This explains a lot (lack of stall calls on top)

[Wrestleknownothing]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:31 PM, 1032004 said:

If they are in the process of escaping sure, but why is the defensive wrestler required to try to escape but the offensive wrestler apparently doesn’t have to do anything except be “active”?

Guess we can add this to the sequel to Stall Camp:  

“I try not to think of it as stalling, I think of it as ‘escape prevention.’”

Just noticed this. Sorry for the late response.

My reply is that the offensive wrestler has already scored by taking the defensive wrestler down (except for the start of period 2 and 3, but that is symmetrical). Now it is incumbent on the defensive wrestler to prevent the offensive wrestler from keeping him down. The offensive wrestler initiated the action that got us to this point. Now the defensive wrestler must respond. In short, the defensive wrestler has a greater responsibility because the offensive wrestler earned the right by taking the defensive wrestler down. 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Just noticed this. Sorry for the late response.

My reply is that the offensive wrestler has already scored by taking the defensive wrestler down (except for the start of period 2 and 3, but that is symmetrical). Now it is incumbent on the defensive wrestler to prevent the offensive wrestler from keeping him down. The offensive wrestler initiated the action that got us to this point. Now the defensive wrestler must respond. In short, the defensive wrestler has a greater responsibility because the offensive wrestler earned the right by taking the defensive wrestler down. 

That seems arbitrary.   Getting a takedown earns you the right to stall?

And why is it “symmetrical” for the start of periods (or after injury time)?  Using this logic only the guy who chose the position should be eligible to be hit for stalling 

[Wrestleknownothing]

51 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

That seems arbitrary.   Getting a takedown earns you the right to stall?

And why is it “symmetrical” for the start of periods (or after injury time)?  Using this logic only the guy who chose the position should be eligible to be hit for stalling 

It is deterministic. Getting the takedown earns you the right to keep the defensive wrestler down and places a burden on the defensive wrestler to escape. I cannot help the way the rule is written. But that is the way it is written.

It is symmetrical because each wrestler has the same choice in alternating periods.

[1032004]

22 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is deterministic. Getting the takedown earns you the right to keep the defensive wrestler down and places a burden on the defensive wrestler to escape. I cannot help the way the rule is written. But that is the way it is written.

It is symmetrical because each wrestler has the same choice in alternating periods.

The rule doesn't say anything about the guy having gotten a takedown.  You're adding context that doesn't exist.

[AKHUNTER]

On 1/10/2023 at 9:27 AM, mspart said:

Stalling on top guy should be "not trying to score or improve their position".   Not trying for the fall should be in the list of stalling.   Improving your position is getting the bottom guy to his back.   From there it is to pin.  This does not incentivize the top wrestler to do anything other than stay in the middle and STALL. 

mspart

AMEN!!!

[AKHUNTER]

hmmmm...... isn't the top wrestler by rule called the " OFFENSIVE " wrestler...... Makes me think he outta be uh..........on offense. IMO a top wrestler not trying to score/pin is stalling.

[Wrestleknownothing]

15 hours ago, 1032004 said:

The rule doesn't say anything about the guy having gotten a takedown.  You're adding context that doesn't exist.

Huh? Getting a takedown is one of three ways you wind up in the position. I also covered the other common way. The third is rare, but still deterministic.

I added the context because it absolutely exists and ignoring it is wrong.

[BerniePragle]

15 hours ago, AKHUNTER said:

hmmmm...... isn't the top wrestler by rule called the " OFFENSIVE " wrestler...... Makes me think he outta be uh..........on offense. IMO a top wrestler not trying to score/pin is stalling.

I sure like watching that Hamiti kid wrestle.  He constantly works for the turn.

[1032004]

12 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Huh? Getting a takedown is one of three ways you wind up in the position. I also covered the other common way. The third is rare, but still deterministic.

I added the context because it absolutely exists and ignoring it is wrong.

No, the context does not exist, at least not the context about being rewarded for getting a takedown.

If anything, the context is that you are not required to attempt to turn because you can earn a RT point.  That’s really the only explanation for the difference in wording between high school and college.

[Wrestleknownothing]

19 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

No, the context does not exist, at least not the context about being rewarded for getting a takedown.

If anything, the context is that you are not required to attempt to turn because you can earn a RT point.  That’s really the only explanation for the difference in wording between high school and college.

Ahh. That context. The summary specifically says that the defensive wrestler has a greater responsibility to initiate action "since the offensive wrestler has already demonstrated action to put their opponent in that position".

[1032004]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Ahh. That context. The summary specifically says that the defensive wrestler has a greater responsibility to initiate action "since the offensive wrestler has already demonstrated action to put their opponent in that position".

That’s referring to breaking them down flat, not taking them down in the first place, you cut that part out.

It does specifically say the offensive wrestler is incentivized by the opportunity to earn a riding time point though.

[Tigerfan]

21 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I sure like watching that Hamiti kid wrestle.  He constantly works for the turn.

I’ve only ever watched him wrestle O’Toole, so I was unaware of this. 

[ScarletKnight]

wasn't RBY called for stalling twice on top against Fix?

 

 

[1032004]

RBY/Ragusin from tonight is precisely why this rule needs to be changed.  By rule, RBY was not stalling, but he did nothing except react to Ragusin's attempts to escape (and sit on the ankle when he wasn't doing that)

Edited January 21, 2023 by 1032004

[ScarletKnight]

On 1/9/2023 at 8:45 PM, 1032004 said:

 

 

Has anything changed this year.  I´ve seen more stall calls on top, this says they just need to try to break the guy down or don´t mat return them

[alex1fly]

I haven't seen any stall calls on top even when the top guy is clearly doing nothing.

One way to enforce what they want and remove the subjective nature of stall calls is to let the bottom guy up after x amount of time. Or what was discussed earlier, no riding time point unless you also have near fall points.

[1032004]

50 minutes ago, ScarletKnight said:

Has anything changed this year.  I´ve seen more stall calls on top, this says they just need to try to break the guy down or don´t mat return them

This original post was from last year, before they changed the rule to now say top man needs to work for a turn.  Can probably thank Coach Ward for helping raise awareness about this.

But yes, anecdotally I would say that I have seen more top stalling calls this year than in the past.

[Jim L]

I am seeing more stalling calls for mat wrestling and they seem mostly arbitrary.

Usually when not much is happening on the mat, the top guy is working to hold the bottom wrestler down, which he needs to do before he can start working for a fall.  The bottom wrestler is trying to prevent the top guy from scoring, but might be having trouble escaping. Not much is happening so the ref feels obligated to give someone a stall call and I usually dont see that it is obvious that one wrestler is stalling.

It is really hard to turn someone at the D1 level and it also is hard to escape against someone with a decent ride. I do like the concept of brining them to their after a set amount of time with no progress by either wrestler. I know has all sorts of implications with the current scoring

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

There has been an infinite increase in top stall call -> punch -> bird -> DQ -> splits -> double bird calls.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is deterministic. Getting the takedown earns you the right to keep the defensive wrestler down and places a burden on the defensive wrestler to escape. I cannot help the way the rule is written. But that is the way it is written.

It is symmetrical because each wrestler has the same choice in alternating periods.

 

On 1/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is deterministic. Getting the takedown earns you the right to keep the defensive wrestler down and places a burden on the defensive wrestler to escape. I cannot help the way the rule is written. But that is the way it is written.

It is symmetrical because each wrestler has the same choice in alternating periods.

Agreed. I have seen a top official basically saying that if you have done all or most of the the scoring, there should be less of a microscope of you.

[wrestle87]

3 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

 

Agreed. I have seen a top official basically saying that if you have done all or most of the the scoring, there should be less of a microscope of you.

This, and the opposite applied in the right situation as well. 

Thank goodness for officials with an understanding of the sport.  Officials, good ones at least, will also recognized two different reactions when an opponent is getting waxed.  They will know when a kid is trying their best but just getting overpowered, and they also recognize turtling up to try to save match points.  

[1032004]

I keep thinking about Cael’s suggestion of getting rid of stalling entirely.  It would get rid of the subjectivity, but he seemed to imply that it would be “fun” and I don’t think that’s the case.  I’ve seen guys blatantly stall when they have stall calls to give and it is usually not exciting.

[1032004]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:50 PM, 1032004 said:

RBY/Ragusin from tonight is precisely why this rule needs to be changed.  By rule, RBY was not stalling, but he did nothing except react to Ragusin's attempts to escape (and sit on the ankle when he wasn't doing that)

Zero chance RBY escapes this match with zero stall calls on top with the new rule.  As it should be.

[Jim L]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I keep thinking about Cael’s suggestion of getting rid of stalling entirely.  It would get rid of the subjectivity, but he seemed to imply that it would be “fun” and I don’t think that’s the case.  I’ve seen guys blatantly stall when they have stall calls to give and it is usually not exciting.

The stall calls I see seem unrelated to stalling. 90% of the time if someone is stalling with with a  1point lead with 1 minute or so left in the 3rd, the ref will call the first stall call with about 15 seconds left and then if they don't absolutely flee they will not get a second stall.

Stalling on the mat seems arbitrary as well. Too many times I see a bottom guy getting dominated and not able to do anything and get dinged for stalling. This brings back flashbacks for me as I was not best at getting out of the bottom and remember when I got hit for stalling and wanting to yell at the ref "Cant you see I'm trying.. Its just not working"

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, Jim L said:

The stall calls I see seem unrelated to stalling. 90% of the time if someone is stalling with with a  1point lead with 1 minute or so left in the 3rd, the ref will call the first stall call with about 15 seconds left and then if they don't absolutely flee they will not get a second stall.

Stalling on the mat seems arbitrary as well. Too many times I see a bottom guy getting dominated and not able to do anything and get dinged for stalling. This brings back flashbacks for me as I was not best at getting out of the bottom and remember when I got hit for stalling and wanting to yell at the ref "Cant you see I'm trying.. Its just not working"

I agree with your first paragraph, although that's probably a different topic...

Yes, it can be arbitrary, but I feel like before this year it was almost always on the bottom guy.  This year it seems to be more evenly split, but no hard data behind that obviously, and to your point I have seen a few instances where for example the situation doesn't change but they will hit the bottom guy first and then the top guy like 20 seconds later.    But at least in that scenario if they both get hit then it might help prevent your first scenario...