Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cooch1

Dive termination

Recommended Posts

oco....... stalling is when a wrestler is not constantly improving their position, no matter where they are. IMO

Perfect. Thanks for your response.

 

If a wrestler has my leg and is about to score, is not diving for an ankle, even with the goal of a stalemate, an effort to improve my position?  Should stalling be called in that situation?

 

I agree with you AKHUNTER, that stalling is when a wrestler is not trying to improve his position, but the words "improve" and "position" leave quite a bit of wiggle room for interpretation, and your criteria for stalling is certainly not as straightforward as you make it seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrestlers aren't hanging out on their back.  The situation you are referring to is being called correctly and always has been.  See Herbert Askren NCAA finals.

 

Here, I'll do the leg work for you: 

 

That sequence of events can only be interpreted as action.  

 

Let's create anti-granby rules as well, as the situation isn't in line with the "goals and objectives." 

 

In folkstyle wrestling, if you aren't being held on your back for 2 or more seconds, your opponent doesn't deserve anything.  Not a stalling call, not a takedown, not nearfall.

 

Holy cherry-picked example.  Herbert v. Askren for lazy scrambling?  Completely agree that sequence of events can only be interpreted as action, however that is not exactly the situation i was referring to, and I think the difference actually proves my point.  Herbert stays briefly in the position holding on to the leg, on his back, but the referee waits until Herbert lets completely go of Askren's leg and Askren is awarded a TD then there is NF.  However, the situation I'm referring to is when the guy in Herbert's position doesn't let go of the leg but continues to hug it, often with both arms, realizing he isn't going to be giving up a TD.  You're probably right that good refs will recognize that this demonstrates control for the non-diver, but I can't understand why you're so against a rule to clarify the position.  No one is saying, to my knowledge, that you shouldn't be allowed to attack the ankle, just that you have to do something with it other than hold on for a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what you originally said:

 

"How can you explain to someone why a wrestler is allowed to hang out on their back, even when they are being held there with their opponents leg on top of them, without being penalized?"

 

Herbert bailed on that ankle because he was on his back and realized the ref would soon award control and nearfall.  There is not a ref in the country that is currently allowing a wrestler to ankle dive and lay on his back without giving up points. Provide evidence if I am wrong.

 

The original poster would want Herbert to be penalized every one of the times he attempted to pass an ankle.  That's asinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect. Thanks for your response.

 

If a wrestler has my leg and is about to score, is not diving for an ankle, even with the goal of a stalemate, an effort to improve my position?  Should stalling be called in that situation?

 

I agree with you AKHUNTER, that stalling is when a wrestler is not trying to improve his position, but the words "improve" and "position" leave quite a bit of wiggle room for interpretation, and your criteria for stalling is certainly not as straightforward as you make it seem.

To your question.....Yes stalling should be called IF said wrestler grabs the ankle and does not try to improve their position...ie: simply holding position WAITING for the stalemate to be called. You want to grab my ankle fine but you better keep wrestling and try and score. This isn't anywhere near as tough as people try and make it. At this point referees are REWARDING stalling, most of the time, by giving a stalemate call. These calls would end in a hurry if refs would have the gumption (balls) to call these situations what they are STALLING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a leg pass situation, but remember Perry vs Evans semis last year? Perry is on his back pinned (IMO) for several seconds, but no points scored due to a technicality in the rules. The rules say that putting an opponent in a tripod position, or grabbing both ankles in a seated position, is takedown points. Meanwhile, holding a guy on his back is, in certain situations, nothing. To me that doesn't seem to fit with the pin- centric philosophy wrestling is supposed to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohcomeon, you're being pretty condescending IMO. There are lots of different styles and rule sets of wrestling. Preferring some rules over others doesn't make a person " not a fan of wrestling ". If I like back exposure points I should go watch Nascar instead if wrestling ? Ok then.

 

 

While I hate UWWs constant rule changing as much as anyone, that doesn't mean rules should never be changed either . There has to be a happy medium between over tinkering and constantly letting frustrating situations continue to unfold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my original post I talk about using near fall criteria as justification for a td, not a NF. Scrambling around back and forth, on and off your back w/o continuous exposure isn't control UNLESS your exposed, either holding still or struggling, for two seconds.

 

On the other hand, w/o 2-seconds exposure but with a 5 wave count this is consistent with other forms of stalling such as: 1) failing to progressively return a stand up to the mat or 2) failing to progressively work up after dropping down to an ankle . Sound familiar?

 

Diving/dropping to an ankle IS a split second effort to improve your position to buy time.....but the improvement can't reasonably involve wallowing on your back for two seconds or more. The guys who are good at it don't wallow; they progress, like Delgado and Askren and others. If you don't progress in 5 seconds or if your wallowing on your back for 2 seconds then it's stalling or a TD.

 

Redefining control in this way will not only give the so-called clueless referee a clue, it'll prevent a lot of wrestlers from a high risk move. This will be much to the satisfaction of the previously frustrated audience..... no matter what technique is used or to whom the scoring is awarded! 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...