Contraversial calls in the state tournament

[luchador]

I think that people feel that someone who is shooting is taking more risk that someone who tries to work for the upper body throw.

[delaWarr]

luchador, I know you are expressing a point of view of general acceptance rather than necessarily your own, but as we are well aware, not all people feel that a shot bears greater risk than a throw. To the contrary, in the past the international wrestling body felt that a throw bears so much greater risk that a wrestler who failed to execute a throw successfully under certain circumstances was put back in neutral position without loss of point. Is that not still the case?

[luchador]

That is only if a wrestler completes his attempt at a throw. Now he is left down on bottom. What I am referring to is pummelling for position but never getting to a desireable position to throw. It seems like stalling and will usually be called. Wrestlers that take half shots and back out will get credit by the officials for trying something. Wrestlers who pummel but never complete a throw will get called for stalling. Such is the world we live in.

[walkenvol]

IMHO, if a wrestler continually attempts only to set up a shot without ever taking the shot then he is stalling. Likewise, if a wrestler continually attempts only to "pummel" in an attempt to setup a throw, but doesn't attempt an actual throw, then he is stalling. I don't see any officials calling stalling on upper body technique when throws are attempted. What I see the majority of heavys doing is pushing only, no intent for a throw. If they can't score with a low risk elbow pass / prescott (I don't know what everybody else calls those moves) then they hope their pushing will entice their opponent into a poor shot where they can use their weight to score with their shot defense. Stalling, Stalling, and Stalling. Of course, this doesn't include the top heavys like Crosby, Pennington, and others. I also don't agree with the idea of no points for a failed throw attempt unless there are also no points for a failed shot attempt.

[reftn]

A "Prescott"! I like that. Far more class than slide by or duck under.

 

I think maybe you can boil our stalling discussion down to two things:

 

1) Risk - RISK involved in attempting a particular scoring manuver.

 

2) Defend - Did the effect of one wrestler cause his opponnet to DEFEND himself?

 

The wrestler constantly putting himself at RISK cannot be stalling.

 

The wrestler constantly DEFENDING himself, must be stalling.

 

When you have equal amounts of both by both, you have

 

WRESTLING greatest, purest sport known to man.

 

What say the masses?

 

reftn

[Edited by reftn on 3-10-03 10:38A]

 

[delaWarr]

luch, I follow what you are saying. You are describing an overview of the actual application, but you are being carefully non-committal on your own personal opinion about how it should be dealt with. We can read between the lines, but why don't you just make a luchador statement on your take and make it easy on us?

[Asylamer]

While most of us would probably recognize what constitutes stalling within a given range, there are still advocates on either side of that range who feel strongly that their position is correct. I understand the cat and mouse games that some wrestlers/programs play. I think it probably allows some less athletic wrestlers to be competitive. And there is something to be said for that. I also understand the "make 'em wrestle in the center" proponents. While this cuts down on the "strategic retreat" ploy, it more than makes up for any missed excitement provided by that strategy with close toe to toe combat that probably gives us fans the highest level of what we came to see.

 

Back during the '80s there was a small contingency of outstanding officials who actively made calls that centered the action on the mat, creating a "no place to run, no place to hide" atmosphere that gave us some truly outstanding toe to toe wrestling. Many mats even had zones indicated or painted several inches inside the outside line. When wrestlers ventured into these zones, many good officials cautioned them back toward the center. I really liked what was happening, but too many others did not. That philosophy, as such, was around for a relatively short period of time before it disappeared altogether, well maybe almost disappeared. There is still some sentiment around that would like to see wrestling, if not confined to, at least strongly cautioned to be executed in the center of the mat.

[reftn]

I dont think the "center up" direction often given by refs is necessarily proper. Some wrestlers will listen to that instruction and make themselves vulnerable to attack while centering up. Other wrestlers wait for these instructions to take advantage of it.

 

We have a book that is our guide, the rule book. It allows a 28 ft wrestling area, any part of it. While on that

28 ft, they are to wrestle aggressively to secure a fall.

 

It is up to the official to determine when one or both wrestlers are stalling or fleeing.

 

I think, were I a coach, especially a new one, I would have notes on officials and the way they call. Many calls being so subjective, it would be worth noting if an official allows wrestling on the mat edge. How quick he makes a fist and calls stalling. Or he will let you stall.

 

I am not offended when, in pre match meetings with teams, if they ask me how do I call it? I think that is smart. The book says we should meet with each team before the match, that is the perfect time. I have had coaches in these meetings show me a particular move, and maybe another official stopped it as potentially dangerous. Thats smart coaching, seeding the ref?..hahahahaa...it costs you nothing.

 

Thoughts and musings...

 

reftn

[Asylamer]

Reftn, You, along with some other officials, are and have always been open to interaction with coaches on rule interpretation. This provides growth for both parties. Officials need to understand (and most probably do) that many coaches understand rules about as well as the officials do. Sort of like many officials understand on the mat coaching and strategies about as well as the coaches do. (Of course we fans understand both rules and coaching as well as both refs and coaches do.) So, those areas of rules that have to be interpreted are where there are the greatest needs for meetings of the minds. ("Locked hands" doesn't require interpretation. Reaction time might.) And it is here that differences in philosophies may present the greatest challenges for satisfactory resolutions.

 

You brought up in your above post that the rule book allows the entire 28 foot circle for wrestling. Now, how the wrestlers get from the center of the mat to any other part of the mat is where interpretations can become clouded by differences in philosophies, i.e., how fast moving in a backward motion is too fast? how many trips to the outside line is too many trips? how many manuevers to avoid contact is too many avoidances? etc.

 

There are wrestlers (and some say programs) that almost always find the 28 foot line to take a stand. That reflects a certain philosophy. Other wrestlers take a stand in the center and want to go head to head there. That reflects a philosophy. To be able to succeed at either of these approaches to the match, the wrestler must have the agreement of his opponent. If the agreement is not there (B won't be manuevered by A to the 28 foot line, or A won't allow B to tie up in the center of the mat.), then the referee's philosophy comes into play and he makes an interpretation of some rule that applies to one wrestler or the other or both. Then opposing coaches whose own philosophies are in play on the mat....etc.

 

I agree with you big time on the verbal "center". We've seen too many times the advantage taken of one wrestler by another because of a mental relaxation that can occur following such a verbal. Actual warnings would be far better and would get the job done in a more direct manner.

[Guest Smokediver]

Just making the point that our heavier weights don't seem to be trying to take shots and are only working upper body.

 

As for being an official, thats like being a doctor. No matter how long you've been in the buisness, you are still practicing!

[delaWarr]

Smokediver, Could the reverse observation be made concerning the lighter weights, that they don't seem to be working upper body much and seem to be conscentrating on taking shots? Or is that something we don't think about? A wrestler can shoot for legs the duration of the match and that is okay, but if his efforts are to execute throws for the duration of the match, that is not okay?

 

Because of physiological differences in athletes, all wrestlers don't have the same degree of potential to equally learn and execute all techniques. We probably all can give examples of wrestlers who defied that logic, but we can find considerably more examples to support the logic. To expect all big guys to shoot is dooming many big guys to failure. Many are far better suited to pursue upper body strategy. Wouldn't energies be better spent encouraging a wrestler to capitalize on and refine what he is best suited to do, rather than to encourage him to go for shots, the successes of which are going to be marginal at best?

[buckingbronco2]

Crosby and Pennington shoot like lightweights.Check out the pictures of the championship match at www.e-sportpix.com on Feb 15 at 6:30p.m.