Jump to content
BerniePragle

Nebraska @ PSU

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said:

I was just quoting the linked article - haven't seen the video.  Either way, it would seem to me that a drop to 157 is a distinct possibility.

Yeah I see that’s what the article says, but I’m fairly certain it’s wrong haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mokoma said:

There is video of it someplace.  I watched it.  Your quote is very close but he didn’t say if I don’t believe.  It was more like “it doesn’t, does it”

So I have no idea but I sure hope he is dropping.  He could be a force at 157 and Edsell is better than any option we have at 157.

I’d be interested to see a 149 bearclaw v bartlett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, Kerk has looked a little worse for wear since about midseason on.  He was hammering guys at the beginning, including a very tough Gary Traub.  But then he beat Parris, so I thought maybe it had been just a shift in styles.

And then he blows through Lance again for a late TD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving 56 in a 55 is technically against the law but a ticket would be absurd, same applies to Beard getting 2 stall points in a few seconds.  Ref = 17 year old kid at theater enforcing age limits at PG 13 movies.

Share this post


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

Wow did Schultz gain 2 stalling points in 5 seconds?

3, right?

warned and then 1 pt penalty while on bottom in 2nd

1 pt penalty then 2 pt penalty while on top in 3rd (ref initially only signaled 1 for the last one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stalling calls and two penalty points awarded Schultz at the edge of the mat convinced me that the 5 count stalling rule for not returning someone to the mat should be changed to 5 (or maybe longer) count, stopping the action, awarding 1 point escape and return to the center to start at neutral.  2 points and a stalling call for that edge action was a referee discretion scoring abortion.  I'm not saying that the ref wasn't within the rules calling it like that, but generally in wrestling it is better to outlaw referee scoring abortions.  Change my mind.

Also an aside tying in the Lee - Redd match, the inside one one one Schultz wrist twist ride is kind of an ankle pinch north.  No work to pin other than an occasional token pull at the crotch.  But since he was perpendicular instead of parallel he got to ride Beard 50 seconds until the period ended without a stall warning (whereas the Lee ankle pinch rates a stall call in 15 seconds).  Maybe there should be a count requiring release of non-productive rides.  As it now stands, Lee clearly needs to move to the Schultz wrist twist if he wants to ride for long periods without seriously attempting to turn.

Edited by swoopdown

Share this post


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

The stalling calls and two penalty points awarded Schultz at the edge of the mat convinced me that the 5 count stalling rule for not returning someone to the mat should be changed to 5 (or maybe longer) count, stopping the action, awarding 1 point escape and return to the center to start at neutral.  2 points and a stalling call for that edge action was a referee discretion scoring abortion.  I'm not saying that the ref wasn't within the rules calling it like that, but generally in wrestling it is better to outlaw referee scoring abortions.  Change my mind.

Also an aside tying in the Lee - Redd match, the inside one one one Schultz wrist twist ride is kind of an ankle pinch north.  No work to pin other than an occasional token pull at the crotch.  But since he was perpendicular instead of parallel he got to ride Beard 50 seconds until the period ended without a stall warning (whereas the Lee ankle pinch rates a stall call in 15 seconds).  Maybe there should be a count requiring release of non-productive rides.  As it now stands, Lee clearly needs to move to the Schultz wrist twist if he wants to ride for long periods without seriously attempting to turn.

Beard I wasn’t hit with any 5 count stalls.  He was hit for not making an attempt to return Schulz to the mat and then for walking him out of bounds.

Beard outwrestled Schultz, but he deserved every stall call he got. 

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Beard I wasn’t hit with any 5 count stalls.  He was hit for not making an attempt to return Schulz to the mat and then for walking him out of bounds.

Beard outwrestled Schultz, but he deserved every stall call he got. 

OK.  Still an abortion and the rule should be changed regarding having a leg in the air and stalling.  Mind not changed 

Share this post


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

OK.  Still an abortion and the rule should be changed regarding having a leg in the air and stalling.  Mind not changed 

How about the fact that you want to give someone an escape despite not actually escaping?   That seems dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.  If the top wrestler has lost control he has lost control.  If he is given a reasonable amount of time to do a mat return and can't he no longer has control.  Why not get rid of the situation where the top wrestler stalls by not (being able to?) returning the wrestler to the mat and the bottom wrestler can can stall by (only) avoiding a mat return?   

Share this post


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

Disagree.  If the top wrestler has lost control he has lost control.  If he is given a reasonable amount of time to do a mat return and can't he no longer has control.  Why not get rid of the situation where the top wrestler stalls by not (being able to?) returning the wrestler to the mat and the bottom wrestler can can stall by (only) avoiding a mat return?   

I like it - maybe give 7 seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren’t making an attempt to return the other wrestler to the mat it’s stalling. If you make no attempt to return him and force him out of bounds it’s stalling. Beard was guilty of both. He should have got hit in the first period for the same thing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mob said:

If you aren’t making an attempt to return the other wrestler to the mat it’s stalling. If you make no attempt to return him and force him out of bounds it’s stalling. Beard was guilty of both. He should have got hit in the first period for the same thing 

I agree with you that pushing a guy OOB is stalling. The rulebook even says this is so, but Iowa's program has made a killing pushing guys OOB with great regularity and the guy getting pushed OOB always gets the stalling call against him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I agree with you that pushing a guy OOB is stalling. The rulebook even says this is so, but Iowa's program has made a killing pushing guys OOB with great regularity and the guy getting pushed OOB always gets the stalling call against him. 

I agree, but what the Iowa guys do is completely different than what Beard did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I agree, but what the Iowa guys do is completely different than what Beard did.

If they push guys OOB then they, meaning the Iowa guys, are stalling. And they do push guys OOB all the time and yet the refs call stalling on the other guy. The inconsistency in how stalling is called is bad for the sport, yet the entire Iowa program right down to the statues is all about the stall call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

If they push guys OOB then they, meaning the Iowa guys, are stalling. And they do push guys OOB all the time and yet the refs call stalling on the other guy. The inconsistency in how stalling is called is bad for the sport, yet the entire Iowa program right down to the statues is all about the stall call. 

Then it has been awhile since you've watched an Iowa match because they don't push people out.  Matter of fact if you watch Iowa they are mostly the wrestlers circling back in so the cowards that wrestle them can't wrestle on the edge of the mat.

  It is completely different than what Beard did and what Beard did deserves to be called stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

If they push guys OOB then they, meaning the Iowa guys, are stalling. And they do push guys OOB all the time and yet the refs call stalling on the other guy. The inconsistency in how stalling is called is bad for the sport, yet the entire Iowa program right down to the statues is all about the stall call. 

Boom - Roasted!

Even beyond Iowa, there is wild inconsistency in whose stalling "fault" it was when the one guy is advancing and the other backing off as they go OB.  That inconsistency is unfair and bad for the sport.  

Edited by Elevator

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...