|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Penn st v Oklahoma State
Steve Lester added to this discussion on February 21, 2017
My understanding is that the bottom man is stalling for standing up when legs are in. This was part of the discussion after that famous Gilman-Waters "slam" match.
Like others I don't like this rule at all. Switch the rule to stalling on the top man regardless of when legs were thrown in.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Penn st v Oklahoma State
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 21, 2017
Quote from Steve Lester's post:
|
"My understanding is that the bottom man is stalling for standing up when legs are in. This was part of the discussion after that famous Gilman-Waters "slam" match.
Like others I don't like this rule at all. Switch the rule to stalling on the top man regardless of when legs were thrown in.
Thoughts?"
|
I agree -- unless the bottom guy is holding the top guys legs preventing him from getting his feet back on the mat.
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Penn st v Oklahoma State
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 21, 2017
Second the motion. Top is stalling.
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Penn st v Oklahoma State
Rex Holman added to this discussion on February 22, 2017
This position arises sooner or later.
I watched Potokar v Dave Schultz as a kid in a dual at Ohio State. OSU actually beat Oklahoma in that dual if my recollection is correct. Schultz stood up and Potokar had boots in, stalemate. Same position again and Schultz did a flop onto Potokar's back and Schultz was consequently disqualified. Kind of like Gilman/Waters.
It's as if the bottom man is considered lifting opponent off the mat while ensuring a safe return while the top man gets the benefit of being on top with little to chance.
At the very least it should not be stalling bottom man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|