BruceyB

I don't know if it's always been like this and I never noticed, or if it's a newer thing to break the action when a stall case is made and do a reset? The inconsistency stalling and when there is a reset is what bothers me most. Here are some examples of the inconsistencies: 1. Red has double boots in, referee calls the bottom wrestler for stalling.. no reset given to benefit the stalling wrestler 2. Red is on top and is about to be reversed, out of desperation, he grabs onto Greens's leg and the referee begins to count.. stall warning given, and a reset is given to benefit the stalling wrestler. Wrestler A gets to start back on top despite nearly being reversed. 3. It's the end of the match, Red is leading 4-2. There is a restart. Red immediately floats backwards to the edge, referee hits red for stalling. There is no reset is given to hurt the stalling wrestler. Red is allowed to continue wrestling from the edge even though he stalled to get there. So in just these 3 examples we see in the circumstances: 1. Wrestler called for stalling gains no advantage due to no reset. 2. Wrestler called for stalling gains an advantage due to reset (better to give up a stall than a reversal). 3. Wrestler called for stalling gains an advantage due to no reset (they can stall to get to the edge, but are allowed to wrestle from there). Am I crazy to think that these resets/non-resets are backwards?

Should there be some kind of rule in place to reduce the ease of gaining a stalemate by desperately holding on to an ankle when you have no way to improve your position? I'm not talking about ankle scrambles where there is action, but more precisely about the position (I hope you all can picture it) where Wrestler A. has sat the corner, scoops the leg with his own, and is pressuring forward to try to get his ankle that is trapped (clung to by Wrestler B.) underneath. Wrestler be has nothing to do in the position but hold on for dear life and hope that Wrestler A. doesn't get his ankle free. I would say that Wrestler A. has 95% control in this position, but because Wrestler B. hasn't given up 100%, Wrestler A. gets nothing out of the scenario, regardless if this happens 10 times in a the course of a match. For anyone who watched the match, this is basically the story of Bouzakis vs Knox in the R12. Bouzakis spent the majority of the match in a better position than Knox, but because Knox was able to hang onto an ankle, the position would eventually get stalemated and Bouzakis would have nothing to show for it. It's not uncommon that in a match you see one wrestler doing the majority of the work in attempts to score only to be narrowly stopped by a desperate clinging to an ankle while a wrestler hopes to be saved by a stalemate. I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this situation? I have an idea of how I would change things, but I don't know if I'm in the minority that feels like a change is warranted.

It's a series of events, but if tOSU doesn't throw that brick looking for extra nearfall in the Cannon vs Fish match, who knows what we're looking at now. Cannon was a B10 finalist and and won decisively over Saldate, Miller, and Askey. If he wins that match with Fish, he could have very well beaten Chumbley and Blaze and been in the finals. That's not how it worked out, and here we are. Tervel does seem like a major loss, especially seeing the lack of development in their upper weights over the last handful of years. I definitely thought we'd see Feldman step into his own this year, but that was definitely not the case.

I think Hamiti showed more improvement in his approach more than necessarily his ability. He was always someone that seemed like he would wrestle through any position in an attempt to "win" where especially in this tournament, he looked more content to stay out of risky scrambles rather than test guys like Levi or Keegan. The old Hamiti likely starts rolling around with Keegan during that exchange in the first period, and Keegan ends up winning the scramble.

They left because they weren't the guy. Gable left because he believed he was destined to be bigger than a star within the wrestling community.

Edit: I'll hold comments until we know what's going on.

184, 165, 174, and 197 were all solid matches, 141 was awesome, and HWT was obviously the moment of the night. So all in all, 6/10 matches were typical or better, and there are always some snoozers in there. But a big part of the problem was you started with 184, then went about 40 minutes of live time with two absolutely brutal matches to watch at 125 and 133. Two matches later had a guy win at 149 that was never in on a shot, while his opponent arguably did score a takedown.. At 157 you had someone evade action for an entire period and get hit for stalling.. 3 times and win? That's a 4/5 match stretch that the way the matches played out was a pretty unsatisfactory was to crown a champion, at least in my own opinion.

It would just as much emphasis on not being the first one taken down. It would be even better to play it safe rather than risk a reattack to go down by more than a single TD the rest of the match.

I would be curious also to know in, say, top 10 matchups what the ratio is of initiators of action scoring takedowns vs how many takedowns are scored off of an opponents shot. The reattacks are so good right now that if you don't get in deep, there is a good chance you're going to end up in a position to give up a takedown, and then we're back to having to score a takedown against stalling tactics for the remainder of the match.

I mean that giving 3 points for the first takedown only would exacerbate the question that prompted this discussion. Taking a chance and giving up a reattack takedown would many times mean that you now have to score 2 takedowns to cancel out 1. This would make wrestlers less likely to take chances.

Okay, well again, the problem is that their is no penalty for challenging a call. Right now, every close call gets challenged, even if it's a long shot to be overturned because there is no reason not to. Likewise, if you're winded, just throw out a brick for a made up challenge and let you're wrestler catch a quick breather. I blame the rule, not the coaches/athletes.

Sarcasm..?

Is the point in the room with us? Most aren't blaming the athletes.. it's the lack of accountability for not showing any attempts at offense and the reluctance to call stalling to enforce a change in behavior.

The far ankle scramble perked everyone's ears up.

lol @ everyone changing their tune on Gable now. Let's bring back the old threads where most of you were saying Gable was going to tech his way through the field this year and laughing at the idea anyone could have a competitive match against him.

I hadn't seen it so apparent that our product is bad until tonight, watching match after match be excruciating to watch. I think you're definitely onto something because with the current system, if you give up 1 TD, escape, and then exchange escapes you're going to be down 4-2 in the third and have to either A. earn 3 stall calls in 2 minutes or B. score a takedown on someone gaming the stall calls while floating to the edge and then acting active once about to go OB to get an action call. Tonight was a major blackeye on the college product other than a few bright spots.

Unfortunately.. not much.

3/5 matches without an offensive point scored.

He got shot out of bounds.. that gets called in the first period pretty regularly as well.

It can also be a cumulation of stalling for all of OT, and then getting shot out of bounds being the final straw to where to referee had to eventually do something.

POV: Jesse Mendez after giving up 5 points in the first period.

Say what y'all want. I enjoy DC's enthusiasm. He's just a fan commenting on what he's seeing. It could be much worse.

Or a ref can just call stalling when wrestlers ain't doing nuthin'. The "defensive" strategy has been allowed for far too long. Bartlett, Amine, the Lewan, etc. wrestle an unwatchable style and it has been allowed by the referees. That should be an emphasis this offseason.

STFU. This is a WRESTLING thread. AMIRIGHT? @MPhillips?

You're sick.