No stall warning

[Gasman]

Because people are itching to talk about something. 
 

One of my least favorite parts of the wrestling match is a 4-3 match with 30 seconds left. The winning wrestler stalls for about 20 seconds, the ref calls a worthless stalling call and then the match is over. Essentially out of a 6 minute match we have allowed 30 seconds or about 18% of the match to be completely wasted and void of determining who is actually a better wrestler. 
 

what if we eliminated the warning? As a previous wrestler , coach and fan I want to see six full minutes of wrestling. 
 

To me the warning just allows the wrestlers to rest for 30 seconds of the match and it protects the ref from making a potentially match altering call. 
 

what are your thoughts?

[LUBWrestler]

Stalling is a very subjective call. There is not enough criteria to determine stalling in specific positions. From an official's viewpoint, we should transition to college rules for stalling. (i.e. backing up straight out of the circle) Another call that grinds my gears is stalling on top. Earlier this year, we had a leg rider beat this kid up for almost 5 minutes. Couldn't turn him because the athlete was stubborn on bottom. Not a problem. However, with 20 seconds left, the official calls our kid for stalling on top. The call where top wrestler doesn't come off the hips, though he had a leg in and was trying to power half. That gave the bottom wrestler one more free chance to get a reversal after the reset and win the match. On the other hand, if the referee didn't call stalling, our athlete would have won a tight match by keeping the athlete on bottom. Not to mention the athlete on bottom was not warned, though he couldn't get up for nearly 5 minutes. Stalling needs to be more precise on how it is called, interpreted, and in which times it is necessary. Officials put themselves in the match when they calling stalling in these specific situations. Let the wrestlers decide.

[Gasman]

I totally agree. My theory is that if wrestlers knew any sign of stalling would cost you a point then it would eliminate the chance of them stalling in the first place. 

[aoberlin]

29 minutes ago, Gasman said:

Because people are itching to talk about something. 
 

One of my least favorite parts of the wrestling match is a 4-3 match with 30 seconds left. The winning wrestler stalls for about 20 seconds, the ref calls a worthless stalling call and then the match is over. Essentially out of a 6 minute match we have allowed 30 seconds or about 18% of the match to be completely wasted and void of determining who is actually a better wrestler. 
 

what if we eliminated the warning? As a previous wrestler , coach and fan I want to see six full minutes of wrestling. 
 

To me the warning just allows the wrestlers to rest for 30 seconds of the match and it protects the ref from making a potentially match altering call. 
 

what are your thoughts?

Depends on what you call stalling the last 30 seconds. If the wrestler hasn't had any stalling calls, he has the right to hold a good position, have good head-hand defense, and only attack if there is a clear opening. Basically don't force anything and cost yourself the match. As much as we want our wrestlers to bang and attack the whole match, this is also a strategy for the sport. Should a basketball team that is winning drive down the court and take the shot when it isn't necessary and they can let the time run off? Should a football team make a long throw just to try and score one last time even though they are winning?

 

Yes, if the wrestler is blatantly backing up or running, call it and call it quick that is a gimme. But holding a position and not doing anything dumb is something different. Remember, he is the wrestler who earned the right to control the tempo and the match especially if he hasn't given up a stalling call yet. So many coaches and fans want to act like they got ripped off when this happens. Tell your wrestler not to give up the first 4 points, and this won't happen.

[Silence Dogood]

One of my biggest stalling pet peeves happens when wrestler A gets a takedown and wrestler B gets an escape in period 1. Wrestler A chooses bottom and gets rode out in period 2. Wrestler B chooses bottom and gets rode out in period 3 and even though it looked exactly the same as what was happening in period 2, wrestler A gets called for stalling 2x (because he was winning) to tie the match up at 2 and send it to overtime. 

[AndyStJ]

Leading late in the match and walking backwards out of bounds is the definition of fleeing the mat: "Going out of the wrestling area or forcing an opponent out of the wrestling area, by either wrestler at any time as a means of avoiding wrestling, is a technical violation ". Similarly for wrestlers who hug the edge of the mat and then dive out of bounds to avoid a takedown. 

 

Fleeing the mat does not require a warning but is never called. I wish refs would call it as it would make some matches much better. 

[JC123]

I can’t stand how different some officials are with stalling you have one your first match that will call stalling right away if kid stands up from bottom and trying to get away. Then next match will not call stalling for the same thing the whole match. One called stalling on a kid 5 seconds into the 2nd period kid stood up and our kid put him right back down and called stalling on top.

[Coach Brobst]

I'm with Coach Diep on this one. Stalling needs more clearly defined criteria.

 

However, I'm opposed to eliminating the warning. The other athlete had the same 5 minutes and 30 seconds to score that the winning athlete had. This is why scoring early is important in our sport. I don't advocate for kids stalling with 30 seconds left, but As the leading wrestler, you have "earned" the right to play a little defense when you build a lead. Can't complain as the losing wrestler that he was "just stalling" because how the heck did he score the points in the first place? It sure wasn't by stalling.

 

I like the one warning and then a point. Why does the other kid get a point just for taking crazy shots at the end of a match that have 0 chance of landing?  Score early, score often, don't let it come down to the last 30 seconds.

 

We'd all love to see athletes do nothing but shoot and score and hit fun scrambles for 6 straight minutes but all the kids care about is the score at the end. They took risks earlier to score points, they have now got the right to take fewer risks late. 

 

I just hate when a kid has taken all of the risks all match and they don't hit the other kid for stalling for the first 5 and a half minutes, then want to throw up a stall call with 10 seconds left on the kid that had done all the work the whole match. It's like stalling doesn't exist until you're winning. Just let them wrestle. 

 

Just one coach's humble opinion.

 

 

[Coach Brobst]

24 minutes ago, aoberlin said:

Depends on what you call stalling the last 30 seconds. If the wrestler hasn't had any stalling calls, he has the right to hold a good position, have good head-hand defense, and only attack if there is a clear opening. Basically don't force anything and cost yourself the match. As much as we want our wrestlers to bang and attack the whole match, this is also a strategy for the sport. Should a basketball team that is winning drive down the court and take the shot when it isn't necessary and they can let the time run off? Should a football team make a long throw just to try and score one last time even though they are winning?

 

Yes, if the wrestler is blatantly backing up or running, call it and call it quick that is a gimme. But holding a position and not doing anything dumb is something different. Remember, he is the wrestler who earned the right to control the tempo and the match especially if he hasn't given up a stalling call yet. So many coaches and fans want to act like they got ripped off when this happens. Tell your wrestler not to give up the first 4 points, and this won't happen.

Must have been typing this at same time as you, Andy. +1 to what he said. 

[JC123]

And I guess nobody wants to officiate because I don’t know about rest of state but in southern Indiana we have a few officials who can’t even get on the ground to call pins overweight and a few older guys. It’s getting pretty bad.

[ontherise219]

Man I think it’s kinda easy, all the officials I know wrestled and it’s pretty obvious when someone is avoiding wrestling 

 

I think my pet peeve is when wrestler A is far more dominant then wrestler B and I don’t always feel like wrestler B is stall but just being overwhelmed 

[takemtothemat]

The ref’s just need to be consistent through out the state. That was a sarcastic remark.  However, subjective calls are just that, will be near impossible for all to call it the same. Stall calls have been an area of wrestling thats been discussed forever.  

[Gasman]

Just because the wrestler has “earned” the lead doesn’t mean they”deserve” to control the tie and do nothing. 
 

I get strategy but does it really mean you’re a better wrestler if you can artfully stall for the final period. 
 

Before the shot clock was instituted in basketball the score used to be super low like 8-4 because teams got the lead early and stalled. 

[HornetSloan]

1 hour ago, JC123 said:

And I guess nobody wants to officiate because I don’t know about rest of state but in southern Indiana we have a few officials who can’t even get on the ground to call pins overweight and a few older guys. It’s getting pretty bad.

I keep saying I am going to officiate again once I am done coaching, but I like it so darn much I will probably be one of those old fat refs by the time I get to it! 

[aoberlin]

1 hour ago, Gasman said:

Just because the wrestler has “earned” the lead doesn’t mean they”deserve” to control the tie and do nothing. 
 

I get strategy but does it really mean you’re a better wrestler if you can artfully stall for the final period. 
 

Before the shot clock was instituted in basketball the score used to be super low like 8-4 because teams got the lead early and stalled. 

Not sure how long you have been coaching or if you are a coach, but I can tell you over the years, my opinions on things have been shaped by my experiences. About 10 years ago I had a senior that made it to the ticket round and had only 1 loss before then. This board had some posters that were talking about how he was overrated and would get beat in that match. He wanted to prove them wrong and he was wrestling his heart out and was up by 4 with about 30 seconds left. Their coaches and fans kept yelling that my kid was stalling, so he pressured forward and did a knee tap and then got headlocked and lost by a point. If I had a time machine and could go back and tell my kid to use the stall calls he still had, I would do it in a heartbeat. Now I coach to those situations and have that as an example. Thankfully that kid has turned into a great person and coach that I work with on the regular. And yes some jerk had the nerve to make a comment about how they were right after that match was over. I personally no longer care at all about what other coaches, wrestlers, or fans think in those situations. If my kid has earned the right to hold a position. We are going to hold a position.

[Coach Brobst]

49 minutes ago, Gasman said:

Just because the wrestler has “earned” the lead doesn’t mean they”deserve” to control the tie and do nothing. 
 

I get strategy but does it really mean you’re a better wrestler if you can artfully stall for the final period. 
 

Before the shot clock was instituted in basketball the score used to be super low like 8-4 because teams got the lead early and stalled. 

I agree halfway with your first statement. Building a lead doesn't mean you get to do nothing. However, controlling the ties is not doing nothing. That's wrestling. You have to clear my control tie that I'm using to move you before you can score on me. Can't do it? Too bad, I'm outwrestling you with just a hand fight. I'm forcing you into bad position with my tie to open up a low risk attack. Why does the Leading wrestler have to stay on the offense? Their job is to win, not entertain.

 

3 minutes ago, aoberlin said:

Not sure how long you have been coaching or if you are a coach, but I can tell you over the years, my opinions on things have been shaped by my experiences. About 10 years ago I had a senior that made it to the ticket round and had only 1 loss before then. This board had some posters that were talking about how he was overrated and would get beat in that match. He wanted to prove them wrong and he was wrestling his heart out and was up by 4 with about 30 seconds left. Their coaches and fans kept yelling that my kid was stalling, so he pressured forward and did a knee tap and then got headlocked and lost by a point. If I had a time machine and could go back and tell my kid to use the stall calls he still had, I would do it in a heartbeat. Now I coach to those situations and have that as an example. Thankfully that kid has turned into a great person and coach that I work with on the regular. And yes some jerk had the nerve to make a comment about how they were right after that match was over. I personally no longer care at all about what other coaches, wrestlers, or fans think in those situations. If my kid has earned the right to hold a position. We are going to hold a position. 

Exactly. There's a time to push the pace in the 3rd and there's a time to just win. We try to lay it on our sectional opponents and teach "slamming the door" against those you'll see again (sometimes they do it to us too). We don't want them believing they can beat us and when you hold position when up 2-3 when you could score again, it leaves that belief in your opponents' mind, so we teach go get another. But if we're wrestling anybody else. Get off the mat with the win ESPECIALLY in do our die rounds like Semi-state or first round of Regionals.

 

[Jcjcjc]

3 hours ago, Gasman said:

I totally agree. My theory is that if wrestlers knew any sign of stalling would cost you a point then it would eliminate the chance of them stalling in the first place. 

 

Greco has disqualified wrestlers for not scoring points, and wrestlers were getting disqualified left and right instead of getting risky, hoping the other wrestler would take the risk. Even if you do penalize something, it doesn't mean it will change. I don't think people get too mad about warnings; people get really mad at unforeseen penalties. 

 

Eliminating the warning would be very tough. It would go against all styles' rules currently for stalling/activity/passivity. 

 

I appreciate the best refs who talk during the match. The best example online of this is the Caldwll/Metcalf NCAA final, where the ref. is making sure the arena knows all of his intentions when making or holding calls. When I've officiated, wrestlers start wrestling and stop stalling once you say "work to improve" before you have to warn them. 

[Ahawkeye]

A WHOLE lot to get through here and I don't have time to read it all. Here's my take. We should adopt Ohio's wrestling/referring style I think it is close to NCAA. If you are not moving/trying to score you are stalling. They call it way faster in college than in Indiana, lets move towards more action.

[jonah7474]

8 hours ago, Gasman said:

Because people are itching to talk about something. 
 

One of my least favorite parts of the wrestling match is a 4-3 match with 30 seconds left. The winning wrestler stalls for about 20 seconds, the ref calls a worthless stalling call and then the match is over. Essentially out of a 6 minute match we have allowed 30 seconds or about 18% of the match to be completely wasted and void of determining who is actually a better wrestler. 
 

what if we eliminated the warning? As a previous wrestler , coach and fan I want to see six full minutes of wrestling. 
 

To me the warning just allows the wrestlers to rest for 30 seconds of the match and it protects the ref from making a potentially match altering call. 
 

what are your thoughts?

Doesn’t really matter to me that much… as an athlete and coach I have been on both sides of the fence. 

To me, why did we allow ourselves to get in that position? Could we have done more in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd? Why are we waiting until the last 30 seconds to really go after someone? Chances are we could have done more and in the end, we gave up the points. 
 

And while a match ending that way can be frustrating for the guy losing, it should also be motivation to get back to work and not give up the takedown or whatever they gave up… because if they prevent that from happening the tables have turned and so does the conversation. 

[NavyGonzo]

I think this is a double-edged sword... 

 

The biggest fault with stalling calls is that I see refs call stalling if you are simply winning, and then sprawl when your opponent takes a shot... 

 

Example: 

Ft. Wayne Semi-State championship match a few years back, I saw one of the most egregious staling calls I have ever witnessed twice (I won't name names, but those who were involved may remember)

 

Score is tied 1 - 1 with about 14 seconds left in 3rd period. No stalling calls to either wrestler at this point.

 

Wrestler A gets a TD and cuts Wrestler B, score is now 3 - 2... 10 seconds left on clock, Wrestler B takes 2 shots, Wrestler A sprawls both times and get hit for stalling twice, once per sprawl. This of course ties the match and Wrestler B wins in sudden victory...

 

My point is that there is ZERO justification on hitting Wrestler A, who has the only offensive points of the entire match, which he just scored, with 2 stalling calls for simply sprawling out to avoid a TD

[HWTDAD]

Subjective calls are bad for any sport. Period.

[jonah7474]

8 hours ago, NavyGonzo said:

I think this is a double-edged sword... 

 

The biggest fault with stalling calls is that I see refs call stalling if you are simply winning, and then sprawl when your opponent takes a shot... 

 

Example: 

Ft. Wayne Semi-State championship match a few years back, I saw one of the most egregious staling calls I have ever witnessed twice (I won't name names, but those who were involved may remember)

 

Score is tied 1 - 1 with about 14 seconds left in 3rd period. No stalling calls to either wrestler at this point.

 

Wrestler A gets a TD and cuts Wrestler B, score is now 3 - 2... 10 seconds left on clock, Wrestler B takes 2 shots, Wrestler A sprawls both times and get hit for stalling twice, once per sprawl. This of course ties the match and Wrestler B wins in sudden victory...

 

My point is that there is ZERO justification on hitting Wrestler A, who has the only offensive points of the entire match, which he just scored, with 2 stalling calls for simply sprawling out to avoid a TD

Totally agree there… surely there were other times in the match where one guy shot and the other sprawled without getting a stall call. Why didn’t they get hit then? Those type of refs need to move on… they don’t deserve to be a ref. 

[takemtothemat]

7 hours ago, HWTDAD said:

Subjective calls are bad for any sport. Period.

There’s no way to eliminate these type of calls.  It’s what keeps it interesting?