|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Justin Hayes added to this discussion on July 19, 2007
|
Although this topic has been discussed on numerous occasions (on many, if not all, wrestling forums), after considering the caliber of wrestling experience represented on the "Members List", I thought I'd reintroduce it.
Is there a viable way to improve matters related to "stalling" (especially at the high school level)?
Clearly, there is a need for a "stalling" option on the part of the ref (otherwise, many matches would digress into a war of attrition and tactical clock watching with a "buzzer beating" score in the 11th hour).
However, there seems to be a maddening gap between one of the more subjective elements of our sport (an imperfect authority trying to discern the motive of one, maybe two, other individuals based on their body language...and, if being honest, perhaps time on the clock, historical precedent, competitor's perceived ability, and so on)
and the magnitude of the consequences to the individual deemed the "staller"
(especially in weighty "go to State(s)" and State Championship matches).
The best improvement I've heard is the "Choice of Positions" approach (i.e. first "stalling" is a warning, the subsequent "stalling" calls permit the aggressor an immediate choice of position), however, there may be other better ideas out there?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on July 21, 2007
|
This is a great topic. I think it hasn't gotten a lot of feedback not because it's not a good question, but because there is
no easy answer
.
Stalling is not good by any means, but strategic defensive wrestling can produce wins in tight matches. The line between defensive wrestling and stalling can be blurry.
I am in favor of a "choice of position" incentive for the aggressive wrestler rather than just giving that wrestler a point.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on July 21, 2007
|
The line between strategic defensive wrestling and stalling is drawn by the ref. And all too often, the ref is unsure of where it lies until he looks at the clock and sees the time remaining or a close bout.
Not all refs are this way. One story in particular a ref told me once. Kid A was up by 6 or 7 points and was well on his way to win the match - just in control and dominate - when, with about 20 seconds left shot a double. He got the takedown and kid B balled up. The ref told me he watched the bottom guy and as he was calling "Stalling, bottom man." time expired. The coach of kid B asked the ref why he called the stalling and he said because he was! Time didn't matter to him, score didn't matter to him. Nothing matter but the criteria. I like that kind of ref.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Brendan Moody added to this discussion on July 22, 2007
|
I like the idea of aggressor being able to pick position, but that could never be viable... what if a kid was excellent on top? A kid could just stall to have another choose down, then he has his opponent in a position within his strengths. With that said, I still like the idea, but in needs tweaked, I wish I had something to add to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Dan Ransick added to this discussion on July 22, 2007
|
Stalling is by far the hardest thing to call in wrestling on all levels. Some styles are just slow and can look like your stalling while others are just all up tempo. I really think that some kind of criteria needs to be established with stalling so the refs know what to call and not leave it up to judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on July 22, 2007
|
Points in wrestling should be earned by action. Stalling, in spite of set criteria involved, remains a judgement call on the part of the official. I don't mind official judgement being part of the match. I mind that judgement leading to points being awarded. I've seen too many matches adversely affected by stalling points.
It's also crazy that we still award points for illegal armbars or full nelsons when wrestlers don't purposely attempt these moves. The same can be said of illegal head scissors. Just call potentially dangerous and allow the wrestler to correct the action.
I continue to favor the idea of allowing a wrestler to choose position when his opponent is penalized for stalling. This would allow the wrestler seen as the aggressor to put himself into a favorable position to score. As always, action should determine points.
Another thought--let's get rid of the "kick out" by takedown artists. Make a wrestler that scores a takedown actively work to turn his opponent. If he can't score back points or secure a fall--and his opponent can't gain an escape or reversal--then stop the action, call it a stalemate (since neither wrestler can improve) and put both wrestlers back on their feet with no escape point awarded. This would eliminate the wrestler that scores early but gives a few kick out escapes from being penalized later in the match.
Apply this rule in college and GET RID OF RIDING TIME! It's institutionalized stalling!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Justin Hayes added to this discussion on July 22, 2007
|
I think Kornblut's suggestion is worth consideration (at face value, it has a nice tune and I, personally, can dance to it).
I'd argue the point from this perspective:
The consequences of a stalling call can be exhorbitantly high under the right circumstances.
Combine that premise with the fact that this particular situation is inherently mired in human subjectivity, perhaps more so than any other match situation, and the question begs to be asked, "Since we can't change the subjective component of this scenario...can we make the consequences more appropriate?"
The ref can't perfectly discern. The fans think they can. And the coaches and wrestler want to win.
It seems the solution is to amp down the consequences to counterbalance the potential "perfect storm" of chaos, accusations, and heartbreak that can erupt from stalling call.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Brendan Moody added to this discussion on July 22, 2007
|
Not allowing an escape point for a kick out? Let's just change from folkstyle to freestyle. I have actually heard a few coaches that think a lot of problems would be solved if High School wrestling was freestyle... this could be one reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Stalling: A Viable Improvement?
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on July 23, 2007
|
Brendan--I didn't say there shouldn't be no point for a kickout. I'm saying that the kickout should be illegal. All wrestlers should work to turn once they secure a takedown--like freestyle and greco. We'd get a more pure result.
Justin Hayes--I like your comment about the price of a stalling point being exorbitantly high under the right circumstances. I have seen far too many matches where stalling points directly determined the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
