Compensatory stall warnings?

[BriantheLion]

@Tom McAndrew and other refs…

…it seemed to me, this season more than ever, that after a stall warning was appropriately issued, referees often seemed to next hit the more active wrestler with a warning that did not seem to be warranted, before hitting the original culprit with a second call(and point)…

Is this encouraged in referee training, a natural instinct to appear to be fair, or am I perhaps just biased, or missing something when watching?

 

[BeerLion]

@Tom McAndrew and other refs…

…it seemed to me, this season more than ever, that after a stall warning was appropriately issued, referees often seemed to next hit the more active wrestler with a warning that did not seem to be warranted, before hitting the original culprit with a second call(and point)…

Is this encouraged in referee training, a natural instinct to appear to be fair, or am I perhaps just biased, or missing something when watching?

I would say that could be true. On more that one occasion I thought that was the case. But to be completely honest, regardless of who is warned, 80% of the time I am at loss on why a warning was issued. Over the last few years there seem to be many more stall calls and they appear to be more and more random.

 

[Tryingtodoitright]

Not entirely sure if/ when this may or may not have happened, but I'd like to see - After the first period, if there's No score, then one or both wrestlers are called for stalling (depending on activity level).
Either that or be more consistent with stall callings overall.
I missed a bunch of wrestling this year but even after watching some conference finals tournaments it was obvious (to me) that it depended on the ref for how much stalling was actually called.
There's a LOT of boring wrestling going on at the D1 level imo.

 

[Nittany24000]

I'm a PIAA referee no I wasn't trained to call stalling on the wrestler to make it even. I can honestly say at our chapter meetings stalling calls are rarely it ever discussed. This year's big topics were back points on edge of mat rule change and girls uniform questions that were big topics at the chapter I belong to.

 

[El_Jefe]

I'm not a ref, but this is hard to discuss as a general feeling without concrete examples.

But here are some things fans often say that aren't true (in general, not pointing at the OP):

1. "The guy who went out should've been called." Not necessarily true. By rule, it's true if he backs straight out of his own choice. Also by rule, if the aggressor pushes him straight out, it's stalling on the pusher and not on the pushed. If he goes out laterally, then it's a judgment call.

2. "He shouldn't have gotten called because he took more shots or scored more or was more aggressive throughout the match." Translated: he earned the right to stall. I doubt this is what fans really want, but that's what it means.

This often (but not always) comes up when the more aggressive guy gets called for stalls specified in the rules: out of bounds, ankle 5-count, mat return 5-count, etc.

When the more passive wrestler isn't called, some frustration is understandable. But lowering the standard is not the answer. If he were stalling at that point in the match, then it's stalling.

 

[PSUFANinVA]

I believe that Compensatory Stall Warning was the b-side on Rush's Distant Early Warning.

 

[BriantheLion]

I'm not a ref, but this is hard to discuss as a general feeling without concrete examples.

But here are some things fans often say that aren't true (in general, not pointing at the OP):

1. "The guy who went out should've been called." Not necessarily true. By rule, it's true if he backs straight out of his own choice. Also by rule, if the aggressor pushes him straight out, it's stalling on the pusher and not on the pushed. If he goes out laterally, then it's a judgment call.

2. "He shouldn't have gotten called because he took more shots or scored more or was more aggressive throughout the match." Translated: he earned the right to stall. I doubt this is what fans really want, but that's what it means.

This often (but not always) comes up when the more aggressive guy gets called for stalls specified in the rules: out of bounds, ankle 5-count, mat return 5-count, etc.

When the more passive wrestler isn't called, some frustration is understandable. But lowering the standard is not the answer. If he were stalling at that point in the match, then it's stalling.

Thanks for your comments… since I saved the discussion for after the season, now I can’t remember the specific matches!

… I do hate to see our guy with a lead of 2-3 points dance away the last half minute of the third period, even if it’s the smart move at that point…

…one out of bounds call that made me mad in I think the season before this, the opponent on bottom got to his feet and ran straight OOB… and our guy on top got dinged for sticking with him but not being able to hold him in bounds.

My original point was mostly about what seemed to be a compensatory warning to the clear aggressor in the first period, no takedowns yet…

…also sometimes frustrating to see against a guy on top who has just not been able to turn a guy who has been clearly just trying to avoid same rather than trying to escape… though sometimes it’s just not possible to even get to a base when the top guy is just stronger!

 

[Tom McAndrew]

@Tom McAndrew and other refs…

…it seemed to me, this season more than ever, that after a stall warning was appropriately issued, referees often seemed to next hit the more active wrestler with a warning that did not seem to be warranted, before hitting the original culprit with a second call(and point)…

Is this encouraged in referee training, a natural instinct to appear to be fair, or am I perhaps just biased, or missing something when watching?

No, that's definitely not encouraged in training, or part of any type of instruction, for high school refs or for college refs. What's stressed is calling the rules AS WRITTEN, and then instructions on any updates/clarifications that come from the governing bodies as the season progresses.

 

[SleepyLion]

I hate it when a wrestler chooses neutral and then never attempts a shot.
The choice is usually made by an over-matched wrestler who does not want to take bottom and get ridden for 2 minutes and knows if they choose top it will be an easy escape.