Riding Time and Top Wrestling

[PSULou64]

I have posted regarding top stalling and what the ncaa rule book defines as such. The failure of officials to make top guys wrestle and allow them to clearly just hold the bottom guy down has become painful to watch.  After watching this weekend's matches I feel that there are too many wrestlers doing this now and I fear it's only getting worse.

This has been suggested before but is it time to try it out?:

A wrestler can only earn riding time after they have earned a takedown or backpoints.  If you start the second or third period on top, without having earned a takedown previously, a clock records your riding time but you don't "earn it" until you have satisfied the takedown or backpoints requirement. 

This doesn't alleviate these 1 to 1 matches going into overtime but I have different thoughts on how to address that.

[Gene Mills Fan]

Its hard enough to get a ride out,  and I don't think you should loose points while in control. Maybe a warning then after top stalling is called second time they go neutral no points. I think the ref's would call it more.  

[BigRedFan]

So, guys on top aren't allowed to or rewarded for preventing an escape?

[PSULou64]

22 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Its hard enough to get a ride out,  and I don't think you should loose points while in control. Maybe a warning then after top stalling is called second time they go neutral no points. I think the ref's would call it more.  

They aren't losing points, they just aren't awarded points either.  If they called top for stalling when they are clearly just keeping a wrestler down, not even breaking them down or when they are waiting for them to stand up just to mat return them, this wouldn't be the issue I feel it has become. 

12 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

So, guys on top aren't allowed to or rewarded for preventing an escape?

In essence you are still "rewarded" because they don't earn a point if they can't get out either.

[Fletcher]

As long as we give a point for riding time, riding with no effort to turn is still being offensive. It's not stalling if you're trying to secure that riding time point (or protect it if already earned).

[forkemaz]

46 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Its hard enough to get a ride out,  and I don't think you should loose points while in control. Maybe a warning then after top stalling is called second time they go neutral no points. I think the ref's would call it more.  

Its an interesting idea but having different outcomes for stall calls is convulted and sounds messy. What happens when the same man is called for stalling nuetral. Thatd be his third call. What about if hes called again?

[PSULou64]

16 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

As long as we give a point for riding time, riding with no effort to turn is still being offensive. It's not stalling if you're trying to secure that riding time point (or protect it if already earned).

Can you point to the rules where it states that because then we have a rules issue because this would contradict their description of what stalling is.

[Fletcher]

6 minutes ago, PSULou64 said:

Can you point to the rules where it states that because then we have a rules issue because this would contradict their description of what stalling is.

It's just what I've always assumed to be the case. If someone is trying to score points in any position - top, bottom, or neutral - it's the opposite of stalling.

[Fletcher]

9 minutes ago, PSULou64 said:

Can you point to the rules where it states that because then we have a rules issue because this would contradict their description of what stalling is.

And I agree that we have a rules conflict. We're defining riding without turning as stalling, while at the same time rewarding it with a point. Should be one of the other.

[PSULou64]

This is the definition of top stalling according to the ncaa

Art. 15. On-the-Mat Stalling Situations. Offensive and defensive stalling situations 
also include:
a. The offensive wrestler does not aggressively attempt to break down the opponent and work toward obtaining near fall points and/or a pin

[HokieDave87]

Just let the top guy do what he does as long as he's moving around, fighting for hand control, etc. 

Call stalling on top if it's absolutely egregious but at that point you can usually call it on bottom as well. 

[rsotelo]

I still think they should award 1 point for EACH MINUTE of riding time.  I think it would create more urgency to get out on bottom.

 

[The Kid]

3 minutes ago, rsotelo said:

I still think they should award 1 point for EACH MINUTE of riding time.  I think it would create more urgency to get out on bottom.

 

I think they should eliminate riding time altogether. 

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by The Kid

[Gene Mills Fan]

10 hours ago, rsotelo said:

I still think they should award 1 point for EACH MINUTE of riding time.  I think it would create more urgency to get out on bottom.

 

yes

[PSULou64]

There's a reason they give 1 point to the bottom wrestler who has escaped. You are in the disadvantaged position and assume more risk.  When/if the top wrestler is not required to take risk themselves to break down, turn, etc. it makes it nearly impossible for the bottom wrestler to get out. Bottom wrestlers who are not careful with how they attempt to get up and out are at serious risk for tilts, cradles. Rewarding top guys more seems like a terrible option 

[NotThatDave]

12 hours ago, rsotelo said:

I still think they should award 1 point for EACH MINUTE of riding time.  I think it would create more urgency to get out on bottom.

 

I agree with this, but I'm not zealous about it. Because, when does a guy with over two minutes of riding time ever really need that extra point?

[Gene Mills Fan]

1 hour ago, PSULou64 said:

There's a reason they give 1 point to the bottom wrestler who has escaped. You are in the disadvantaged position and assume more risk.  When/if the top wrestler is not required to take risk themselves to break down, turn, etc. it makes it nearly impossible for the bottom wrestler to get out. Bottom wrestlers who are not careful with how they attempt to get up and out are at serious risk for tilts, cradles. Rewarding top guys more seems like a terrible option 

So why does everyone pick bottom if top is so easy to score from??

[PSULou64]

I don't remember saying it was easy to score from top. I don't think anything in wrestling, other than losing, is easy and just going out on the mat in of itself is a hard thing to do. 

My issue isn't rewarding the riding time point either it's the conflict between what stalling on top is defined as and the dilemma it creates.

[Gene Mills Fan]

I think they give the point because you eliminate control.   And twice as much if you reverse control.   You're not at risk until you succumb to technique.

[pmilk]

How is being on bottom a disadvantage? You have the opportunity to escape, reverse, limit RT, possibly get back points. Perhaps coaches/wrestlers should spend more time working on effective bottom techniques rather than complaining that the guy on top is "stalling." And why shouldn't the top man be rewarded with points for control? You get points for control on TD's, reversals, tilts, NF's. Watched MSU/Northwestern on BTN. One match went like this- 0-0 1st. 2nd MSU top..NW reverses at 1:53. 3rd. NW takes down...MSU rides 2:00...totals 3:53 RT...loses 2-1. Enough action that there was no stalling. Sorry, but RT should have more value. 1pt for every 30 sec would increase the activity/action. I hear no one screaming "stalling" in Freestyle when in par terre bottom man flattens out like a post-it note on the mat while the top man fiddle farts around for the 5-7 secs before they go feet. Some of the problems with folkstyle nowadays is the infusion of freestyle concepts. Go back and look at some of the brackets/scores from '68-'85 which was pre-freestyle infusion.  In virtually every sport, control is a primary goal for success. The rules committee has diminished the value of mat wrestling and put the emphasis on Neutral wrestling. Because down man cannot manage to free himself lies solely in his coaching or his learning the techniques, not because the top man has his ankle or he's on his stomach or he's wallowing in his own ignorance. A "push out" rule? Oh, please! Mandatory warning to someone if no score at the end of the 1st? They tried that back in the 70's...dumb rule. 

[PSULou64]

I hate to tell you this but bottom position is literally named the "disadvantaged position" or "position of disadvantage".

[2001Hokie]

Very much in favor of 1 point for each minute of riding.  With the addition of the 3 point TD, mat wrestling feels even more diminished.  There's been a lot of people talking on here and other boards that are asking to adjust the OT rules to remove the rideouts.  I don't mind them because honestly, it pushes the potential of all three aspects of the sport.  The only adjustment I'd prefer is to push it out to 1 minute.  Yes that makes it a longer OT, but it also gives enough time to legitimately go for a reversal or set up a shot once you escape.  With 30 seconds, there's usually only enough time to spring out from the bottom.  

[mr.nonothingatall]

I feel like there should be some things that guys are doing on top that should warrant a stopage or a stall.

The main being if a wrestler has both legs in and working a turn and not succeeding or is placing the opponents arm over there head than just call it stalling.

Seeing guys wrench on a shoulder for 30 seconds with both legs in, while they are way to high up on them to even accomplish the turn is stupid. All that is happening is a potental shoulder injury. Some guys can get the person to turn with both legs in but very very very few. I just see it way to often and it's pointless when someone is just wrenching a shoulder over the bottom wrestlers head, when the body cant even turn because his hips are trapped in a double leg ride with the top guy virtually straight up and down putting all the pressure down on the hips making it impossible to turn. 

Sigh

 

[alex1fly]

OPs suggestion diminishes the importance of mat wrestling and might actually backfire by incentivizing defensive wrestling until the third period (if I hold you off in the 1st/2nd then I get a free escape point when I choose down because you have no reason to commit to riding). No thanks. 

Edited February 3 by alex1fly

[pmilk]

64...I hate to tell you this, but, it's actually referred to in the rules book as "defensive" position...apparently I was wasn't taught that it was a "disadvantaged position." Thank god. The inimitable Rick Sanders "when I'm on bottom, I have him right where I want him." As far as legs go, Knownothing, how did legs get in in the first place? There are symptoms/setups that indicate legs are coming, of which one should be aware, to PREVENT them getting in. Ok, so now that they're in, there are techniques to COUNTER legs and either free yourself or reverse/escape. Should those fail, your next option is to NEUTRALIZE them and get a stalemate. On the restart, shame on you if they come in again. The effect of using legs wears a guy out, accumulates RT, kills time, keeps him from scoring, saves you energy, and keeps the ref happy (if you're actively trying stuff). As Hokie states, there are three aspects to wrestling, master all three and you should do pretty well. Deficiency in one or two areas usually leads to whining/complaining/blaming/excuses/suggesting changing rules, etc.