breakdown (which the PSU guys do sometimes do and basically what Byrd did for all of about 2 seconds at the end of the second period against Iowa - those 2 seconds were about the only time Byrd did that in the whole match, most of the third period he had a leg in), and sitting on an ankle not doing anything with it.  I’m complaining about the latter.

 

10 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

 

The NCAA rulebook contrary to your claim they in fact DO mention specific positions. They mention the very specific positions in some detail that they want called stalling. Here they are. With a detailed list such as this one can presume if they wanted pinching the ankle to be called stalling it would in fact be in the rule book. 

15.7.5   and 15.7.10   Stalling for pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds

15.7.6   Stalling by Continually Backing Up

15.7.8   Stalling by Kicking Out of Bounds. A wrestler kicks out of a lower leg hold and this kick requires the referee to make an out of bounds call.

15.7.9  Stalling by Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area

5.7.12   Stalling by Dropping Down to a Lower Leg

5.7.13   Stalling by Waist and Ankle ride (the one I mentioned on page 1 of this thread, here it is specifically written into the rule book)

5.7.14   Stalling by Side Headlock

 

Lol, now you’re being intentionally obtuse. As Crotalus mentioned, specific situations don’t have to be in the rulebook to be stalling.   I’ve said in past threads I’m not crazy about all the 5 count rules, but I wouldn’t be opposed to sitting on an ankle being added to the list of 5 counts.

So you don’t think Marinelli’s claw+spiral is stalling then right, since it’s not specifically in the rule book?  PSU sitting on an ankle is more of a theme (and honestly from the matches I’ve watched this year I haven’t noticed a ton it yet), but if I had to pick one guy that I think stalls the most on top, it’s probably Marinelli (note: in order to notice a lot of top stalling, you need to be good enough to be on top a lot).

Yet of all the Iowa guys to pick on for top stalling (most notably Marinelli IMO), you pick Cassioppi??? Other than Spencer, he’s probably the one that stalls the least…

Edited by 1032004

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...

×
×
  • Create New...