Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Violet
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Maroon
  • Orange
  • Gold
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to the upgraded message boards!  Please note: if you have been using a username to sign in that is different than the handle (display name) displayed on the boards, you must now sign in with either your handle (display name) or the email address associated with your account.  If you don't know what this means, then it probably doesn't affect you!

Sign in to follow this  
threeguyspop

State Tournament Officiating

Recommended Posts

Agreed.

 

I was working this weekend and watched the finals online.

 

It that this is the same ole song and dance every year. Usually from the same people who claim to be experts but do not offer their services for the betterment of the sport. Instead they post to complain about those who do give back to a sport that has made them better human beings.

 

Every year kids across the state give their blood, sweat and tears for a sport that is unforgiving as it is rewarding, without any promise of how it will end. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that the harder they work and sacrifice, the better chance they will have at determining the outcome on their own.

AMEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the post and reviewing the video, I have one question and I hope one of the officials can help me out. If I understand the call,the FR wrestler was called for stalling in the third period for not improving his position after his shot. If this is the case then why was he not called for stalling in overtime for the same reason? If you watch the video, there looks to be no difference in the shot in the third period and the one in overtime. I appreciate any insight that one of you guys that understands the rules could give me.

Officials your silence is deafening. Reftn maybe you can answer the above question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officials your silence is deafening. Reftn maybe you can answer the above question

 

Maybe he should have been.

 

Again that was to encourage the wrestlers to finish it on the mat. (my opinion)

 

If he had, what would your reaction been?

 

 

I know that once they brought in overtime periods, officials were directed to call stalling only when it was painfully obvious in the overtime period. Now this was back a couple of years ago before this latest overtime set up was begun, but I have to believe the same reluctance is urged to call stalling in the first overtime period and have it end on a stalling call. Now if the first overtime does not end the match and we go to the two 30 second periods, where mostly the bottom wrestler is attempting to escape, and is wrestled out, no sudden victory. In the final 30 seconds there is no stalling called at all (not by rule) but the offensive wrestler wins by riding out his opponent while the defensive wrestler wins by earning an escape or reversal.

 

In our region, we had a kid in the finals in the ultimate tie breaker (3rd OT level)on top, almost lost control, dropped down the the defensive wrestlers ankle and he drug him around the mat. The offensive wrestler simply could not work up, but still was hit for stalling and lost the match. It was the correct call.

Edited by reftn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had called it stalling, then I would not have asked the question. I am still not sure why it wasn't called. The fr wrestler did the exact same thing but ref stalemated it in ot. What if the fr guy got the takedown after the stalemate would this have been fair to the mccallie wrestler. You stated that the officials were directed to only call stalling if it is painfully obvious . So is there stalling, obvious stalling and painfully obvious stalling? I was not aware of the different levels of stalling. Is the answer to my question that the refs were told to swallow their whistles unless it is painfully obvious that a wrestler is stalling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had called it stalling, then I would not have asked the question. I am still not sure why it wasn't called. The fr wrestler did the exact same thing but ref stalemated it in ot. What if the fr guy got the takedown after the stalemate would this have been fair to the mccallie wrestler. You stated that the officials were directed to only call stalling if it is painfully obvious . So is there stalling, obvious stalling and painfully obvious stalling? I was not aware of the different levels of stalling. Is the answer to my question that the refs were told to swallow their whistles unless it is painfully obvious that a wrestler is stalling?

 

No, you're creating words I did not type in the context you present them to reflect poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over all,,, great job Reeves, Parker, Mara, Williams and Elsie & many others!!!

 

Glad to see Faircloth roaming around and talking about his plans to continue!!!

 

Again, why not list all officials assigned by bout # so Coaches & Wrestlers can not only prepare for the opponent but to a particular style or any uniqueness to an official's individual craft or expectations.

 

Soms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reftn,

I know you are standing up for your brothers in stripes but I too fail to see the justification for this call. Having watched it online, and read your post citing the rule book, I referenced the rule book myself. It is simple enought to state that the ryan wrestler was attacking and not completing his shots and that by definition would be considered stalling. However, it has always been my understanding that the attacking wrestler is to be given the benefit of the doubt...regardless of score or match situation. My question to you reftn is this...Would ryan wrestler have been better suited, in the given situation, to have initiated collar tie and squared off his stance to finish the remainder of the 15 seconds of the match to win it? And the reason that I ask this is that had he done that he would have fulfilled another listed criteria for a stall call in the NFHS rule book. So to finish the match there really was no way for the ryan wrestler to close out the match without filling some sort of stalling method. Stalling is a subjective call (in most situations) and no matter how many rules or changes/interpretations that the NFHS comes out with each year that will never change. I dont know the age of the stall call, but it was intended to make wrestlers initiate action. If that was the intent of the rule, then who in this match was in fact guilty of the stall? I like you personally and as a ref sir and I know you werent involved in this match, but standing up for a subjective call is best left up to the man who made the call.

 

For those of you who question the ryan coach accepting the call by not challenging it, know this the ryan coach would've gotten no where questioning a stall call in that situation. Primarily due to the fact that most refs will not listen to a coach's argument on a subjective call. Also, no ref would ever go back after making that call. The ryan coach did right. But if you think he was okay with the call watch the video and look at the earful that he gives to danny gilbert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw... I have seen this tater call before, but it involved the top wrestler dropping to a single and holding on, otherwise it has been the less offensive wrestler blocking, sprawling and backing that got hit. Just my take over the past 39 years after another additional 5 years of watching Harry Thornton!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reftn,

I know you are standing up for your brothers in stripes but I too fail to see the justification for this call. Having watched it online, and read your post citing the rule book, I referenced the rule book myself. It is simple enought to state that the ryan wrestler was attacking and not completing his shots and that by definition would be considered stalling.

 

However, it has always been my understanding that the attacking wrestler is to be given the benefit of the doubt...regardless of score or match situation

Was this not the case for repeatedly holding that leg making no attempt to improve and repeatedly being brought to stalemate (benefit of the doubt)? The functional word is attacking. It would mean ongoing. The word you need here is attackED.

 

My question to you reftn is this...Would ryan wrestler have been better suited, in the given situation, to have initiated collar tie and squared off his stance to finish the remainder of the 15 seconds of the match to win it?

I believe given where it ended, anything would have been better than what he did. Stalling is only a strategy if you can afford it.

 

And the reason that I ask this is that had he done that he would have fulfilled another listed criteria for a stall call in the NFHS rule book.

Again, stalling is only a strategy if you can afford it. I am curious, does that make sense to you (afford it)? I'm not being flippent.

 

So to finish the match there really was no way for the ryan wrestler to close out the match without filling some sort of stalling method. How about a takedown? Was there anyway to stall the match out? Again, could he afford it? I say that risk was proven (unfortunately) too high. What do you think?

 

Stalling is a subjective call (in most situations) and no matter how many rules or changes/interpretations that the NFHS comes out with each year that will never change. I dont know the age of the stall call, but it was intended to make wrestlers initiate action. If that was the intent of the rule, then who in this match was in fact guilty of the stall? I like you personally and as a ref sir and I know you werent involved in this match, but standing up for a subjective call is best left up to the man who made the call.

[i I appreciate the kind words. In my questions back to you are in no way smart alec. My input here was to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible. I think I did that mostly. Others have brought in other areas of subjectivity in this match, but the point of this weight class at the point in time we are discussing is, as I stated below, indisputable.[/i]

 

 

For those of you who question the ryan coach accepting the call by not challenging it, know this the ryan coach would've gotten no where questioning a stall call in that situation. Primarily due to the fact that most refs will not listen to a coach's argument on a subjective call. Also, no ref would ever go back after making that call. The ryan coach did right. But if you think he was okay with the call watch the video and look at the earful that he gives to danny gilbert.

 

It would do no good to give Danny an earful. I would rather have given it to the mat official or at least ask the mat official to confer with his assistant. Let me ask you, do you think Pat instructed Mosley to shoot in and hold on to that leg as he did the previous three or four times? I have no knowledge of their strategy here, but I would have to guess no. Continued stalemates can only lead to a stalling call.

 

Not really standing up for the stripes because they are in stripes. This much I will tell you, had the official not given the stalling point I would have question it with the same evidence we have here. The idea of not giving the stalling call would be far far more subjective, imho.

 

We are getting to view, review, rereview, and rerereview this all in hindsight. What a nice gift!

 

 

Show the last minute of this video to any knowledgeable wrestling fan, coach or referee they will tell you this is stalling.

 

We have video evidence of this, it is without question. What occurred earlier in the period, earlier in the match have no bearing.

 

I pointed out the official's call was supported by the Case Book to the letter. This, again, is without question.

 

The official made the correct call. There is no evidence to reverse either of my points above. There is no contradiction in stalling brought forward by others citing Rules Book sections on stalling. Those are stalling too, and subjective, but have no bearing on the current discussion of the 160 pound D2 finals match.

 

What has happened in the past several posts are.....shoulda, coulda, and woulda's. What we have at issue here is at the x:xx point in the 160 D2 final was there stalling on the FR wrestler?

 

It is indisputable.

 

 

Should have the official called it earlier? Maybe.

Would it have made a difference it the official made the stalling call earlier? I hope so.

Could the FR wrestler attempted a different stalling tactic to make a difference? Possibly.

Should the official have called it in overtime? Subjective.

 

I pointed out in an earlier post, and I think I can speak for everyone on the board and elsewhere who have worn stripes and blew the whistle that it is our desire to have all subjectivity taken out of the sport. The only people that can do that?

 

The wrestlers.

 

(I have cut this post up in editing. iT MaY nOt mAke SEnsE.)

Edited by reftn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really standing up for the stripes because they are in stripes. This much I will tell you, had the official not given the stalling point I would have question it with the same evidence we have here. The idea of not giving the stalling call would be far far more subjective, imho.

 

We are getting to view, review, rereview, and rerereview this all in hindsight. What a nice gift!

 

 

Show the last minute of this video to any knowledgeable wrestling fan, coach or referee they will tell you this is stalling.

 

We have video evidence of this, it is without question. What occurred earlier in the period, earlier in the match have no bearing.

 

I pointed out the official's call was supported by the Case Book to the letter. This, again, is without question.

 

The official made the correct call. There is no evidence to reverse either of my points above. There is no contradiction in stalling brought forward by others citing Rules Book sections on stalling. Those are stalling too, and subjective, but have no bearing on the current discussion of the 160 pound D2 finals match.

 

What has happened in the past several posts are.....shoulda, coulda, and woulda's. What we have at issue here is at the x:xx point in the 160 D2 final was there stalling on the FR wrestler?

 

It is indisputable.

 

 

Should have the official called it earlier? Maybe.

Would it have made a difference it the official made the stalling call earlier? I hope so.

Could the FR wrestler attempted a different stalling tactic to make a difference? Possibly.

Should the official have called it in overtime? Subjective.

 

I pointed out in an earlier post, and I think I can speak for everyone on the board and elsewhere who have worn stripes and blew the whistle that it is our desire to have all subjectivity taken out of the sport. The only people that can do that?

 

The wrestlers.

 

(I have cut this post up in editing. iT MaY nOt mAke SEnsE.)

 

Indisoputable to who? To you? Because you say its indisputable nobody else has a right to their opionion? You have yet to acknowledge that the McCallie wrestler did nothing the entire match. You have yet to entertain the idea that maybe by draping over his opponent and grabbing the ankles he was causing the stalemates. You can think your opionion is the right one all you want but the majority of the people do not agree with you. It doent matter though because what is done is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indisoputable to who? To you? Because you say its indisputable nobody else has a right to their opionion? You have yet to acknowledge that the McCallie wrestler did nothing the entire match. You have yet to entertain the idea that maybe by draping over his opponent and grabbing the ankles he was causing the stalemates. You can think your opionion is the right one all you want but the majority of the people do not agree with you. It doent matter though because what is done is done.

 

No no no.....you, me, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

You are bringing (shoulda, coulda, woulda) in another situation that was not called. The McCallie wrestler. He is not at dispute in the call that was made.

 

The call that was made was correct, and through any discerning eye, indisputable. That is all my posts point to. Argue any other portion of the match any way you wish, but for this point in the match, that was stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...