Stalling

[TXvseveryone]

One takedown matches and holding leads by stalling is bad optics and not good for the sport.  The 3 point takedown has made running with the lead too easy. I propose getting rid of the stall warning. Instead first one is a point, second one is 2. Third is a DQ.  Guys shouldn’t be able to take 2 stalling calls to hold on to one takedown leads.

i would also rather see a 2 point stalling(similar to a caution +1) when a guy is blatantly running away. However, I do not trust officials to administer this..hence the above suggestion. 

[peanut]

Step outs solve a lot. So do tiebreakers. 

[Fletcher]

Counterpoint - I'd like to see fewer stalling calls. We're letting subjective ref. calls decide matches instead of making kids go out and win it on their own.

If you're worried about optics, this is even worse.

[He Rassle]

7 hours ago, Fletcher said:

Counterpoint - I'd like to see fewer stalling calls. We're letting subjective ref. calls decide matches instead of making kids go out and win it on their own.

If you're worried about optics, this is even worse.

I thought I was alone thinking this. Actually, I'd prefer a step out point, no riding time point, and no such thing as stalling. And returning to the 2pt takedown.

[juniorvarsity]

2 hours ago, peanut said:

Step outs solve a lot. So do tiebreakers. 

I like edge wrestling, but I'm not sold on the step out fixing stall calls. It was a good thing that they implemented the stall call for backing out of bounds, but some of these pushes and running guys out isn't exactly what the rule was meant for. I just think the step out is too drastic of a change. 

I do not like the negative wrestling subjectivity in freestyle. Where you are forced to basically be touching your opponent at the end of a close match or you get hit with a point.

In a world with push outs, how is stalling supposed to be called? 

[PSULou64]

Very rarely are guys actually backing out, they are being pushed out without an actual shot attempt and being hit for stalling. I think it's poor rule interpretation and administration rather than the way the rule is written.  It's really weird the way it has evolved.  You can circle and "defend" three or four legitimate shots, not shoot yourself, and not be called but if you get pushed out without any shot attempts against you will almost certainly get hit.  In actuality the rule really calls for the pusher to be hit for stalling just as much as the guy backing up but that almost never happens.

[Fletcher]

5 minutes ago, PSULou64 said:

Very rarely are guys actually backing out, they are being pushed out without an actual shot attempt and being hit for stalling. I think it's poor rule interpretation and administration rather than the way the rule is written.  It's really weird the way it has evolved.  You can circle and "defend" three or four legitimate shots, not shoot yourself, and not be called but if you get pushed out without any shot attempts against you will almost certainly get hit.  In actuality the rule really calls for the pusher to be hit for stalling just as much as the guy backing up but that almost never happens.

100% correct. Maybe they'll consider a change now that this has negatively impacted Hawkeye Nation.

[jajensen09]

16 hours ago, TXvseveryone said:

One takedown matches and holding leads by stalling is bad optics and not good for the sport.  The 3 point takedown has made running with the lead too easy. I propose getting rid of the stall warning. Instead first one is a point, second one is 2. Third is a DQ.  Guys shouldn’t be able to take 2 stalling calls to hold on to one takedown leads.

i would also rather see a 2 point stalling(similar to a caution +1) when a guy is blatantly running away. However, I do not trust officials to administer this..hence the above suggestion. 

I agree with a lot of this! Id like to see a stat on how many matches are won by getting the first take down! If someone  has a 4-1 lead going into the 3rd the match is basically over! Idk what the proper rule is for stalling but the product isnt where it needs to be. Teams are fighting for just 1 takedown. The amount of stalling seen as a Nebraska fan this weekend was insane! Iowas style was just push push push witn 0 attempts to score, then ohio state is completely opposite and just back up/run/ circle to the edge the entire match until someone runs into a shot where they backed up the entire match. Something needs changed having 3rd periods mean nothing sucks 

[alex1fly]

If the opponent can't score then don't reward them by calling stalling on the competitor that got a takedown. You'll just have people taking a bunch of half shots in order to get stall points and basically prescribing a particular style to the whole sport - anybody that isn't a constant attacker would get DQed every time. I don't like prevent defense for entire periods either but to fundamentally change the sport because of inconsistent stall calls is not a good fix. And I agree with posters above, you can't have a step out point because top guys will just walk bottom guys to the edge and score over and over.

[DeezyDoesIt]

Long time lurker, first time poster, but I think edge wrestling is a part of the problem. Adding step out points would force the action to center. Too many wrestlers drop to a knee and go backwards to the edge and wrestle there. With the fear of a step out, you are now forced to wrestle center. In a world with step outs, you may not even need stall calls. 

Certainly, it adds a freestyle element, but the sport is constantly changing. This summer was my first time watching a lot freestyle, and action is always happening. There are too many collegiate folkstyle matches with first periods filled with nothing. Feels like we should be trying to get away from 7 minute 1-1 matches.

[Hammerlock3]

17 hours ago, peanut said:

Step outs solve a lot. So do tiebreakers. 

people don't like step out but the one thing that we ALL KNOW DOES NOT WORK AT ALL IS RELYING ON REFEREES JUDGEMENT TO SATISFY FANS. I never realized how stupid that was until I wrote it down. We want a referee to satisfy two groups of stupid partisan people through their subjective judgment, its a stupid stupid plan. 

[WrestlingRash]

Too many people who didn't wrestle D1 want to get involved in the rules. The goal is for the best wrestler that day to win. Not to entertain some drunk never has been weirdo in the stand who likes to scream at refs to call stalling. Iowa made a monument to Dan Gable where is is berating the refs to call stalling. That is pretty silly when you think about it. 

[cl415]

6 hours ago, Coastal said:

If you institute a step out point, you might as well just go to free style. 

One almost couldn't take bottom.  Every time one would stand the top guy could run them out for a step out point.  We could call it the AJ Ferrrari tech fall.

I am sure this was said in jest but step outs would only count from neutral. 
 

That being said, people would game the system by running them to the edge while on top then letting them out and trying to force the step out once most of the hard work is done. 
 

My opinion on this topic is changing though. At some point we just need to realize that bad reffing is present in all sports and stop trying to idiot proof reffing with all the counts and things to remove subjectivity. Although I do want to see subjectivity removed in one area, which is reaction time. No more reaction time anymore in any position.

[jajensen09]

Im not sure if fleeing the mat got taken away? Or its simply not called? But it should be emphasized more 

[alex1fly]

59 minutes ago, cl415 said:

 

At some point we just need to realize that bad reffing is present in all sports and stop trying to idiot proof reffing with all the counts and things to remove subjectivity. 

I agree completely. Refs can barely keep up with the current ruleset, adding more counts doesn't help things. And there are boring stallfests in freestyle, the step out point is inconsequential towards the goal of more action in matches. In freestyle too reffing is even more subjective and inconsistent than it is in folkstyle.

[boconnell]

9 hours ago, juniorvarsity said:

I like edge wrestling, but I'm not sold on the step out fixing stall calls. It was a good thing that they implemented the stall call for backing out of bounds, but some of these pushes and running guys out isn't exactly what the rule was meant for. I just think the step out is too drastic of a change. 

I do not like the negative wrestling subjectivity in freestyle. Where you are forced to basically be touching your opponent at the end of a close match or you get hit with a point.

In a world with push outs, how is stalling supposed to be called? 

The pushout didn't fix stalling in Freestyle.  It for sure helps encourage more action, but plenty of guys are very good at staying in the circle without wrestling.  

[BillC]

Funny that I was thinking of this just this morning. What about changing the concept entirely: 1st - warning. 2nd - Offended wrestler gets choice of position. 3rd - 1 point and choice of position. 4th - 2 points and choice...and so on.

[juniorvarsity]

I know there is already a thing in place, but maybe there needs to be more emphasis or a specific number if verbal cues from refs to signal spending stall calls.

"Action", "Contact", "Center", "Work" are already used as commands to prompt more activity. Wrestlers just ignore it.

I don't think wrestling should make any significant changes to stalling. I am only mad about stalling in close/1 point matches when I am rooting for someone who is down. Maybe that is what you all are doing her, and there's nothing wrong with the rule.

[juniorvarsity]

6 hours ago, cl415 said:

I am sure this was said in jest but step outs would only count from neutral. 
 

That being said, people would game the system by running them to the edge while on top then letting them out and trying to force the step out once most of the hard work is done. 

First off, yes. I am not sure why it took so long for someone to say this, but the step out only applies to neutral. I'm not sure why this is not obvious to everyone. 

Secondly, I can't believe I never thought about someone gaming top position for a step out, which really adds a new wrinkle to the whole concept that I do not like at all. It's almost pointless to try to get an escape on the edge since top guy can move out of bounds. I can see someone standing up and getting walked to the edge, too guy purposefully unlocks his ahnds, bottom guy has to turn in to get escape point, then he gets shot out of bounds. I don't like it.

[Scouts Honor]

if only someone had warned us the 3 point takedown would do this

[forkemaz]

17 hours ago, WrestlingRash said:

Too many people who didn't wrestle D1 want to get involved in the rules.

Jason Bryant didnt wrestle. Should he not have an opinion in the rules? This is just a bad argument

[Crablegs]

10 hours ago, juniorvarsity said:

First off, yes. I am not sure why it took so long for someone to say this, but the step out only applies to neutral. I'm not sure why this is not obvious to everyone. 

Secondly, I can't believe I never thought about someone gaming top position for a step out, which really adds a new wrinkle to the whole concept that I do not like at all. It's almost pointless to try to get an escape on the edge since top guy can move out of bounds. I can see someone standing up and getting walked to the edge, too guy purposefully unlocks his ahnds, bottom guy has to turn in to get escape point, then he gets shot out of bounds. I don't like it.

That’s actually pretty easy to fix as well.  After an escape, you can’t get a step out point until the wrestlers have returned to the center circle.

[juniorvarsity]

9 minutes ago, Crablegs said:

That’s actually pretty easy to fix as well.  After an escape, you can’t get a step out point until the wrestlers have returned to the center circle.

That's a crazy rule, and I don't like it. Then the wrestler that escaped can avoid the center circle and that's gamed.

There could be some sort of count from the ref after the escape before a push out can be awarded, but that's complicated too. 

[Crablegs]

21 minutes ago, juniorvarsity said:

That's a crazy rule, and I don't like it. Then the wrestler that escaped can avoid the center circle and that's gamed.

There could be some sort of count from the ref after the escape before a push out can be awarded, but that's complicated too. 

Not really.  The top wrestler could just move back to the center.  If the bottom wrestler doesn’t come back, then it is just normal stalling.

Or they could just continue to attack and try for a takedown, they just wouldn’t get a step out point.

Edited January 27 by Crablegs

[juniorvarsity]

25 minutes ago, Crablegs said:

Not really.  The top wrestler could just move back to the center.  If the bottom wrestler doesn’t come back, then it is just normal stalling.

Or they could just continue to attack and try for a takedown, they just wouldn’t get a step out point.

It is a solution. I guess it could be on either guy to come back to center before a push out can occur, but couldn't this be gamed too? Both wrestlers could potentially use a step out in this situation, not just the top wrestler. The escape could tie the match and the top wrestler may not want to give opponent the opportunity for a push out to tie. 

Only allow escapes away from center and never return. I'm probably over doing it, but you sorta have to evaluate a drastic rule change in these manners.