Top Stalling - does anyone else have a problem with this?

[PSULou64]

Here is the rule as written: 

Art. 15

a. The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent and work toward obtaining near fall points and/or a pin.

There are a great number of guys who simply "follow" the bottom wrestler with no attempt to break down. They tight waste, sit hip on hip and react. The officials just sit there and allow riding time to accumulate and very rarely call stalling. In cases when they do call it riding time has often already been established. 

If the verbage, aggressively, were not present I could concede the allowance but it is there and find it to be a major disconnect between the written rule and the way it's enforced.

What do you all think?

[WrestlingRash]

If you aren't trying to score, you are stalling. However, we have a riding time point, so in essence, if you are just holding on on top, you are still trying to score. I would contend that there is no such thing as stalling on top. 

[Dark Energy]

@PSULou64 - I completely agree with you.  Refs need to call it more.  Each time I see it called, I applaud.  
 

I do get that the whole thing puts refs in a very tough spot given the judgment nature.  Refs should be trained - more extensively - on what to look for.  And coaches and wrestlers should be well informed.  Clarity for all is good. 
 

I feel the same way about top guy driving bottom wrestler out.  Most times it is egregious.  Yet ref doesn’t call it.  

[NM1965]

18 hours ago, PSULou64 said:

Here is the rule as written: 

Art. 15

a. The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent and work toward obtaining near fall points and/or a pin.

There are a great number of guys who simply "follow" the bottom wrestler with no attempt to break down. They tight waste, sit hip on hip and react. The officials just sit there and allow riding time to accumulate and very rarely call stalling. In cases when they do call it riding time has often already been established. 

If the verbage, aggressively, were not present I could concede the allowance but it is there and find it to be a major disconnect between the written rule and the way it's enforced.

What do you all think?

I think if the top wrestler isn't aggressively working for nearfall points that he should be warned. On 2 warnings the bottom guy should be awarded a point and they return to neutral. Warnings can be given after riding for 30 seconds or so without any attempted turns. 

 

[dragit]

On 11/25/2025 at 3:33 PM, WrestlingRash said:

If you aren't trying to score, you are stalling. However, we have a riding time point, so in essence, if you are just holding on on top, you are still trying to score. I would contend that there is no such thing as stalling on top. 

This flushes out an interesting point. 

The OP quotes a rule.  The rule does not encompass trying to score generally.  Instead it is specific to breaking down and turning.  So by the language of that rule, you're stalling if you're only trying to score through the riding time point. I think that's clear assuming the rule is quoted correctly.  

But this does raise a question.  Why do the rules award a point for 1 minute of riding?  The rules say that riding for the purpose of riding itself is stalling.  So why should extended riding get a point, particularly in the case where the top man hasn't gotten a turn?  If you're over a minute without a turn, wouldn't that create a potential presumption that you weren't making a full effort to turn (i.e. not stall)?

[TAC]

I watch Nagau for example, who does a double leg ride and is working to get arm bars and half nelsons, but is warned for stalling. I do not agree with how that was called in the Black Knight.  I felt like he was wrestling aggressively....thoughts?

[NM1965]

42 minutes ago, TAC said:

I watch Nagau for example, who does a double leg ride and is working to get arm bars and half nelsons, but is warned for stalling. I do not agree with how that was called in the Black Knight.  I felt like he was wrestling aggressively....thoughts?

I haven't seen that match yet. I think the ref should work with something concrete such as actual turns. If the top guy doesn't turn the bottom guy after 30 seconds, they should restart with the rider getting a warning. After another 30 seconds with no turns they should go neutral with a point awarded to the bottom guy. This also has the effect of allowing a guy to build SOME riding time. Guys can fake "working for points", but turns can't be faked. 

[NM1965]

1 hour ago, dragit said:

This flushes out an interesting point. 

The OP quotes a rule.  The rule does not encompass trying to score generally.  Instead it is specific to breaking down and turning.  So by the language of that rule, you're stalling if you're only trying to score through the riding time point. I think that's clear assuming the rule is quoted correctly.  

But this does raise a question.  Why do the rules award a point for 1 minute of riding?  The rules say that riding for the purpose of riding itself is stalling.  So why should extended riding get a point, particularly in the case where the top man hasn't gotten a turn?  If you're over a minute without a turn, wouldn't that create a potential presumption that you weren't making a full effort to turn (i.e. not stall)?

How about this: no riding time point awarded unless a turn is achieved while riding? That should reduce stall rides. 

[Hammerlock3]

People who think the top guy should get hit for stalling more either never wrestled or don't remember what its like. 

[1032004]

On 11/25/2025 at 4:33 PM, WrestlingRash said:

If you aren't trying to score, you are stalling. However, we have a riding time point, so in essence, if you are just holding on on top, you are still trying to score. I would contend that there is no such thing as stalling on top. 

This is incorrect as the rule cited in the OP states they must also work for nearfall.  Was just added a couple years ago and honestly I do actually think the amount of top regular stalling calls has increased.  There are definitely guys who do pretty much nothing but breakdowns though…AJ Ferrari one example 

[boconnell]

3 hours ago, NM1965 said:

I haven't seen that match yet. I think the ref should work with something concrete such as actual turns. If the top guy doesn't turn the bottom guy after 30 seconds, they should restart with the rider getting a warning. After another 30 seconds with no turns they should go neutral with a point awarded to the bottom guy. This also has the effect of allowing a guy to build SOME riding time. Guys can fake "working for points", but turns can't be faked. 

Why would the top guy automatically get called if he doesn't get a turn?  He has to work for near fall.  He doesn't have to achieve it.  Why would you reward bad bottom wrestling with free points and improved position?  

[BruceyB]

On 11/25/2025 at 12:50 PM, PSULou64 said:

There are a great number of guys who simply "follow" the bottom wrestler with no attempt to break down. They tight waste, sit hip on hip and react. The officials just sit there and allow riding time to accumulate and very rarely call stalling. In cases when they do call it riding time has often already been established.

I think stalling in mat wrestling is much easier to call at the high school level and below. In college it is a lot more difficult, but I do think as you mentioned, D1 referees allow the top wrestlers to engage in blatant stall tactics without any repercussion. Sitting on an ankle without an attempt to break the bottom man down, going to a single leg when the bottom wrestler gets to their feet and taking 20 seconds off the clock, dropping and clinging to an ankle at the end of periods and especially in rideouts. It's obviously very difficult to break down elite D1 wrestlers, and much harder to turn them.. but I don't think it is that difficult to tell when a top man is trying to improve their position vs. game the out of bounds by pushing guys out for a reset, dropping to an ankle, etc. and trying to earn RT through top tactics rather than legitimate riding. 

If referees would call stalling when the top man is stalling, they would either need to kick the bottom man to avoid giving up the stall call, or actually learn to wrestle from the top position rather than game the rules in hopes of racking up 1 minute of riding. 

I'm not for adding more caveats to the riding time point and how to earn it. Either simply get rid of it and have the reward for a rideout be the fact that you didn't give up a 1 pt escape, or simply call stalling if that is the tactic used so that the RT point is negated by the stalling point. 

[WrestlingRash]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

This is incorrect as the rule cited in the OP states they must also work for nearfall.  Was just added a couple years ago and honestly I do actually think the amount of top regular stalling calls has increased.  There are definitely guys who do pretty much nothing but breakdowns though…AJ Ferrari one example 

its an atrocious rule. if you are riding, you are trying to score. if you are trying to score, you aren't stalling. get rid of the riding time point and then its a good rule. until then, its some more subjective BS for the refs to implement when they see if, with no consistency, usually in favor of the home crowd and whichever coach is yelling louder. 

[1032004]

32 minutes ago, WrestlingRash said:

its an atrocious rule. if you are riding, you are trying to score. if you are trying to score, you aren't stalling. get rid of the riding time point and then its a good rule. until then, its some more subjective BS for the refs to implement when they see if, with no consistency, usually in favor of the home crowd and whichever coach is yelling louder. 

It can certainly be subjective, but it’s a good rule.  No one wants to watch someone just lay on top of a guy.  I don’t see a problem with simultaneously rewarding “riding” but also saying that while you’re riding you need to also work for nearfall.

[Truzzcat]

My biggest gripe still is the ankle ride, refs are super inconsistent about the time frame in which you can be on it. I also think if you go thigh pry whether it be double thy pry, claw to thy pry, chop etc... if you do not get a breakdown you should not be able to sit parallel and just rinse and repeat that sequence to keep weight on the bottom guys hands at least up to a certain point. Lastly if the top or bottom guy takes the action out of bounds in anyway that is not from organic wrestling action one of the wrestlers needs to be hit.

[PSULou64]

We can look at the efficacy of certain "turn" moves but you clearly see when someone is being broken down and a turn is behind attempted.  Nagao may not actually ever turn the guy but you cant argue the attempt.  But him getting hit for stalling when guys, like Aj Ferrari, who just follow the bottom guy, mostly never even breaking them down or attempting to is my problem.

[Rassling2]

32 minutes ago, Truzzcat said:

refs are super inconsistent

exactly, refs don’t always apply the rules consistently. A wrestler might receive a stall warning for being ridden for a short time but not for an extended period of time and vice versa.

[H82Lose]

If no action, instead of punishing the top guy, just put them back on their feet. No points awarded either way. This hurts the bottom guy from being able to get 1 point, but you give the top guy 15ish seconds if no action back up. 

[NM1965]

11 hours ago, boconnell said:

Why would the top guy automatically get called if he doesn't get a turn?  He has to work for near fall.  He doesn't have to achieve it.  Why would you reward bad bottom wrestling with free points and improved position?  

It's easy to fake working for points. You know that. That's why I look for something concrete, like an actual turn. If the bottom wrestler is really bad at the position then the top guy shouldn't have a problem turning him, assuming he's actually working for a turn, right? 

[NM1965]

1 hour ago, Truzzcat said:

My biggest gripe still is the ankle ride, refs are super inconsistent about the time frame in which you can be on it. I also think if you go thigh pry whether it be double thy pry, claw to thy pry, chop etc... if you do not get a breakdown you should not be able to sit parallel and just rinse and repeat that sequence to keep weight on the bottom guys hands at least up to a certain point. Lastly if the top or bottom guy takes the action out of bounds in anyway that is not from organic wrestling action one of the wrestlers needs to be hit.

Back in my day you could ride ankles until Kingdom come. I'd hook their ankle with mine and sit on it, but it takes some work to try to for turns from that position. I have seen it a lot recently, I was thinking the rules had been changed again without me knowing. 

Oh yeah, excellent post, by the way. 

 

[NM1965]

40 minutes ago, H82Lose said:

If no action, instead of punishing the top guy, just put them back on their feet. No points awarded either way. This hurts the bottom guy from being able to get 1 point, but you give the top guy 15ish seconds if no action back up. 

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Drifting close to FS though. 

[H82Lose]

13 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Drifting close to FS though. 

No I agree with you, it is for sure. Just trying to think of ways to keep action. I mentioned  there is a highschool tourney in Ohio, they do this. Ref's discretion, if nothing is happening on top, they put them on their feet. Scoring was much higher (obviously) and it was fun. Now, the downside, if you are really good on top, it eliminates that, or I guess it makes you hurry up and figure out turns.  Double boots would not be advised in this scenario lol. 

The stall call on getting forced out has been good for folk, in my opinion. These guys know they have to circle back in. So, if we can figure out the top/bottom situation, we maybe on to something. 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, PSULou64 said:

We can look at the efficacy of certain "turn" moves but you clearly see when someone is being broken down and a turn is behind attempted.  Nagao may not actually ever turn the guy but you cant argue the attempt.  But him getting hit for stalling when guys, like Aj Ferrari, who just follow the bottom guy, mostly never even breaking them down or attempting to is my problem.

I agree what AJ does is stalling, but I also think riding parallel with double boots is also (same when Fix did it often).  Pretty hard to get a turn from there on anyone that’s half-decent.

[boconnell]

7 hours ago, NM1965 said:

It's easy to fake working for points. You know that. That's why I look for something concrete, like an actual turn. If the bottom wrestler is really bad at the position then the top guy shouldn't have a problem turning him, assuming he's actually working for a turn, right? 

Is this a serious answer?

If the bottom guy can't get out, then he must be easy to turn if you're trying to turn him?  You actually believe this?

[Hammerlock3]

5 minutes ago, boconnell said:

Is this a serious answer?

If the bottom guy can't get out, then he must be easy to turn if you're trying to turn him?  You actually believe this?

You could train a non wrestler to avoid getting turned pretty easily provided they didn't have to escape....compared to any other wrestling skill anyways.