learntherules Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 12345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgamehoss Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 It is clear that no one who has commented on this topic has any real clue as to what they are talking about. According to the nfhs presentation on stalling, the referee should have called potentially dangerous the first time Wright stood up and then called Eppert for stalling each additional time. Legs are to be used to secure a fall or nearfall and not to ride. It is the duty of the top man to use the legs in this manner. For those of you saying Wright should've been called for stalling, you are basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his primary escape because Eppert had legs in. It shouldn't have gone to OT because Eppert should have been hit for stalling more. You may not like that, but those are the rules. So you had to go and get yourself a sock puppet to make that post? Afraid of revealing how little you know under your usual moniker? I had this discussion with an official less than a month ago, and he said if the bottom attempts to stand while legs are in, he is stalling. Like I said earlier, we need to pose this question in "Ask the officials" and see what they say as a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 It is clear that no one who has commented on this topic has any real clue as to what they are talking about. According to the nfhs presentation on stalling, the referee should have called potentially dangerous the first time Wright stood up and then called Eppert for stalling each additional time. Legs are to be used to secure a fall or nearfall and not to ride. It is the duty of the top man to use the legs in this manner. For those of you saying Wright should've been called for stalling, you are basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his primary escape because Eppert had legs in. It shouldn't have gone to OT because Eppert should have been hit for stalling more. You may not like that, but those are the rules. How does that rule work with this: "5-25-6c NEW; 7-6-6c NEW: Referees now have rules support for a stalling call against a wrestler who repeatedly creates a stalemate situation to simply prevent his/her opponent from scoring and not from his/her own attempt to score." http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/09/200809_nfhs_wrestling_rules_cha.aspx If Eppert had the legs in before Wright stood up, Wright was the one repeatedly creating the stalemate situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgamehoss Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 It is clear that no one who has commented on this topic has any real clue as to what they are talking about. According to the nfhs presentation on stalling, the referee should have called potentially dangerous the first time Wright stood up and then called Eppert for stalling each additional time. Legs are to be used to secure a fall or nearfall and not to ride. It is the duty of the top man to use the legs in this manner. For those of you saying Wright should've been called for stalling, you are basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his primary escape because Eppert had legs in. It shouldn't have gone to OT because Eppert should have been hit for stalling more. You may not like that, but those are the rules. How does that rule work with this: "5-25-6c NEW; 7-6-6c NEW: Referees now have rules support for a stalling call against a wrestler who repeatedly creates a stalemate situation to simply prevent his/her opponent from scoring and not from his/her own attempt to score." http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/09/200809_nfhs_wrestling_rules_cha.aspx If Eppert had the legs in before Wright stood up, Wright was the one repeatedly creating the stalemate situation. AWWWWWW SNNNNNNAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 How many shots did Eppert attempt compared to Wright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinedad Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Is not taking a shot considered stalling? There are many wrestlers that do not shoot, but they are not avoiding wrestling. I would caution most wrestlers when going against Wright to not shoot, but instead try and counter his shots. getting into a shooting conteast with Brandon is a lot like getting into a head pounding contest with Cashe. You are not going to win very many of those. Camden wrestled a great match, the type of match he had to wrestle to beat Brandon. He treid to neutralize Brandons quickness, and get the match down on the mat where he could do what he had to do to secure the win. This is good wrestling, knowing your opponent and making them wrestle a match that they are uncomfortable with. Knowing coach Wright, the next time these two kids square off, he will have worked on the areas that Brandon needs, and Camden will have to come up with a different approach to win again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 How many shots did Eppert attempt compared to Wright? He wasn't called for stalling for not shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I know he wasn't but Eppert was way busier on his feet as well. I thought Wright could have been dinged a couple of times while on their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I know he wasn't but Eppert was way busier on his feet as well. I thought Wright could have been dinged a couple of times while on their feet. Gotcha. I thought you were arguing the other way. I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not a big fan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 what are your views on the stalling calls during the match? i know what conseco thought of them. i am just curious, i was neurtal on that match, im not saying it was bad reffin- im just wondering. I thought it should a have been more stalling calls on eppert he rode wright like his life depended on it and it worked in his favor .eppert was trailing the edge of the mat and backing up and wright didnt look good it almost seems he gave that to eppert . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Peck Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 It is clear that no one who has commented on this topic has any real clue as to what they are talking about. According to the nfhs presentation on stalling, the referee should have called potentially dangerous the first time Wright stood up and then called Eppert for stalling each additional time. Legs are to be used to secure a fall or nearfall and not to ride. It is the duty of the top man to use the legs in this manner. For those of you saying Wright should've been called for stalling, you are basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his primary escape because Eppert had legs in. It shouldn't have gone to OT because Eppert should have been hit for stalling more. You may not like that, but those are the rules. How does that rule work with this: "5-25-6c NEW; 7-6-6c NEW: Referees now have rules support for a stalling call against a wrestler who repeatedly creates a stalemate situation to simply prevent his/her opponent from scoring and not from his/her own attempt to score." http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/09/200809_nfhs_wrestling_rules_cha.aspx If Eppert had the legs in before Wright stood up, Wright was the one repeatedly creating the stalemate situation. The rule mentioned above actually gives no support for calling stalling in the situation where Eppert had the legs in and Wright was standing up since no "stalemate" was ever called. The call in each situation was (or should have been) "potentially dangerous" and not a "stalemate". Now, if the Official called stalling because, in his opinion, the top man was not working for the fall that would be his perogative, but it should have nothing to do with the rule mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyNavy Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 For what it's worth . . . From the Case Book page 51: 7.6 SITUATION: While down on the mat, Wrestler A, who is in control, applies a grapevine to Wrestler B?s leg and, at that time, B, stands, bearing all the weight of A. The referee stops the match immediately because this is a potentially dangerous situation and, accordingly, must be stopped. What is the call to be made by the referee? RULING: The first time this situation occurs, it would be potentially dangerous and the match is simply restarted at the center of the mat. If it occurs a second time, the referee will call potentially dangerous and consider stalling on Wrestler B. The third time it occurs, there is no question that it would be considered stalling on Wrestler B. 7.6.1 SITUATION A: Wrestler B, the defensive wrestler, is able to stand and, Wrestler A, throws in legs where all of A?s weight is supported by the defensive wrestler. At this time the referee stops the match and categorizes this as potentially dangerous. What happens if this occurs a second time? RULING: If it occurs a second time, the referee will call potentially dangerous and consider stalling on Wrestler A. The third time it occurs there is no question it would be considered stalling on Wrestler A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTights7 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Eppert was never working for a fall. I thought it is only potentionally dangerous if the wrestler has both legs in and the bottom wrestler comes to his feet? There is nothing dangerous when a guy has one leg in. Eppert was called for stalling because he would jump on Wrights back to get his second leg in so he could get a stalemate call. Also, its very funny that everyone is saying Wright didnt shoot and Eppert was much more busy on his feet. However when people get on here and talk about how Cashe shot about 20times more then Tsirtis no one thinks Tsirtis was satlling at all. After Eppert was hit for stalling then he just started to hang-on to Wrights ankel not working any type of fall. If you say Eppert was running from Wright in the final OT then idk what match you were watching becuase I thought I was at a track meet. Wright on his feet was never backing up constantly moving forward. Eppert did shoot. But people on this board are hypocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Eppert was never working for a fall. I thought it is only potentionally dangerous if the wrestler has both legs in and the bottom wrestler comes to his feet? There is nothing dangerous when a guy has one leg in. Eppert was called for stalling because he would jump on Wrights back to get his second leg in so he could get a stalemate call. Also, its very funny that everyone is saying Wright didnt shoot and Eppert was much more busy on his feet. However when people get on here and talk about how Cashe shot about 20times more then Tsirtis no one thinks Tsirtis was satlling at all. After Eppert was hit for stalling then he just started to hang-on to Wrights ankel not working any type of fall. If you say Eppert was running from Wright in the final OT then idk what match you were watching becuase I thought I was at a track meet. Wright on his feet was never backing up constantly moving forward. Eppert did shoot. But people on this board are hypocrits. Your right, blame Wright's loss on me if that makes you feel better. Is it possible to have discussion without all the name calling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silence Dogood Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Eppert was never working for a fall. I thought it is only potentionally dangerous if the wrestler has both legs in and the bottom wrestler comes to his feet? There is nothing dangerous when a guy has one leg in. Eppert was called for stalling because he would jump on Wrights back to get his second leg in so he could get a stalemate call. Also, its very funny that everyone is saying Wright didnt shoot and Eppert was much more busy on his feet. However when people get on here and talk about how Cashe shot about 20times more then Tsirtis no one thinks Tsirtis was satlling at all. After Eppert was hit for stalling then he just started to hang-on to Wrights ankel not working any type of fall. If you say Eppert was running from Wright in the final OT then idk what match you were watching becuase I thought I was at a track meet. Third period starts at around 4:20. The stalling is called after 3 potentially dangerous situations that are all very similar. In which one(s) did Eppert put the legs in after they were on their feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCard Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 silence dogoood, 1st PD call, no legs in. 2nd PD call legs in 3rd PD legs came in as wright was in a tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not a big fan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 It is clear that no one who has commented on this topic has any real clue as to what they are talking about. According to the nfhs presentation on stalling, the referee should have called potentially dangerous the first time Wright stood up and then called Eppert for stalling each additional time. Legs are to be used to secure a fall or nearfall and not to ride. It is the duty of the top man to use the legs in this manner. For those of you saying Wright should've been called for stalling, you are basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his primary escape because Eppert had legs in. It shouldn't have gone to OT because Eppert should have been hit for stalling more. You may not like that, but those are the rules. How does that rule work with this: "5-25-6c NEW; 7-6-6c NEW: Referees now have rules support for a stalling call against a wrestler who repeatedly creates a stalemate situation to simply prevent his/her opponent from scoring and not from his/her own attempt to score." http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/09/200809_nfhs_wrestling_rules_cha.aspx If Eppert had the legs in before Wright stood up, Wright was the one repeatedly creating the stalemate situation. eppert might have had his legs in but he wasnt trying to do ANYTHING on top stalling The rule mentioned above actually gives no support for calling stalling in the situation where Eppert had the legs in and Wright was standing up since no "stalemate" was ever called. The call in each situation was (or should have been) "potentially dangerous" and not a "stalemate". Now, if the Official called stalling because, in his opinion, the top man was not working for the fall that would be his perogative, but it should have nothing to do with the rule mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awood2 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Stop hating on the refs! That was the absolute correct call. He actually conducted the match very liberally : The plain fact is that the call only TIED the match, and it rewarded the bottom wrestler for IMPROVING HIS POSITION several times. The top wrestler has the responsibility at that point to return him to the mat (aka, not creating a stalemate, potentially dangerous...) Besides that, if there were any bad calls I am sure the assistant referee would have intervened ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire77 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 just watched the video again and i did NOT see any stalling by either wrestler. if all the movement they were attempting ( moves and counters) is stalling then just about every other match i saw was stalling since there was less movement. i will defer to the ref about the way he called the match, i thought he did a good job. great wrestling!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Brown Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 From coaching against Cathedral for several years it seems to me that Eppert "played the edge or zone". In years past, it has been my experience that some not all Cathedral wrestlers position themselves in the zone or near the edge of the mat. Eppert did exactly that during the match. Wright took three shots in the first thirty seconds of the match. Think about if the offensive wrestler attempts at shot at the defensive wrestler in the zone more times than not they will either go out of bounds and restart. If the defensive wreslter is in the zone he can circle in against the shot and reshot against the offensive wrestler "staying active". You decided good stragey or not. One thing I know for sure is that this will fuel the hungry for Wright's second title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts