Contraversial calls in the state tournament

[reftn]

Agreeing with most here.....

 

There is no such call as flagrant stalling. To coin the term, you confuse it with flagrant misconduct, making it sound like a real violation. Obvious stalling, yes.

 

Pehaps clocks should be cut off and kept by the timekeeper at the table in the last period?

 

In the first period of the match, wrestler A shoots in and is blocked by wrestler B with his forearm to wrestler A's chest/shoulder. He has the right to defend the shot, but it is clearly blocking. Then reshoots and secures the takedown.

 

With three seconds left, wrestler A is behind by 1. He shoots and wrestler B blocks again with the forearm to the chest/shoulder.

 

Whats the call?

 

Was he defending the shot or his slim lead?

 

If it was stalling with 3 seconds, surely it was with 5:50 seconds left.

 

Had wrestler A been called for stalling on the first shot of the match, he would have, or should have known it would be called with 3 seconds left.

 

Guys you can go crazy with this stuff. If it were an underhook as opposed to a forearm, does that change your mind?

 

Nice discussions.

 

reftn

[bearlock]

I guess this is settled.

[Guest Smokediver]

I have seen some interesting conversation about stalling. Personaly as an official, I don't think it has been called enough. However, if we call it more than what we do, some coaches, fans and parents would absolutely be livid.

 

I agree with reftn. You make the call when it happens. Clock has no bearing. If a kid commits a technical violation with 3 seconds on the clock do we ignore it because there was only 3 seconds left? I think a good official should be somewhat oblivious to the clock.

 

If a kid committs the infraction, why does the crowd blame the official for making the call? The official is doing his job. If the kid is doing his, stalling isn't even an issue.

 

I have made stalling calls before where the argument was, "We have shot more times than he did!" So....you point point is? What have you done since your last shot? If you take 10 shots and then do absolutely nothing after that, you're still stalling.

 

I have had coaches ask if I didn't know what a move was after I have hit their kid for stalling. If they have attempted the same thing repeatedly and didn't score, they need to move on to something else. (ie, stepping sideways and end up off the mat.) If that on move is all you know, you deserve to get beat.

 

In short, if you don't want the official to call you for it, DON'T DO IT!

[Edited by Smokediver on 3-4-03 7:14A]

[Edited by Smokediver on 3-4-03 7:16A]

 

[doclock]

A ref has the obligation to call a wrestler that is stalling. No matter how much time is left on the clock. The ref that doesn't, comprimises the integrity of the sport. This goes for any infraction. If a ref doesn't make the call it opens the door for an impartial match. In the Guthrie-Patterson match it wasn't just the crotch lock but more the squared stance the whole match. I've got news for you, a squared stance is not in any way offensive, it is purely defensive. Furthermore Guthrie should have never allowed himself to get into that position. It is the wrestler who has the responsibility to keep up with his warnings and to take the decision away from the ref by becoming active. I assure you Guthrie was well aware of his situation and still produced no offense.

[doclock]

The problem that I have with referees is that sometimes when a heavyweight match comes up, they all of a sudden become reserved. I feel that heavyweights didnt often get a chance to use the whole mat. Referees tend to stop the action before it reaches the edge. For example A heavy weight from Bradley got totally ripped by referees in the state tourney in 94. He was behind and escaped from bottom in the third period. Then he took his opponent down five times on the edge. three of those times his waist was in bounds but the referee kept blowing the whistle way too early. Neither wrestler had even so much as a foot on the line and the ref would stop it. Needless to say the bradley kid lost by one. I understand that the referee is obligated to watch the safety of the wrestlers but let them use the whole mat. I cant count the times that I have seen lightweights end up nearly in the bleachers or in the center of another mat. Now that might be excessive but hey the big guys especially need more room.

[Guest VTEM]

Speaking of heavy weights, good job Nick E

[Alkaline160]

evenson... he's my hero

[bearlock]

I have seen many heavyweight matches where the whistle blows before the guys go out of bounds. I understand that they are bigger and have alot of momentum, but that doesn't mean that one of them won't be slick and drag his feet on a takedown that is going out of bounds. It seems as though some refs blow the whistle just because they are headed that way. Any refs out there have an answer?

[reftn]

The heavyweights have that momentum thing working with them. Once started, hard to stop.

 

First rule in officiating: Saftey of the wrestlers

 

The little guys tend to be the slick ones, sticking a line call takedown. Most heavies arent close.

 

The appearance of control would come into play. I think I would more likely allow a finish near the edge with a heavy that appeared to have some control. Thats not unlike a wrestler that lifts his opponeent off the mat. If he appears to have control of his opponent in the air, I am more likely to let him finish. If not, I blow a quick whistle with one guy lifted off the mat.

 

Not sure I answered the question.

 

reftn

[bearlock]

But isn't there equality in wrestling too? Shouldn't a guy get that chance? Cant you give a heavy a chance to make that slick move? Even if the first five minutes were sloppy, he might pull out something slick at the end. That could cost a guy a match, or in the bradley heavy's a state medal.

[sly]

bearlock, Are you talking about B.F.?

[silverpie]

Posted by reftn:

First rule in officiating: Saftey of the wrestlers

 

...

 

The appearance of control would come into play. I think I would more likely allow a finish near the edge with a heavy that appeared to have some control. Thats not unlike a wrestler that lifts his opponeent off the mat. If he appears to have control of his opponent in the air, I am more likely to let him finish. If not, I blow a quick whistle with one guy lifted off the mat.

 

Not sure I answered the question.

 

reftn

 

If you're making that call for the wrestlers' safety, it would be clearer to the fans to give a "potentially dangerous" signal, not an "out of bounds" signal.