Views on Ride Outs

[nerfstate]

We need an OT system with less ref discretion/judgment, not more. No one can agree on what is/isn’t stalling now. Injecting more of that uncertainty doesn’t help IMO.

One of the biggest knocks against freestyle is the refs’ seemingly arbitrary (or biased) selection of which wrestler is more passive.

And your hypothetical 6-3 1st period score doesn’t mean the guy with 6 was the more aggressive. Sometimes the score doesn’t reflect actual activity on the mat.

You raised good points, I knew it wouldn’t take long.

But I think one issue with the drive to get to objective stall calls is that it has essentially erased all other stall calls. If there isn’t a 5-count or an out-of-bounds action, it’s generally being ignored. Personally, I liked it better when we relied on the judgement of experts who “knew stalling when they saw it.” Of course it would create controversy, but back then the ref had more gravitas, I think. Everything now is up for litigation (I also don’t like video review, fwiw). But all of this is more “angry man yelling at cloud” than a solution for today’s situation and culture.

I will say this about UWW passivity calls: I used to think it was far more obtuse and arbitrary than I do now, having watched a lot more freestyle. I’m getting pretty good at guessing who is going to get dinged and when, which means there is a method in the madness. Doesn’t mean I agree that hand fighting is inherently more active than shooting and faking, but I know what to expect, and so can competitors and coaches who know way more than me.

 

[Joejitsu]

Top and bottom wrestling is folk style. Just call stalling appropriately during the match, including SV, and most matches will never get to TB.

I doubt they will ever switch to true freestyle, because many facilities don't support continuation of action thru out of bounds.

If freestyle is out, no need to bastardize the folk style rules to diminish the role of riding, including in TB of OT.

Afterall, it was tied after 9 minutes of wrestling with likely well over 5 minutes of neutral (wrestling action or uncalled stalling). So there seems no point to more of the neutral position.

A boring match is going to be a boring match, no matter how a winner is determined in OT. Selfishly, I just want the boring match to be over already. TB rideouts seem good enough for that.

I doubt that a meaningful criteria could exist for a zero takedown match that is tied at the end of regulation, so what'd be the point of it?

dont disagree for sure~!

 

[Joejitsu]

So freestyle?

no but I do believe this is the rule in free style for a reason!

 

[Corby2]

People understand it was a thing.

Nobody understands why it was a thing, because it's inherently stupid. Great for bookies and crooked refs, awful for everyone else including honest refs.

Most people under 40 have no clue it ever existed from my discussions with fans

 

[mydome88]

Takes away the SV element, but how about doing the ride outs first. Then do a 1 or 2 minute extra period. If still tied then it goes to riding time, but not just the riding time in the ride outs, use accumulated riding time for the whole match.

Ride outs seem unfair and definitely seems to give the advantage for who gets first choice, so this takes that away I think.

Also takes away if someone had 50 secs of riding time in the match but then loses on just the ride out riding time.

Also gives the wrestler who "lost" the ride outs more of a chance to score than the few seconds they may have if they escape 1 second short.

If you don't want to make too many changes, at a minimum I think a 1 min SV and 2 one min ride outs would be better than the current set up.

 

[Nitlion1986]

Don't make me stop this car!!

My oldest daughter used to follow behind her oldest continously telling him to stop that, stop that, stop that. I told her to stop that.

 

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

For the record, I’d be in arms if there was ever a proposal to replace folkstyle with free in the US. I love the control aspect and how it better simulates combat, the importance of top and bottom, and how it gives our guys a conditioning edge on the world stage. I was just advocating for their criteria rule, which I think works very well.

I also enjoy freestyle for different reasons. I’m a fan of both styles.

So easy to break a regulation tie:
-most recent hike in the Rocky Mountains
-most recent hike in the High Sierra
-most recent hike in the Cascade Range
-most recent hike in the Canadian Rockies
-most recent grizzly sighting on hike
-most recent wolf sighting on hike
-Ultimate tiebreaker: Prettiest encountered hiker (pic required to ref before match, example below)

View attachment 1173803

I think I'm having impure thoughts.

 

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

I'm shocked at how many people just want OT to be wrestled in neutral. If that's the case my opinion is 1st step out wins if you guys want freestyle let's just go all the way

You went full Sumo. Everybody knows you never go full Sumo.

 

[PSUeng]

This poll is not solely in response to the Duke/Taylor match. I have always thought they were a terrible way to determine a winner. I don't have a perfect solution but with all the great wrestling minds on here, I'm sure someone could come up with something. Until there is a change, we'll continue to see guys like Taylor and Ferrari stall for 9 minutes, hoping to win in ride outs. That is, as long as the Refs refuse to call stalling as defined in the current rules.

I do not mind ride outs. People say it is one of the positions of wrestling, to control the opponent. Fine let's just make it that if the bottom wrestlers get out of bounds, they start in natural and point awarded for an escape. The top wrestlers did not control him, and he can no longer just run him out 4 times in 30 seconds.

 

[PSUbluTX]

they start in natural …

Whoa, whoa! Whatever the fix, PLEASE let’s make the wrestlers at least keep their singlets on.

Sheesh, this isn’t JTS’s uncle’s basement.

 

[jayridescarbon]

I do not mind ride outs. People say it is one of the positions of wrestling, to control the opponent. Fine let's just make it that if the bottom wrestlers get out of bounds, they start in natural and point awarded for an escape. The top wrestlers did not control him, and he can no longer just run him out 4 times in 30 seconds.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

How about a one minute SV from neutral? No scoring after one period requires a mandatory stall warning to one of the wrestlers. If that wrestler had a warning from regulation, he loses. If not, they go to a second SV from Neutral. After the second SV another stall call must be issued. If no point is awarded a third SV period from neutral is wrestled with a stall warning being issued at the conclusion of the third SV.
Points will be scored.

Exactly, more-or-less what I'm proposing. But the one-minute no scoring forced stall call should be applied to regulation wrestling as well. The best way to produce better Neutral Wrestling is to force the more defensive/passive wrestler to carry his share of the Offensive Action - easiest way to do that is via penalty. This rewards the appropriate party - the more aggressive wrestler.... and puts the appropriate party at a disadvantage - the more passive/defensive wrestler.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

You raised good points, I knew it wouldn’t take long.

But I think one issue with the drive to get to objective stall calls is that it has essentially erased all other stall calls. If there isn’t a 5-count or an out-of-bounds action, it’s generally being ignored. Personally, I liked it better when we relied on the judgement of experts who “knew stalling when they saw it.” Of course it would create controversy, but back then the ref had more gravitas, I think. Everything now is up for litigation (I also don’t like video review, fwiw). But all of this is more “angry man yelling at cloud” than a solution for today’s situation and culture.

I will say this about UWW passivity calls: I used to think it was far more obtuse and arbitrary than I do now, having watched a lot more freestyle. I’m getting pretty good at guessing who is going to get dinged and when, which means there is a method in the madness. Doesn’t mean I agree that hand fighting is inherently more active than shooting and faking, but I know what to expect, and so can competitors and coaches who know way more than me.

Using the Taylor v Duke match as an example - Taylor was clearly the more passive wrestler. How many times did he break from ties pushing off Duke and dancing straight backwards? And then continuing to dance away from Duke as he attempted to re-engage.

Duke was the party pressing forward the entire match. The way Taylor was breaking from ties (i.e., wrestling action) is a illegal in Freestyle and would be called. Not hard at all to see who the more defensive/passive wrestler was in the Duke v Taylor match for anyone who understands wrestling (or has actually wrestled).

 

[El_Jefe]

You went full Sumo. Everybody knows you never go full Sumo.

30 sec of Sumo would be a far more entertaining way to decide a match than 30-sec stall-out periods.

 

[Shifty15]

My favorite is when the ref says "action, guys" about 7 or 8 times, but never calls stalling.

It's like shouting, "Stop, or I'll say stop again!"

Just watch the replay of Duke/Taylor and you’ll see that first hand. Like the parent who tells the kid “we’re leaving if you don’t behave “ twelve times with no change in behavior!

 

[yekrut321]

Criteria all the way. Don’t care what, but keep it simple, and always have someone winning, it really does force action. The freestyle brain trust got this one right. Only change I’d make is to make criteria, in the event of a tie, worth 1 pt. That underline nonsense is whack.

This^!

 

[NorthStarWrestler]

I like the freestyle rule that the highest point scored wins the match, or last point scored wins. It doesn’t always make sense but it would prevent a lot of double OT matches and at least you know going into the end of third if you’re winning or losing. So you got 2 minutes to score or pin if you are behind.

I don’t know what to do about a 0-0 match though.

 

[RBOld]

If it's tied after SV go criteria like FS. It would force action and make guys actually wrestle. (Which is the name of the sport so somebody should have to do it)

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I like the freestyle rule that the highest point scored wins the match, or last point scored wins. It doesn’t always make sense but it would prevent a lot of double OT matches and at least you know going into the end of third if you’re winning or losing. So you got 2 minutes to score or pin if you are behind.

I don’t know what to do about a 0-0 match though.

Freestyle goes highest scoring move, then # of highest scoring moves I believe. This would work in Folkstyle for all moves > 1 point. Would not be fair in Folk to have the match determined by whoever was the bottom wrestler in 3rd period in a 1-1 match like Duke v Taylor, because it is random and not in wrestlers control - last multi-point move would be better. It is utterly absurd to have some 6 1/2 minutes of Neutral wrestling with zero points scored via offensive action or penalty like the Duke v Taylor match - utterly ridiculous (this could never happen in Freestyle because of the Shot Clock and other defensive wrestling only and passivity penalties. For instance, Taylor would have been penalized multiple times for the way he was breaking ties and avoiding engagement after breaking the tie - this would have been penalized for "fleeing the hold" multiple times.).

If Folk doesn't want to go to a mandatory shot click to force scoring against a purely defensive / passive wrestler, than the criteria before highest scoring multiple point move (and then # of highest scoring moves) should be wrestler with less Stall Calls because in Folk, mat Officials will often issue the 1st Stall call, but are overly reluctant to issue the 2nd because it creates the winning score (complete bs Officiating which effectively penalizes the better wrestler who is continually attempting to score and rewards the purely defensive / passive wrestler who is violating the spirit of the most fundamental rule of the sport that "Folk" was created from! The way Taylor was wrestling was an abomination to the sport and he likely would have been 0isqualufied via penalty in Freestyle the way he constantly Fleed ties and refused to engage.).

I believe Taylor did have a Stall Call on him - it should have cost him a 1-1 match in regulation. Allowing Taylor to wrestle in the clearly purely defensive and passive manner he wrestled in for 6 1/2 minutes of Neutral wrestling without penalty is utterly antithetical to the fundamental rules of the sport that "Folkstyle" was created from - beyond the lame Official rewarding Taylor for this bs which is not legal wrestling in the seminal sport of wrestling, the crap Official then doublely srews the more aggressive/offensive wrestler, Duke, by failing to call a beyond obvious TD (Duke was fully behind Taylor and Taylor had 3 points of contact on mat - there is no "reaction time" on 3 points of contact like this) - the way the match was Officiated was beyond absurd and promoted Folk bs wrestling at its finest.

 

[CowbellMan]

Have one, three minute SV period. If tied at the conclusion the following rules are used to determine a winner:

1. First Takedown
2. First Near fall
3. First reversal
4. First non escape point
5. Fewest stalling calls
6. wrestler with the last stalling call loses
7. riding time
8. Wrestler with a losing challenge loses
9. If non of the above has determined a winner, both wrestlers are disqualified including in tournaments and are eliminated from the tournament. Also, in this case, the referees are suspended for the next decade for allowing this farce to happen.

I’d actually put “most near fall” as first criteria since pinning is the objective in the first place.

 

[manatree]

1. Get rid of riding time.
2. Have one three minute OT period. Flip the disc, winner gets to choose neutral, up, or down.
3. If it is still tied after the OT, go to some sort of criteria.
3a. The wrestler who scored first wins. I’m up in the air as to if awarded points (stalls, penalties) should count for this criteria.
3b. The wrestler with the least amount of stalls wins.
3c. The match is declared to be null, and no points are given for either team. The match does not count towards either wrestler’s record. If this happens in a tourney, flip to see who advances, but no points are awarded for the result, and both teams split the advancement points. If this happens in a final placement match, both wrestlers are given the lower placement and both teams split the total possible placement points.

Admittedly, the tournament implications might need some tweaking.

 

[Potterlion]

You raised good points, I knew it wouldn’t take long.

But I think one issue with the drive to get to objective stall calls is that it has essentially erased all other stall calls. If there isn’t a 5-count or an out-of-bounds action, it’s generally being ignored. Personally, I liked it better when we relied on the judgement of experts who “knew stalling when they saw it.” Of course it would create controversy, but back then the ref had more gravitas, I think. Everything now is up for litigation (I also don’t like video review, fwiw). But all of this is more “angry man yelling at cloud” than a solution for today’s situation and culture.

I will say this about UWW passivity calls: I used to think it was far more obtuse and arbitrary than I do now, having watched a lot more freestyle. I’m getting pretty good at guessing who is going to get dinged and when, which means there is a method in the madness. Doesn’t mean I agree that hand fighting is inherently more active than shooting and faking, but I know what to expect, and so can competitors and coaches who know way more than me.

Yep, I agree with this. I don't like the ride-outs, but admit that I don't really know how to remedy what seems to be a fairly arbitrary way of deciding a winner, but I DO think we need to go back to the time when stalls were called just because someone was stalling and not only because he was hanging on a leg or backed out of bounds while being pushed. Like you said, I can't define pornography, but I'll know it when I see it......same can be said for stalling, it's not rocket science.

(Edited to suggest that I don't hate the idea posted above that if regulation is tied and sudden victory is tied, the winner is the one without a stall call against him (or with fewer stall calls against). I think that's every bit as fair as an arbitrary ride-out period and actually does reward the wrestler who was more active in regulation).

 

[El_Jefe]

I like the freestyle rule that the highest point scored wins the match, or last point scored wins. It doesn’t always make sense but it would prevent a lot of double OT matches and at least you know going into the end of third if you’re winning or losing. So you got 2 minutes to score or pin if you are behind.

I don’t know what to do about a 0-0 match though.

There are only 2 ways this happens: either both take neutral, or both get ridden out for a full period.

So if it happens, defibrillate both of them on the mat.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

This description below is very good in describing how Taylor's bs wrestling would not have been tolerated in Freestyle (i.e., "Olympic Wrestling" - the actual sport Folk was created from) - and should not be (or have been) tolerated in Folk either as the Folk operates under the spirit of the same rule (i.e., the more aggressive wrestler attempting to score is supposed to be rewarded and the defensive, more passive, wrestler who is not carrying 50% of the Offensive action and is intentionally breaking engagements, then avoiding engagement.... etc... is SUPPOSED TO BE PENALIZED). Folk Officials encouraging and promoting the bs Taylor (and quite frankly AJ Ferrari as well) were pulling - which is what they are doing when they allow it to go go on in Neutral for for 6 1/2+ minutes of regulation - do Folk a huge disservice, because rewarding what are actually illegal tactics is disgraceful as they are REWARDING the diametric opposite wrestler the seminal rules of wrestling say is to be rewarded (IOW, they are doing the diametric opposite thing they are supposed to do as a wrestling Mat Official and penalizing the wrestler they are supposed to be rewarding, not to mention robbing a match from the more deserving wrestler that actually won under the real rules had the Official had the integrity to enforce them.). Again, here are the descriptions that are instructive to how egregious the Duke v Taylor match was called relative to legit rules on passivity in Neutral (taken from statements at USA Wrestling):

Can you flee from ties in freestyle wrestling?

In freestyle wrestling, you cannot "flee from holds" (including ties) or "flee the mat" without penalty, as these are considered passive, defensive tactics designed to avoid engagement
.
Fleeing the Hold/Mat Penalties:

• "Fleeing the Hold": If a wrestler refuses contact, backs away continuously, or tries to evade their opponent's hand engagement to prevent them from setting up a throw or takedown, the referee can issue a caution and award one point to the opponent.
• "Fleeing the Mat": Intentionally stepping out of bounds to avoid wrestling is penalized with a caution and one point for the opponent.
• Active Engagement Required: In the standing position, referees will stop the match and issue warnings (or "flee the hold" penalties) if a wrestler constantly maintains a "head down, hips back" posture without trying to attack.

The Key Difference from Other Styles:
Unlike folkstyle wrestling, there is no "escape" point for simply getting up from the bottom (par terre) position. Instead, if a wrestler is on the ground, the goal is to defend against turns (like gut wrenches) until the referee stands them up, or to reverse the opponent.

How to Properly Handle Ties:
Instead of fleeing, the rules encourage clearing ties through offensive techniques. You can:

• Clear the tie: Use hand-fighting techniques to remove the opponent's hand, such as snapping down the arm or moving to a wrist-drag.
• Counter-attack: Rather than running away, you should turn the opponent's tie into an offensive move.
• Circle and Change Levels: Constant movement is encouraged to avoid being stuck in a defensive position.

Repeated attempts to flee or stall will result in warnings, cautions, and eventual disqualification (three cautions).

 

[Corby2]

This description below is very good in describing how Taylor's bs wrestling would not have been tolerated in Freestyle (i.e., "Olympic Wrestling" - the actual sport Folk was created from) - and should not be (or have been) tolerated in Folk either as the Folk operates under the spirit of the same rule (i.e., the more aggressive wrestler attempting to score is supposed to be rewarded and the defensive, more passive, wrestler who is not carrying 50% of the Offensive action and is intentionally breaking engagements, then avoiding engagement.... etc... is SUPPOSED TO BE PENALIZED). Folk Officials encouraging and promoting the bs Taylor (and quite frankly AJ Ferrari as well) were pulling - which is what they are doing when they allow it to go go on in Neutral for for 6 1/2+ minutes of regulation - do Folk a huge disservice, because rewarding what are actually illegal tactics is disgraceful as they are REWARDING the diametric opposite wrestler the seminal rules of wrestling say is to be rewarded (IOW, they are doing the diametric opposite thing they are supposed to do as a wrestling Mat Official and penalizing the wrestler they are supposed to be rewarding, not to mention robbing a match from the more deserving wrestler that actually won under the real rules had the Official had the integrity to enforce them.). Again, here are the descriptions that are instructive to how egregious the Duke v Taylor match was called relative to legit rules on passivity in Neutral (taken from statements at USA Wrestling):

Can you flee from ties in freestyle wrestling?
View attachment 1174886
View attachment 1174887

In freestyle wrestling, you cannot "flee from holds" (including ties) or "flee the mat" without penalty, as these are considered passive, defensive tactics designed to avoid engagement
.
Fleeing the Hold/Mat Penalties:

• "Fleeing the Hold": If a wrestler refuses contact, backs away continuously, or tries to evade their opponent's hand engagement to prevent them from setting up a throw or takedown, the referee can issue a caution and award one point to the opponent.
• "Fleeing the Mat": Intentionally stepping out of bounds to avoid wrestling is penalized with a caution and one point for the opponent.
• Active Engagement Required: In the standing position, referees will stop the match and issue warnings (or "flee the hold" penalties) if a wrestler constantly maintains a "head down, hips back" posture without trying to attack.

The Key Difference from Other Styles:
Unlike folkstyle wrestling, there is no "escape" point for simply getting up from the bottom (par terre) position. Instead, if a wrestler is on the ground, the goal is to defend against turns (like gut wrenches) until the referee stands them up, or to reverse the opponent.

How to Properly Handle Ties:
Instead of fleeing, the rules encourage clearing ties through offensive techniques. You can:

• Clear the tie: Use hand-fighting techniques to remove the opponent's hand, such as snapping down the arm or moving to a wrist-drag.
• Counter-attack: Rather than running away, you should turn the opponent's tie into an offensive move.
• Circle and Change Levels: Constant movement is encouraged to avoid being stuck in a defensive position.

Repeated attempts to flee or stall will result in warnings, cautions, and eventual disqualification (three cautions).

So are you saying you want college to switch to freestyle?

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

So are you saying you want college to switch to freestyle?

No, I'm saying that "College" should sanction Officials that do not enforce the current rules which are supposed to reward the more aggressive wrestler (not the opposite, which is what was done in both the Duke v Taylor and Ferrari v Mirrasola matches) and penalize the more passive wrestler and attempt to force the offending wrestler to stop his stalling tactics (or surrender points for continuing them). The fundamental rules of Folk require both wrestlers to carry 50% of the Offensive action AND that both wrestlers must be looking to score at all times - you seem to conveniently forget (or ignore) this. Taylor was clearly wrestling in an illegal fashion because the vast majority of his Neutral tactics (breaking ties and fleeing straight bacwards.... then continuing to avoid engagement by going backwards in a circling fashion... etc....) were aimed at preventing Offensive Action, not promoting Offensive Action with an eye to scoring at all times. The Official clearly rewarded Taylor for these bs tactics by not forcing him to stop.... and forcing him to WRESTLE.... and carry 50% of the Offensive Action or be sanctioned points (IOW, the Official is SUPPOSED TO REWARD the wrestler carrying 100% of the Offensive action in this situation - the wrestler constantly moving forward.... the wrestler forcing the other wrestler into ties when he could get his hands on him.... the wrestler NOT breaking ties and creating illegal separation by fleeing straight backwards and then continuing to move, and circle, away from the pursuing wrestler.... etc... This Official in this case REWARDED the diametric opposite wrestler that he is supposed to under even Folk Rules, but somehow you simply choose to ignore this in defending this bs "Officiating").

 

[jack66]

If refs called stalling as they should, we wouldn't see so many matches decided by rideout.

I know most referees don't want to decide a match, but by not calling stalling, they are essentially deciding in favor of the wrestler who is wrestling for TB-1.

 

[nerfstate]

If refs called stalling as they should, we wouldn't see so many matches decided by rideout.

I know most referees don't want to decide a match, but by not calling stalling, they are essentially deciding in favor of the wrestler who is wrestling for TB-1.

I don’t think there are many that would disagree with your hypothetical here. The rub is in the “how.” I’m not sure that a “stick” approach (sanctions) is the way to go here. Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a hard time picturing a pool of experienced and knowledgeable refs chomping at the bit to call high stakes D1 matches. Maybe the compensation is better than I realize.

 

[Corby2]

No, I'm saying that "College" should sanction Officials that do not enforce the current rules which are supposed to reward the more aggressive wrestler (not the opposite, which is what was done in both the Duke v Taylor and Ferrari v Mirrasola matches) and penalize the more passive wrestler and attempt to force the offending wrestler to stop his stalling tactics (or surrender points for continuing them). The fundamental rules of Folk require both wrestlers to carry 50% of the Offensive action AND that both wrestlers must be looking to score at all times - you seem to conveniently forget (or ignore) this. Taylor was clearly wrestling in an illegal fashion because the vast majority of his Neutral tactics (breaking ties and fleeing straight bacwards.... then continuing to avoid engagement by going backwards in a circling fashion... etc....) were aimed at preventing Offensive Action, not promoting Offensive Action with an eye to scoring at all times. The Official clearly rewarded Taylor for these bs tactics by not forcing him to stop.... and forcing him to WRESTLE.... and carry 50% of the Offensive Action or be sanctioned points (IOW, the Official is SUPPOSED TO REWARD the wrestler carrying 100% of the Offensive action in this situation - the wrestler constantly moving forward.... the wrestler forcing the other wrestler into ties when he could get his hands on him.... the wrestler NOT breaking ties and creating illegal separation by fleeing straight backwards and then continuing to move, and circle, away from the pursuing wrestler.... etc... This Official in this case REWARDED the diametric opposite wrestler that he is supposed to under even Folk Rules, but somehow you simply choose to ignore this in defending this bs "Officiating").

Everyone has a different definition of what they believe is stalling. Refs call it as they see fit should it be called more at times sure and at times it's called when it shouldn't be. Remember when the coach would tell you don't leave it in the refs hands. Another issue is the edge stalling refs know it's gonna come into play and they at times hold the regular stall because of it. Most refs want the wrestlers to determine the match and not themselves. We need to remove the action or stalling call when they go out. Most with their finger on the pulse knew the minute that rule was announced it was gonna be nothing but problems. And that rule happened because everyone was bitching about stalling and it's actually made things worse

 

[PSUbluTX]

I don’t think there are many that would disagree with your hypothetical here. The rub is in the “how.” I’m not sure that a “stick” approach (sanctions) is the way to go here. Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a hard time picturing a pool of experienced and knowledgeable refs chomping at the bit to call high stakes D1 matches. Maybe the compensation is better than I realize.

This touches on a couple things I have wondered about. First, how much do D1 refs get paid? Is there a published scale somewhere?

Second, what percentage of refs are former wrestlers themselves? I assume it’s pretty high, at least for college. Many/most I see in D1 matches appear pretty fit and look like they could have wrestled in the past. At lower levels and in int’l freestyle, not so much.

 

[El_Jefe]

Anyone else get the sense Bushwood found a new handle?

 

[PSUbluTX]

No, I'm saying that "College" should sanction Officials that do not enforce the current rules ….

Maybe have Nurse Diesel do the sanctioning?

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Everyone has a different definition of what they believe is stalling. Refs call it as they see fit should it be called more at times sure and at times it's called when it shouldn't be. Remember when the coach would tell you don't leave it in the refs hands. Another issue is the edge stalling refs know it's gonna come into play and they at times hold the regular stall because of it. Most refs want the wrestlers to determine the match and not themselves. We need to remove the action or stalling call when they go out. Most with their finger on the pulse knew the minute that rule was announced it was gonna be nothing but problems. And that rule happened because everyone was bitching about stalling and it's actually made things worse

The general definition of stalling does not differ between Freestyle (the seminal sport) and Folkstyle (adapted from Freestyle Rules). Both require each wrestler to look to score at all times and while in Neutral (where the two still most resemble each other) each wrestler is required to carry 50% of the Offensive Action - IOW, if one of the wrestlers becomes predominantly "Defensive" and/or "Passive" while the other wrestler continues to push forward, pursue and look to score, it absolutely is stalling regardless of whether we're talking about Free or Folk. The general definition of stalling is the same in both Free and Folk - it's how stalling is enforced that differs between the two, so I fundamentally disagree with you that it is up to each Mat Official to decide how they "define" stalling. When one wrestler is carrying the predominance of the "Offensive Action" in Neutral (i.e., the other wrestler is wrestling predominantly "Defensively" or "Passively" [constantly moving backward while the other wrestler constantly pursues]), it absolutely is stalling by definition and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about Free or Folk. Complete nonsense that each Official is at liberty to decide what defines stalling and can decide to override the general rule that forbids a wrestler to wrestle in a purely defensive and passive manner for 6 1/2+ minutes of Neutral wrestling in Regulation. Complete nonsense - this is what is ridiculous about Folk wrestling, Officials routinely ignore the Rulebook and REWARD the diametric opposite wrestler for bs that is not "wrestling", forbidden and is supposed to be penalized to the benefit of the pursuing wrestler who was constantly looking to score and carrying all the action. Arbitrarily ignoring beyond obvious stalling is REWARDING the wrestler who is wrestling in an illegal fashion.

 

[Corby2]

The general definition of stalling does not differ between Freestyle (the seminal sport) and Folkstyle (adapted from Freestyle Rules). Both require each wrestler to look to score at all times and while in Neutral (where the two still most resemble each other) each wrestler is required to carry 50% of the Offensive Action - IOW, if one of the wrestlers becomes predominantly "Defensive" and/or "Passive" while the other wrestler continues to push forward, pursue and look to score, it absolutely is stalling regardless of whether we're talking about Free or Folk. The general definition of stalling is the same in both Free and Folk - it's how stalling is enforced that differs between the two, so I fundamentally disagree with you that it is up to each Mat Official to decide how they "define" stalling. When one wrestler is carrying the predominance of the "Offensive Action" in Neutral (i.e., the other wrestler is wrestling predominantly "Defensively" or "Passively" [constantly moving backward while the other wrestler constantly pursues]), it absolutely is stalling by definition and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about Free or Folk. Complete nonsense that each Official is at liberty to decide what defines stalling and can decide to override the general rule that forbids a wrestler to wrestle in a purely defensive and passive manner for 6 1/2+ minutes of Neutral wrestling in Regulation. Complete nonsense - this is what is ridiculous about Folk wrestling, Officials routinely ignore the Rulebook and REWARD the diametric opposite wrestler for bs that is not "wrestling", forbidden and is supposed to be penalized to the benefit of the pursuing wrestler who was constantly looking to score and carrying all the action. Arbitrarily ignoring beyond obvious stalling is REWARDING the wrestler who is wrestling in an illegal fashion.

What AI did you use?

 

[El_Jefe]

Definitely Bushwood.

 

[Corby2]

Definitely Bushwood.

That AI post has so many flaws it's comical. Making a note never reply to JoePa

 

[NJwrestling26]

Why not just have a 2 minute SV on your feet and if no one scores then you have a 30 second do or die rideout. First point scored or most riding time gets choice for the rideouts. Pretty simple stuff .no refs picking the winner , no criteria that people outside the sport don’t understand.… get a takedown in 2 minutes or go to do or die rideout , easy to follow ,the 30 seconds would be more exciting then the rideouts now. There is no need for 4 ots or multiple rideout periods.

 

[El_Jefe]

That AI post has so many flaws it's comical. Making a note never reply to JoePa

Never get into a rules discussion with Bushwood. What he lacks in accuracy, he compensates with volume.

 

[District 4]

Top and bottom wrestling is folk style. Just call stalling appropriately during the match, including SV, and most matches will never get to TB.

I doubt they will ever switch to true freestyle, because many facilities don't support continuation of action thru out of bounds.

If freestyle is out, no need to bastardize the folk style rules to diminish the role of riding, including in TB of OT.

Afterall, it was tied after 9 minutes of wrestling with likely well over 5 minutes of neutral (wrestling action or uncalled stalling). So there seems no point to more of the neutral position.

A boring match is going to be a boring match, no matter how a winner is determined in OT. Selfishly, I just want the boring match to be over already. TB rideouts seem good enough for that.

I doubt that a meaningful criteria could exist for a zero takedown match that is tied at the end of regulation, so what'd be the point of it?

Ref should make sure enough stall calls are given not to let it get to ride outs

 

[NittanyChris]

In an age where you can't get 80% of people to agree that water is wet, I'd say 80% in favor of changing the rule is quite decisive.