Hello, I’m new here been reading for awhile but wanted to start commenting. I think one way to stop this is call stalling earlier and more frequently. For example, if McGowan got called twice in the first period then he would’ve had to start attack more and there wouldn’t be enough time for LL to back up for four minutes so it should create more action and if both guys refuse to engage and just kinda stare at each other than hit both and if necessary just dq both but that is extreme cases. Point is you don’t want to punish a guy for taking ground and trying to engage but the other disengages or backs away so you just call stalling more
Stalling
- Thread starter LeviHainesGoat
- Start date
Additionally, Byers talks a lot about lack of consistency in stall calls …like the edge of the mat scenarios. For the NCAA finals (or conference finals and other situations) why do we need a different referee for each match??!!! Face time for them? Rewards for all? Instead, Pick the best two referees (not Angel) and let them ref all 10 matches. You would get more consistency.
The NFL doesn’t use different refs in each quarter of the Super Bowl to “reward” a bunch of them. They want the game ref’d the best way possible. The NFL picks the best refs based on performance ratings for the year and those selected do the whole Super Bowl game.
New here myself so thought I would chime in. I think what Levihainesgoat says is right. The rules are there but applied so inconsistently. I see a lot of refs make the first stall call and then never hit the wrestler with the second(points) call. I think this is a cover your arse move so they can say well I did call stallling ! It's BS and as a very biased PSU fan I think many teams that wrestle Penn State have found a way to use it as a strategy to not engage with our guys and avoid being dominated. I was at the Nebraska dual and that whole team should have been hit with stalling multiple times but didn't happen. When it occurs that often, with almost every wrestler, says to me it's being coached and that sucks.
If you listened to Caels interview after the tourney he said he was initially against a push out point but thinks it may be needed now because the refs don’t really want to call stalling. I think anything that takes the subjectiveness out of the hands of the refs, particularly after what we’ve seen this weekend/year, could be a good thing.
McGowan was so pumped just before the match. He was high-fiving everyone, yelling, etc. Then he went out there and refused to wrestle. Maybe he used all his energy pre-match.
LL didn't back up for 4 minutes, that's complete bs. LL backed up for maybe the last 30 seconds of the match and he they called him for one Stalling. Go re-watch it.
Cael said we need a step out rule. Said he wasn’t in favor before but now is. Definitely would Help big time. Eliminates a lot o discretion as well
It seems to me that there ought to be some baby steps in here somewhere, short of massively changing the nature of what happens at the edge of the mat (some of which is exciting and good):
- allowing fingers was probably a bad idea and doesn’t really lead to anything
- something explicit/quantitative/fast regarding taking a knee
beyond that, I’d actually like to see something subjective introduced. For example, in a match that is 0-0 at the end of 1, have an official subjectively (and unreviewably) give a stall to the one (and only one) wrestler they deem less offensive, maintaining mat control, or something like that. Why one, and why subjective? Well, both elements create risk of being disadvantaged, which should create incentives to not leave any doubt who should be disadvantaged. The only thing I’d like better is if it could happen earlier in the first when both are still on their feet, but I’m not sure how you do that.
- allowing fingers was probably a bad idea and doesn’t really lead to anything
- something explicit/quantitative/fast regarding taking a knee
beyond that, I’d actually like to see something subjective introduced. For example, in a match that is 0-0 at the end of 1, have an official subjectively (and unreviewably) give a stall to the one (and only one) wrestler they deem less offensive, maintaining mat control, or something like that. Why one, and why subjective? Well, both elements create risk of being disadvantaged, which should create incentives to not leave any doubt who should be disadvantaged. The only thing I’d like better is if it could happen earlier in the first when both are still on their feet, but I’m not sure how you do that.
What you suggest for the end of period 1 introduces massive uncertainty. Now while investors do not like uncertainty, we fans should embrace it as a means of forcing action. If a wrestler is very uncertain about getting dinged with a stall call, he will have ample incentive to at least make it look like he is active. I’ve been watching college wrestling since the 1960’s and have never given much credence to stall calls. [hell yeah I’m a slow learner]. That changed for me at the BiGs and in Cleveland. Certainly a single stall call makes a huge difference in mat strategy for BOTH wrestlers. Your idea is a good one …. but, I doubt it will be adopted. Cael’s support of a step out point might get adopted …… especially because it aligns folk style with free style a bit better. Let’s see!
Get rid of the finger lacing.
While we are frustrated with the lack of stall calls, I’ll say there were more than I expected and we won two NC bouts on stall calls. That in itself is telling imho. The evolution is moving in the right direction……..even if it is too slow.
Other than Vega, the more aggressive guy won every match.
While we are frustrated with the lack of stall calls, I’ll say there were more than I expected and we won two NC bouts on stall calls. That in itself is telling imho. The evolution is moving in the right direction……..even if it is too slow.
Other than Vega, the more aggressive guy won every match.
Fingers need to go for sure & have a warning then stall.
In theory I like the stall at the end of the first idea, but any auto stall (like with the out of bounds) gives some refs cover to then not call it when it is happening on the mat. If one guy is inching back the first minute or two then circling in and repeating a stall needs to be worked in then (to your point).
For the edge some hybrid approach might be great (this is a total spitball) - but when someone goes out of bounds the action continues but must end with either a 1 pt step out or a 3pt takedown. To combat guys diving once they know they already gave up the 1 there probably has to be a caution and 1 type scenario or something to disincentivize that?
Any push out would also need a rule like - any action from top/bottom like an escape established in the edge warning zone can't have a push out?
In theory I like the stall at the end of the first idea, but any auto stall (like with the out of bounds) gives some refs cover to then not call it when it is happening on the mat. If one guy is inching back the first minute or two then circling in and repeating a stall needs to be worked in then (to your point).
For the edge some hybrid approach might be great (this is a total spitball) - but when someone goes out of bounds the action continues but must end with either a 1 pt step out or a 3pt takedown. To combat guys diving once they know they already gave up the 1 there probably has to be a caution and 1 type scenario or something to disincentivize that?
Any push out would also need a rule like - any action from top/bottom like an escape established in the edge warning zone can't have a push out?
Exactly re uncertainty incentives. Show me the incentives and I’ll predict the behavior.
I don’t think in a million years they’d do this, but for those who like to preserve folk elements rather than aligning with free, I like it better than push out which changes the nature of the action.
I think he is saying that because a lot of teams are “wrestling “ PS to go 1-1 to 3rd period by finger grabbing, head palming, wrestling the edge, everything but wrestling for a takedown.
The push out would negate a refs decision on whether to call stalling on out of bounds.
How many more stall calls should have been called in those matches? I didnt watch, but based on the comments here, they should have been stalled out.
If the first period is scoreless, there should be a mandatory stall call
I'll keep my thoughts on stalling to myself until after I figure out what a takedown is...
Many have suggested before, after the first period, if no score - One Or Both wrestlers called for stalling. THEN, actually follow the rules for stalling and call them when it occurs. Lots of good ideas already shared, just enforce the existing rules and much of this would be taken care of.
It is what he said - this is excerpted directly from his post:
Don't correct me and be so pedantic when you're absolutely wrong in your assertion - it's a bigtime douche move.
Don’t disagree, but calling stalling isn’t going to change like flipping a switch.
I do agree that the mandatory stall approach should not limit calls before end of period for stalling. That said, the 0-0 end of period one wrestler approach has a nice in terrorwm effect of incenting action due to its mandatory nature
LL, any of our guys, and any guy on any team with a slight lead, will flee the opponent’s desperation lunges in the last 20-30 seconds.
In our case, even though our guy often has the slight lead because the opponent stalled the first six minutes, the crowd boos him lustily.
Just pick a time… 1:00, 1:30, or 2:00… or right after the scramble that might be in progress at that exact time.
There are a couple refs who do a good job with it. But far too many suck and are willing to allow ballroom dancing for 7 minutes.
if refs called stalling more in the reg season guys might try and open up in the tourney!
You're not wrong but you're spitting into the wind.
We have complained about the refs not calling stalling, every week for decades. At some point we need to accept that it won't be called anywhere near the way we think it should be.
Even the obtuse, glacially moving NCAA realized this and changed the rules for it. Every mandatory stall call -- boundary calls, ankle 5-count, mat return 5-count, etc. -- all of them are mandatory stalls because the refs wouldn't call stalling otherwise. (One could also argue the Heil Rule -- the 3-count danger zone takedown -- is another anti-stalling rule.)
The obvious next rule change is the freestyle stepout rule with some adjustment to folkstyle action. It would eliminate the ambiguity of the current boundary stall rule and make the ref's life easier. And nearly all college wrestlers have trained freestyle for 5-10 years, so they know how to work action back to center. Another benefit: fewer stoppages = more continuous action, and more emphasis on conditioning.
Hard to question someone with Cael's (and Burrough's for that matter) credentials. They also need to fix the complete subjectivity of a takedown by putting so much power in the hands of biased and inept officials with this "reaction time" bs. They need to go to objective criteria for stalling at the boundry and takedowns (just like in Free). If you don't want to give up a point for going OB, then stay f'ing inbounds and stop using OB and wresting at the boundry as a defensive crutch and sad attempt to gain an illegal advantage (it's sad because going OB to stop the action and prevent your opponent from scoring is illegal in the seminal rules of Olympic Free wrestling - English "catch as catch can" wrestling. This is the same style that American Folk was created from in the 19th Century.). They need to go to a specific "First Fully OB" Rule so we don't have to deal with this "Stall Warning" bs - you're the first 100% OB, you get hit with a penalty point. How many times did we see edge wrestlers literally wrestling from a 100% OB position (either engaged or in space) because their opponent was still inbounds so the clock continues to run? It happened on a near every match basis; that is absolute bs and horsecrap, not wrestling - this rule would eliminate that utter absurd nonsense; you go 100% OB while clock is running, you get hit with a penalty point
They also need to eliminate this "Stall Warning" bs - if they want to keep a "Stall Warning" on first call, they need to put that wrestler on a 30 second shot clock just like Free... they fail to get the takedown, opponent awarded a point (the opponent can not intentionally continually flee as they do at the end of matches or TBs, or they get hit with fleeing and a penalty point). If they want to call passivity "Stalling", Folk should create a separate stalling rule for "Fleeing" and Fleeing gets no warning - you get hit with a penalty point if you outright flee, intentionally keep distance between your competor or refuse to engage for a extended period of time.
Last edited:
after Dukes no TD against Nebby the next week I saw 2 TD identical to PJ and the refs gave them both!
Disagree. Haven't seen one ref at the tournament call it the way they should. I think there were several matches that should have been boarding on dq and not just the psu matches.
No I've seen a few matches that have prolonged scrambles that end in zero points after 3 minutes.
What needs to be fixed immediately is the Duke scenario of not letting the action play out.
what happened there can never happen again.
what happened there can never happen again.
Lol he's talking about a hypothetical. Read your second paragraph back to yourself please.
Rules are just words on a piece of paper. Ultimately, it's the refs who define the parameters. What we witnessed this weekend was pretty much how the game is played now ... unfortunately.
I understand the refs not wanting to affect the outcome of a match. Still, by ignoring obvious stalling, they are, in fact, negatively affecting the outcome by increasing the odds of the passive wrestler getting to 50/50 rideouts.
I understand the refs not wanting to affect the outcome of a match. Still, by ignoring obvious stalling, they are, in fact, negatively affecting the outcome by increasing the odds of the passive wrestler getting to 50/50 rideouts.
If they are working that hard 1 stall warning won't matter. Fixing the bigger problem.
We agree about refs this weekend. The clowns at BIGs were no better. They blow goats.
I was more talking about what I saw during overall season. Sorry I didn't specify.
And guys shouldn't have to wait on the line for 5 seconds for the other wrestler to stroll around before deciding to go back to center. After an out of bounds call.
I was saying that it McGowan had got hit with stalling twice in the first period then he would have to be more aggressive and LL couldn’t just be defensive for four minutes cuz he would get hit with stalling then during the actual match LL drove the pace for 6:30
so has anyone asked the ref about why he blew the whistle to stop PJ match he had a chance to get more points even a pin!