Jimtown 138 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 What is the correct call? Is there stalling in the ultimate tie breaker when both wrestlers are down on the mat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busstogate Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Anytime the top guy drops to the leg and hang on when the bottom guy is standing up and creating space is stalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb Spires Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 What if he isn't standing up and is on the mat kicking like hell to get his leg free? And the top wrestler likely risks the bottom man getting free and losing the match if he tries climb up the leg? What else would you do in that situation but try to hold on for dear life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 First one is stalemate, second is stalling combatspeed06 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 I thought in the ultimate tie breaker, that was considered controlled wrestling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 i don't know what the answer would be in this case because it happened 3 times but it was a crazy match!......i'm not sure that the refs knew for sure either as the call seemed to vary a bit..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 That wasn't called stalling on Hiestand at state last year and the announcers said that it isn't stalling because that's the point of UTB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 That wasn't called stalling on Hiestand at state last year and the announcers said that it isn't stalling because that's the point of UTB. Bingo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I just talked to a semi-high ranking official and he stated there is still stalling in the ultimate tiebreaker. In this situation the kid didn't even try any type of breakdown, just dropped to the ankle and was trying to just hold on. busstogate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 if that is the case then the ref made the correct call...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Correct call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Snyder Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This has been posted before. We have talked with the tournament director and he and both officials agreed that it was a bad call! IMG_5992.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatspeed06 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I have ALWAYS understood it as, in sudden death OT, the first drop to the ankle is a stalemate (which is usually called immediately) and the second time is stalling. For a great example see Maurer vs. Dolly circa 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This has been posted before. We have talked with the tournament director and he and both officials agreed that it was a bad call! IMG_5992.png From the rule book 5-23 Hands locked repeatedly around one leg of an opponent to prevent scoring is considered stalling. Nowhere in the rule book does it say there is no stalling in the tiebreakers or ultimate tiebreaker. busstogate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Snyder Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The current rule In the ultimate tie breaker is stalemate NO stalling. Stalemate as many times as necessary NO stalling. From the rule book 5-23 Hands locked repeatedly around one leg of an opponent to prevent scoring is considered stalling. Nowhere in the rule book does it say there is no stalling in the tiebreakers or ultimate tiebreaker. According to IHSAA rules interpreter stalling is to be called in overtime as the regular match with the exception of the ultimate tiebreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenadier2012 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 From what I understand, first call is a stalemate, second call is a stalling. Justification being that the top wrestler earned the choice to get the ride out, so it is difficult to penalize him. I say that tongue in cheek because I wasn't there. If it was blatantly obvious he was trying to avoid wrestling by just dropping to the ankle and hanging on then I agree with the stalling because you still have to make an attempt to ride out the period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 bottom line is the wrestler was hanging on to the opposing wrestlers ankle while that wrestler jumped/ran/hopped/kicked to get out on all three occasions and never got away.....as i recall, it was once during the match and twice during the ot...........so there has to be a rule book answer....what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Without even a feeble attempt to move up and improve it is a good stalling call. Stalling can still occur during the overtime periods. The wrestler on top does not have to work for a pin, but he still cannot stall. As I stated earlier, I discussed this with a very high ranking official for about a half hour and with no bias towards either of the wrestlers or teams, it was the correct call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebestthatneverwas Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 In the ultimate tie breaker controlled wrestling ON THE MAT is not always stalling, BUT once the wrestlers come to their feet it is no longer controlled wrestling. The official would call it a stale mate immediately and restart in the referees position. Again the defensive wrestler comes to his feet it is no longer controlled wrestling, and the offensive wrestler drops to the ankle and makes no attempt to work up, it is the officials discretion to either stale mate it or call stalling. If it were only the first stalemate warning, then the match would be restarted as before. If it is the second incident then stalemate could be called, or a stalling warning. Most definitely if it were to happen the third time it would be considered repeatedly and then stalling would be called, this would be the officials judgment as he has a better feel as to whether he is going to call it after the second time the offensive wrestler drops to the ankle or the third time. As to the comment that the same thing happened in the State Finals, we hear it was the same exact thing that happened, there are NO two exact same things. It could have been earlier in the UTB or later and there wasn't enough time to call it or other variables that play into that match. It is Judgmental and the feel of the official on the mat at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 First, stalling should be called the same no matter what time in the match. It doesnt matter if in the first period or in the ultimate tie breaker. Referees dont call it enough in tie breakers, as its controversial and takes a lot of courage. Doesnt mean its not stalling. Do we call take downs differently in a tie breaker? Does it say anywhere in the rule book or interpretions book that we should call stalling different at any time in the match? I also see a lot of referees use the stalemate as a copout in lieu of calling stalling. I think the sitting or grabbing on the ankle is a good example of that. If top guy sits on an ankle, he should move up or let it go after a short period of time. If he makes no attempt to improve this is stalling, not a stalemate. I say Kudos to the referee who made the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There are some incorrect arguments being used on both sides of this issue. Stalling is NOT THE SAME in the UTB. However, stalling CAN BE CALLED in the UTB. See below from "points of emphasis" regarding overtime periods a couple of years ago: Points of Emphasis:1. At any point during the three-tiebreaker process, the match is over if a fall occurs.2. In Tiebreakers I and II, stalling will be call the same as in the regular match and Overtime Period.3. As in the past, stalling will be indicated differently in the Ultimate Tiebreaker. A wrestler will not be warned or penalized for stalling when he controls his opponent with a traditional riding maneuver. It's clear from this, as it is taught by rules interpreters to officials, that stalling won't be called in the UTB if "traditional" riding is used. However, attacking an ankle and hanging on does not fall under this. As others have said, the correct officiating mechanics are to go to a quick stalemate and a verbal warning if there is hanging on an ankle that seems like a clear stall tactic (possibly even more than one warning, depending on the nuances of the situation and the interperation of the official as to what's happening). Then call stalling if it happens again. I didn't see the Al Smith match, so I have no opinion on that match; but as others have said, stalling can in fact happen in this UTB situation. Jimtown 138 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimtown 138 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Thanks, for all of the input. This is a stupid question, but I need to ask it. Is there a difference between "attacking an ankle and hanging on" or "having a leg, slipping to the ankle and hanging on for dear life"? I see one as being malicious and the other as sheer desperation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Thanks, for all of the input. This is a stupid question, but I need to ask it. Is there a difference between "attacking an ankle and hanging on" or "having a leg, slipping to the ankle and hanging on for dear life"? The key question to ask is, "is he working up, or is he buying time?" If the kid you support lost, that means the official interpreted him to have had the possibility to work up or to work off the ankle for a breakdown and/or "traditional riding maneuver." You may have interpreted it differently and you're opinion may be valid; but if that was his interpretation, he definitely did not make a call outside of the rules or outside of accepted mechanics for the situation. In the end, if you're looking for any black and white answer for stalling, it's just not going to come--even for something like this that seems so cut and dried. Jimtown 138 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Bleachers Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 yes attacking an ankle is to better enhance your position, but hanging on an ankle is stalling! To be honest if you get to UTB and have not been warned I would say make it look good but desperation is the name of the game. Jimtown 138 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts