Stalling rules?

[coach999]

I am curious to know how stalling was called Two times during the AA/A HW match that ended up being the deciding factor of match. I am not attempting to take anything away from the Champion wrestler, but just saying that I would have like to see a match being decided by the wrestlers and not the officials, unless rules were clearly broken. After reviewing the rules and regulations for stalling, it seems to me, the calls were not accurate. Granted, a takedown at the end made it a 4-1 match, but that shot never would of happened, if the score was 1-1, but the stalling point made it 2-1. Also, the winner could have very easily won just the same in OT, but the stalling call eliminated this from happening. I am going to copy and paste the rules from NFHS rulebook, but first I want to make a few points from my understanding of the rules. Please tell me if I am wrong. Rules states that it is not stalling when an opponent was being pushed backwards from being over powered, vs backing up. Clearly, this was obvious due to the Winners strength and 60lb plus weight difference. Rules also state that the ref should be confident in the decision to call stalling, but my question is, how was this a confident decision? I ask this question because the rules state that a ref should count the shot ratio, using 3 shot difference to indicate stalling. I believe I counted "5 or 6" shot attempts by losing wrestler to "0" by the winner. Rules state: Changing Direction, Penetrating, taking risk, and Creating Angles is examples of not stalling. Looking at arm/elbow drags, and using tie ups to move opponent to create angles for shots, I counted 7 to 9 attempts by losing wrestler vs 0 by winning wrestler. I counted 2 slide bye attempts by losing wrestler vs 1 by winning wrestler. Rules state that pushing without an attempt to score, is stalling, the same as backing up. Again, backing up is different than being overpowered and pushed. Rules states a wrestler must attempt a takedown by initiating a move and following up to a move to get a takedown. My stats above show the losing wrestler as the one that followed the rules of aggressive wrestling. I am sure the winning wrestler, would prefer to win, by his performance vs stalling points being awarded that are questionable. Rule does state that a wrestler can not use head or arms to block opponent, but only 1 stalling call was given for this action, only against the losing wrestler. This was done once by the losing wrestler, and numerous by the winning wrestler. According to my understanding of the rules, At the most, only one warning call should have been against the losing wrestler for blocking with head, but numerous occasions stalling could have been given to the winning wrestler for no attempts to shoot, initiate a takedown, or follow up on a move. After the match, a friend ref came to me and said: Initiating a under hook or headlock, but only using it to hold opponent, or to push out of bounds, is stalling vs the other way around. This got me looking into the rules. Having said all of this, The Fairmont wrestler was deserving of the victory, and he is one heck of a wrestler. Amazing that he is just a freshman. I am in no way trying to take anything away from this young man. Just looking for clarification, and to possibly bring attention to this area of officiating, to prevent future situations like this.

Here are the nfhs rules I have:

When officials call stalling they should be confident, authoritative and concise. Officials
should also call stalling without hesitation. Rule 5-25 of the NFHS Rule Book states that “Each
wrestler is required an honest attempt to stay within the 10-foot circle and wrestle aggressively,
regardless of position or the time or score of the match. It is also recommended that stalling is
called early and when recognized to avoid making quick calls in the later periods. ===========> * 2 quick calls late in this match?
In the neutral position, both wrestlers are equally responsible for working to secure a
takedown. A wrestler that is not stalling might be: Circling, Creating forward motion, Changing=====>Losing Wrestler consistently did each of these?
Levels, Changing Direction, Penetrating, taking risk, and Creating Angles. It is recommended ========>Winning wrestler only moved forward?
that the official verbally communicate with the wrestlers to encourage activity. The official can use
verbal cues like: Action, Contact, and Center. It is important to remember that calling stalling in
the first period will set the tone for the remainder of the match. It will also show both wrestlers
and coaches that action is expected or the offending wrestler will be penalized for not creating
sufficient action.
Another tactic used to recognize which wrestler is stalling in the neutral position is
counting legitimate shots. Counting legitimate shots keeps officials alert and actively involved in ===============>Again 5 vs 0 ???????????
Anytime either wrestler takes 3 shots to his opponents 0 it is a good indicator of stalling. ============>????????????
The 3:0 ratio is the most basic way for an official to recognize stalling. An example of counting
shots could be: Wrestler A takes 5 legitimate shots while Wrestler B takes 2 or less. (Keep track of
legitimate shots in your head)

*“Initial movement”is to begin or originate a move or series of moves that requires a countermove or action.  “Follow up”is an attempt to fully execute a move or series of moves.  “Significant action / Aggressive wrestling”or commonly referred to as “chain wrestling” is created through initiation and follow up movement.

*Stalling is stalling, because of the action or lack of action, not because of the score or time of match.  The only variation to this, would be the intermittent use of a move or movement, or progression of events or move that would constitute a stalling call.  Maybe one action by itself wouldn’t warrant a stalling call, but the action repeated later or coupled with another action later in the match would warrant a call.

*Allow the wrestlers time to set up a move, which may involve tie ups, reflex actions, changing positions and feinting.  Within some point in the first 30 to 45 seconds, each wrestler must make an honest attempt to contact or secure a takedown.  Getting back to our formula; an honest attempt and aggressive wrestling includes “Initiating” a move and “Follow up” to secure a takedown.

* Who is the aggressor and initiating the action? Circling Changing levels & direction Attempting to penetrate Creating angles, set ups and scoring opportunities
* Continuously avoids contact with the opponent.  Prevents an opponent from returning to or remaining inbounds.  Is not attempting to secure a takedown.  Blocking with the arms, forearms or head.
* Hanging on to a single without follow up.  Elevating a single without attempting to take the opponent down to the mat.  Using underhooks and overhooks without attempting to take the opponent down.  Counter wrestling.  Backing up or pushing.  Playing the edge.==================================================================================>This last bullet point was continuously done by the winning wrestler.

[Truesouthfaninhunt]

Hmmmmmm

[ZZChooseTop]

I thought the call was right but the President thought both guys were stalling.

[Bearhug]

Hmmm

[Bearhug]

The wrestler who won's gameplan was all based on what stance was thrown at him, if his opponents stance were higher than his, he was going to go for his blast double and if his opponents stance were lower than his (which it was)he was going the snap the head to a front headlock or pumble in to double underhooks to a bearhug. When the winning wrestler kept on fighting in for upperbody positioning the wrestler who lost kept BLOCKING his hips and squatted while not controling the circle which resulted into stalling.The winning wrestler also thought if he kept pushing in on the much smaller wrestler, the wrestler would eventually shoot on him in which is exactly what he wanted. Also the wrestler who lost decided to jump from 182 to 285, thats what its like wrestling bigger kids, prepare for the bigger kid.

[KDunbar]

I start this off by saying that I could never be a referee or do as go as a job as any referee that I have ever seen (except once in a middle school match but that was only once). However, in my opinion, stalling is the one call that special training and repeated review should be mandatory for each referee due to the way the call is made or not made. I did not observe this match, but by the account given I have seen all of this many, many times. I agree 100% with every point being made. Stalling is the most abused call consistently made by each and every referee that I have seen. Quite often the decision to call stalling is based on the score and not the action. What is okay for the first three periods suddenly becomes stalling because of the score. Also a stalling call made by the referee [u]finally[u] with 20 seconds to go is something that I will not put the words that are my opinion in writing. It is always said that stalling is a judgement call. But the rule, as stated in the above excerpt from the rule book, is clearly a technical call based on objective and measurable criteria (thus the reference to counting and comparing each wrestlers actions), thus making it based on fact and not guessing what a wrestler is thinking. It is probably the most underused or overlooked violation in wrestling. For example, putting legs in and sitting on top of the opponent and "pretending" to be trying a power half over and over from side to side is not wrestling. If stalling is not going to be called then a stalemate should "rapidly" be called. I believe the rules above state that trying the same "move" or action over and over without a clear attempt to aggressively follow through with the next part of the move is not to be tolerated. I also understand that heavy weight wrestling is a little different and certain moves are attempted as opposed to others. However, with the proper use of the stalling call, the match would be decided by who is the better athlete and wrestler and not who plays the shoving and pushing game the best without getting beat and then hoping the coin toss wins the match for them. Or else of course the match could be decided on who stalls the most and three periods and multiple overtimes would become a thing of the past. Quite honestly, in looking at the rules for stalling, stalling is truly the most under used call in all of wrestling. At the Ironman this year I did actually see a referee call stalling on a wrestler who simply did not move back to middle when instructed to do so by the referee. I thought this odd. But the rules clearly support that call.

[wrestlingfan23202]

Very well said coach! I agree and I know one very good ref that told me "pushing isn't wrestling" I dont agree with the stall calls because the other one was stalling as well. The runner up shot 4 times! however, nothing taken from the champ he wrestled a good tournament!

[Panther_coach]

In the words of a great referee and fine man who served our sport admirably for many years ...." Call the fall, call the stall, call it all!"

[Frank Stein]

Stalling exists and needs to be called. Not calling it could change the outcome, but I agree there is inconsistency. I see the following

Wrestler A is aggressive periods 1&2 and gets a lead while wrestler B is on defense. Then in the 3rd wrestler B decides to wrestle. So stalling is called on wrestler A, even though he was the aggressor for the first 2 periods

I also hate calling stalling on the top man, unless he is holding an ankle or just tying up legs etc. if the bottom guy isn't flat then the top guy should be working to break him down not getting off his hips trying to turn him. But that's just me. It is inconsistent in the least. Simply not calling it isn't the answer.

[Zacsdad]

In the words of a great referee and fine man who served our sport admirably for many years ...." Call the fall, call the stall, call it all!"

I definitely saw one not "call the fall", but haven't we all? And it did affect the outcome.

[matcoach90]

Great season, great championship Zach Frazier! You earned it, you deserve it. Go get three more.

[aacoach117]

Naming no specific wrestler, I saw stalling called or not called arbitrarily. I saw numerous matches where a wrestler entered the third period up by 2 or 3 points and blatantly backed away and refused to wrestle after being aggressive and attacking the first two periods, and not even so much as a stall warning was given. This complaint could go both ways. Sometimes it is called quickly, sometimes not at all. I think that generally the refs do a good job tho.

[aaacoach11]

Mr. Frazier comes from some pretty good lineage. His grandfather and uncles are the Courtney family, which all hold state titles and some multiple titles. Sounds like he's carrying on the tradition. Congrats!

[coach999]

Good info from everyone. Again, the Frazier kid is some talent and not surprised to hear of the family he comes from. I see him winning 3 more championships. My purpose of the post, is to bring some attention to the stalling rules because I do not think the call was accurate. Especially after Reviewing the match on YouTube, that someone posted. Besides this particular match, I also saw numerous matches where stalling calls were the deciding factor. Some were accurate but some were not. To much inconsistency for a state tourney. I also saw some kids that were trying to work moves on top and the wrestler on bottom was just laying on stomach, but since wrestler on top never got off hips, he was hit for stalling, and then looked at ref as if he couldn't understand the call. Clearly, many of these situations, is where the wrestler didn't know the rules. Therefore coaches need to do a better job at educating the wrestlers more on the rules of stalling, but then again stalling calls are too subjective. Refs do an awesome job at awarding takedowns, reversals, etc. because they know what has to take place to award the points. Why can't stalling be done in the same fashion? Since so much is being discussed about changes this year, Then what could we change to make these calls less subjective? Maybe in regional and at the state tourney, one particular ref, is placed to only monitor stalling? Same person, then more consistent calls made? Just trying to improve the sport. I also agree the refs to a great job overall! I don't blame them, but I do fault the clearity of the stalling rules and I don't think it gets enough attention during training, therefore it would be an easy change or fix to include more literature to the stalling rules, to take away the subjectiveness?

[ZZChooseTop]

Fascinating take on the stall call. While we are discussing rules, many would love to hear your take on illegal slams and coaches deciding whether a wrestler can continue. I didn't realize until recent years how the stigma of "staying down" can haunt a kid for years when it was his coach's directive.

[TrueSouthFanInPburg]

coach999, you need to make some longer posts.

[admin]

Not too many years ago, slam was a delayed call. When something happened that looked like it might be a slam and a wrestler signaled injury, the ref would stop the match, come to she scorers table and write "slam" or "no slam" on a slip of paper. Only when the wrestler indicated whether he/she could continue wrestling was the referee call revealed.

In re stalling, at least the wrestler gets a warning before points are awarded. Presumably, it would be prudent for the wrestler who has been warned to step it up a bit.

Tough call. Dr Welker has several articles posted on Mat Thoughts.

http://www.wvmat.com/welker/thoughts.htm

Now, pardon me while I approve my own post...

[Bearhugger]

Not too many years ago, slam was a delayed call. When something happened that looked like it might be a slam and a wrestler signaled injury, the ref would stop the match, come to she scorers table and write "slam" or "no slam" on a slip of paper. Only when the wrestler indicated whether he/she could continue wrestling was the referee call revealed.

In re stalling, at least the wrestler gets a warning before points are awarded. Presumably, it would be prudent for the wrestler who has been warned to step it up a bit.

Tough call. Dr Welker has several articles posted on Mat Thoughts.

http://www.wvmat.com/welker/thoughts.htm

Now, pardon me while I approve my own post...

To insure quality of this forum and to provide "two person integrity", I approve this post.

[Frank]

Fascinating take on the stall call. While we are discussing rules, many would love to hear your take on illegal slams and coaches deciding whether a wrestler can continue. I didn't realize until recent years how the stigma of "staying down" can haunt a kid for years when it was his coach's directive.

Circles???

[Lloyd Christmas]

Coach999, this just sounds like sour grapes to me. First off, every one of your posts sure seems like you are trying to take away quite a bit from the champ. Pummeling in for a bearhug is an offense and blocking with your head while backing up is stalling. This seems pretty clear cut to most. I'm not trying to take anything away from the sissonville wrestler but there are distinct pros and cons with moving up three weight classes. Weighing 70 lbs less is going to be a con every time.

[jofus]

I've never really understood why not "shooting" is considered stalling, since it possible to be aggressive and get takedowns without taking a "shot". You will see kids take multiple "poor" shots like a machine gun, and obviously the other wrestler has to sprawl, and then he will get hit for stalling, no matter how the rest of the match has been going. I guess if someone just keeps diving in at your legs repeatedly, you're supposed to stand there and let him get a double leg on you so you don't get hit with stalling? I just know that kids wrestle differently...if no shots from neutral means you're stalling, a lot of heavyweights and bigger boys would never get through a match. Why penalize smaller kids for not shooting if big boys don't get penalized?

Disclaimer: My son graduated last year, so it doesn't affect me anymore And while early in his career most of his offense didn't come from shooting, he got better at it towards the end of his career.

As for slams, I'm not sure how a coach is qualified to tell a kid if he can continue or not, unless he's a doctor...seems that would be up to the kid and/or medical personnel. Plus, if you can't continue right now because you got slammed on your head, then by my understanding of the new high school rules, you have exhibited symptoms of a concussion, and can't wrestle or anything else for a minimum of 7 days...definitely not in a couple hours. Not that I agree with that rule, but it is what we have now.

[coach_williams]

I don't consider "not shooting" or "laying there" as stalling. It is acceptable for a wrestler to change from an offensive to a defensive style (thus not shooting) or to lay on the mat defending turns and not be stalling. I consider it stalling when the wrestler clearly refuses to wrestle to protect a lead. The Merriam-Webster's definition of stalling is "to bring to a standstill" and I think this articulates stalling in wrestling. When Wrestler A has been aggressive, tying up and attempting leg/ankle picks, slide-bys and snap-downs, then suddenly in the 3rd period with a 2 point lead he is backing straight away, refusing to engage, creating significant enough separation to prevent wrestling (in other words, bringing wrestling to a standstill), then stalling should be called.

Am I saying it is wrong to stall to protect a lead? No. I am saying it needs to be called and it needs to be called more consistently.

[Schoon3400]

I was there and saw this match. There is a valid point here. Reading the rules, no stalling points should have been given. Pummeling is offense, but rules say follow up move needs to be made. None was made. Rules state that using overhooks and underhooks without attempting to score, is stalling, and we all see this often. Rules state that being overpowered is not stalling, but not seen often. Weight difference is why it was seen here. Using head to block is stalling, and saw this done when called, but rarely do I see it called. Usually in neutral going backwards is all that gets called, and often not correct, like in this match. Champion wrestler would have still won in my opinion, but it should have went to overtime. I dislike seeing matches being decided by referees, and I agree that stalling calls is to subjective and unfortunately this causes refs determining the results. I believe the ref new it was a 1-1 match and was forced to make 2nd stalling call due to blocking with head, but should have been the first stalling call. The rules for stalling are not utilized, and consistentcy on the calls is a problem. Both are seen often. We all see these problems but matches are less significant, which is why this subject doesn't come up often. The only clear cut thing I see is Stalling rules need changed and followed.

I saw poor stalling calls or lack of stalling calls many times over the last year. This is the one aspect of wrestling where the rules are not followed on a consistent basis.

I wasn't surprised to see the champion in this title match, after seeing him wrestle as a 8th grader. Bright future for this young man, and congratulations on a state title. Also, I will say it was a feat in itself for the runner up to make it to the championship. Brave move giving up so much weight. Congratulations to both young men.

[forthekids]

1. Stalling is a judgment call and you will NEVER get two officials to call it same way.
2. The key is constancy by officials to call it the same way for each official. ( Then you know what you got)
3. I have seen that official make the exact same stall call a thousand times. He looks for where the head is. Dead center in chest prevents offensive wrestler from scoring off pummeling.
4. To say the official knew the score and did not want to go to overtime is a disgrace to the sport.
5. All officials take each and every stall call seriously! At a state final level it gets raised to a level you don't understand until you step out on that mat.
6. Love this forum and what it does for the sport. HOWEVER, so many Monday officials. If everyone would become one then this state would not be short like it is going to be in 4 years.
7. Thought it was an excellent match and moving up two weights classes to chase a state championship, makes you a champion in my eyes.

WE as officials take pride in what we do. To say anything less is a disgrace. Enjoy the off season! If you get bored become an official

Chris Diserio
CW0441

[Schoon3400]

I apologize for how my post read. In no way was I trying to state the ref was avoiding overtime. I feel the first stalling call was a bad call because I believe the ref was attempting to motivate more action, given it was 1-1. Then was forced to call the 2nd because head in chest, by rule, is stalling. By rule, the first was not, but this resulted in a point. For 100% I DO NOT think the ref was avoiding going into OT. I was trying to express how the stalling rules are not clear, and refs catch the blame. Judgement calls are unfair. If one aspect of a rule is called, then the other aspects need called. The rules for stalling forces to much "Judgement" on a ref that already has tough job. It should be more black and white. I'm defending our refs. Sorry for not being more clear.
Ask yourself if referees know what constitutes nearfall points. I say yes, because The rules are easy to follow. Now compare to stalling rules, how often do we see a ref call stalling for a particular part of the rule, instead of the other? How often are calls wrong, according to the rules? Is this fair to the wrestlers?

Final statement: I am w/Chris 100% that no ref calls the same, because it's a judgement call. What wrong with this statement? My understanding of Chris's Statement, which proves my point being made and why I chimed in on this subject, that if we had ten different refs in this match or similar matches, then we could have ten different calls?!!! Which means the score of a match, can be same, different, or better or worse for each wrestler!!!!! I see this as a major problem of a tied match. Does the statement also suggest if stalling is involved, then impossible to have an accurate score? I think so! This goes with saying, if rules don't change. IS THIS FAIR TO THE WRESTLERS OR THE REFS? Fix the rules or abide by the current rules!

[forthekids]

My point is if stalling was called the way the rule books read not to many matches would get to third period. It is a judgment called based on what is going on in the match. Nothing is black and white. Are lines calls not judgement? Yes the rules are clear on back points but do you not have two officials the count backs at a different rate of speed? Does on look at degree different? I understand what you are saying I find it funny the coaches are screaming stalling. the have the kids for 20 hours a week and can't make them wrestle. Yet, the expect officials to do it in 6 minutes. LOL

[Gator]

I have a question for Chris or any other high school official who reads this. I've noticed in college wrestling that the officials are very vocal to the wrestlers, calling out for more action or picking up the pace. I hear some in high school matches, but not as much. Is this something that high school officials have discussed? I would think the more the official is involved vocally, the better the pace of the wrestlers. Or maybe my hearing is going bad in my old age.

[forthekids]

Gator,
A lot of us do it but nearly not as much as college. They DO NOT want them calling stalling in college plus they have passive rules, backing out no action etc. I would love them to bring it to high school level, along with out of bounds when applicable with mats. I do know SOME not many officials think you are crossing the line into coaching. ALSO NOT IN RULE BOOK, some give visual count, we seen how good that went over. LOL. I don't know the answers. I know each coach should know the official and how he calls stalling and coach to that. I can remember when I wrestled (no I wasn't that good) that if a had snively as a official you better wrestled he banged you. On the other hand if I had my little buddy you could fall asleep. The whole point I was trying to make is stalling is a subjective call and NO official takes it lightly. As a official I tried to stay off this board. However, it gets in my gut when I here the official decided the match. I GREW UP UNDER COACH T, he made it perfectly clear if you let the match be that close that is on you not the official. YOU would think has once either is hit with a warning it would be enough to make them wrestle.

[Gator]

Gator,
A lot of us do it but nearly not as much as college. They DO NOT want them calling stalling in college plus they have passive rules, backing out no action etc. I would love them to bring it to high school level, along with out of bounds when applicable with mats. I do know SOME not many officials think you are crossing the line into coaching. ALSO NOT IN RULE BOOK, some give visual count, we seen how good that went over. LOL. I don't know the answers. I know each coach should know the official and how he calls stalling and coach to that. I can remember when I wrestled (no I wasn't that good) that if a had snively as a official you better wrestled he banged you. On the other hand if I had my little buddy you could fall asleep. The whole point I was trying to make is stalling is a subjective call and NO official takes it lightly. As a official I tried to stay off this board. However, it gets in my gut when I here the official decided the match. I GREW UP UNDER COACH T, he made it perfectly clear if you let the match be that close that is on you not the official. YOU would think has once either is hit with a warning it would be enough to make them wrestle.

Good points my friend. I know that officials call stalling differently and maybe the wrestlers know some, but not all of them and how they call stalling. I would also like to see the college one foot in rule and points scored outside the circle. It would take away from the iffy calls on the edge of the mat and make your job a bit easier. I've heard so many coaches tell their kids to not leave it in the officials hands, get your lead and wrestle! Probably the best advise possible.

[wv16refgk]

As a long time state tournament official who was pretty well respected thru out the state I thought I might weigh in on the stalling of not this match in question but in general. A good official talks to the wrestlers to encourage action if there is none, he lets them know what he expects and he enforces the rules to the letter of the law. I was once told by an old official who mentored me that if you think he's stalling make the call. Too often we give wrestlers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making a decision that influences the outcome. I used the three criteria for years and I always let the wrestlers know what I expected. I never heard any coach say to me you're coaching the kids when I did this because i was not coaching, just letting them know what I expected. There are calls that are rule book calls and there are calls made in every match that are opinionated but based on years of experience. you sometimes feel the stalling in a match but if you are consistent you hold to your rules and that allows the wrestlers to know what's coming if they continue with the status quo. With me every coach and every wrestler knew what they were getting!!! The consistency was the key to my officiating. DID I MISS CALLS , ABSOLUTELY because no one who has officiated is perfect! The key was being consistent match after match. By being consistent the coaches could coach to me and the wrestlers could wrestle to me. Every year we have a match or two that someone thinks stalling has been misapplied but if you look at the guy in the stripes and say was he consistent not with others but with himself that's all you can ask for!! In the match in question had the opposite occurred would he have called it the same way and I say absolutely!!! Call the stall, call the fall, call it all!! George Keeney