Stalling....help me out

[PSU87]

So as a very casual wrestling fan, I certainly don't get the nuances of the rules like I would football or basketball (though I have no clue what traveling is these days).

All I read on the Iowa board is how Penn State wrestlers are always stalling.

I read the opposite here.

When I watch us wrestle, it at least looks to me like our wrestlers are, usually, the more dynamic. Iowa particularly complains about RBY, which to me seems crazy because that dude seems to be a walking highlight reel.

Is Iowa being sore losers?
Do we have our Blue and White glasses on?

Help a newbie out....TIA

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Stalling....help me out​

So as a very casual wrestling fan, I certainly don't get the nuances of the rules like I would football or basketball (though I have no clue what traveling is these days).

I can try to help. I'm a ref, a wrestling fan, and a PSU fan, so that you know the angles I'm approaching this from.

First off, stalling is the most subjective call in wrestling, at least in most regards. In an effort to "improve" the sport/rules, college rules were changed @ 5 years ago so that certain actions (hanging onto the legs more than 5 seconds, going out of bounds to avoid a TD, etc.) are mandatory stall calls. But even in those, particularly the 2nd example given, there is some subjectivity.

Then there is stalling or lack of action, which can be called when a wrestler is on their feet, is on bottom, or is on top. It's most often called when on the feet, if one wrestler is making no action to attempt a TD (take down). When a wrestler is on bottom, it's usually called if a wrestler is flattened out, and is making no effort to work up to their knees/base. When a wrestler is on top, it's not called too often, but it can be called if a wrestler is not doing anything to try to turn the bottom wrestler. (One of the previous paragraph mandatory stall calls is also if a wrestler is on top, and the bottom wrestler is on bottom and gets to their feet, and the top wrestler makes no effort within 5 seconds to return the bottom wrestler to the mat.)

When the wrestlers are on their feet, which is what gets most of the complaints from fans, there are a few things a ref looks at. First, if one wrestler takes 3 shots, and the opponent takes none, then in the back of your mind you start watching the wrestler that is not shooting to see if they continue that action. Alas, that's not a hard and fast rule; just a guideline. And there are a lot of matches where neither wrestler takes 3 shots, so you have to keep that guideline in context. It's more along the lines of wrestler A takes 3 shots in 45 seconds and wrestler B does nothing. Then, after wrestler A takes a 4th and a 5th shot within a short timeframe after those initial 3, the ref should start seriously thinking about a stall call on wrestler B.

But even there things are somewhat nuanced. It helps to read the wrestlers. RBY, who you mentioned, can take down almost any wrestler at his weight. That said, he's more of a counter wrestler, meaning that the majority of his shots are actions/reactions to the shots taken by his opponent. So if his opponent only takes one or two shots, then he doesn't have many opportunities for counters.

That's a partial overview (as refs, we talk about about stalling all the time at meetings), as well as one specific on RBY.

Now let's turn to Iowa fans. I don't like to make generalities about a group of people. I'm sure there are A LOT of exceptions to this characterization, but if I were to generalize, there is a loud group of Iowa fans, both at Carver-Hawkeye arena and on message boards, that act as if the only reason PSU has success is because they stall, that the only reason Iowa doesn't win every year is because the other wrestlers stall, that their guys never stall, etc. It's a lot of nonsense.

If you watched the Dean - Warner final, which was the only final where Iowa had a wrestler, Warner was making almost no effort throughout the match to shoot. I'm going from memory, so I may have the numbers wrong, but I think Warner only shot 2 times in the entire match, and the second one was a poor shot that Dean countered and got a TD on.

Turning to RBY - DeSanto, those matches are always a battle. I believe RBY has beaten DeSanto 5 straight matches, but they have been some real wars. DeSanto likes to control the arm, which frustrates RBY. It lead to RBY positioning his left hand behind his back last year. And those guys are constantly changing their tactics. In this year's dual, RBY did not keep the arm behind his back and DeSanto shot quite a few times, for which RBY had to come up with some amazing defense to avoid giving up a takedown. At NCAAs this past weekend, in the semifinal, DeSanto worked a lot on arm control, and also a lot on head control. However, for whatever reason, he didn't shoot all that much -- not nearly as frequently as he had in the PSU - Iowa dual.

DeSanto is quite talented; one of the better Iowa wrestlers of recent years that never won a NCAA title. RBY is every bit as talented, and one way or another over the past few years has prevailed over DeSanto in every matchup. But both acknowledge how good the other guy is. RBY credited DeSanto for forcing him to raise his game. It's somewhat easier, I think, to appreciate both wrestlers when the one you root for has been on the winning side the last five matches. With that caveat, I wish Iowa fans would just appreciate that they've seen some great wrestling in the RBY - DeSanto matches, and not make mistaken claims against RBY.

I hope that helps.

 

[Got GSPs]

I think Warner only shot 2 times in the entire match, and the second one was a poor shot that Dean countered and got a TD on.

According to the Hawkeye Report, Warner only took one shot all match and it was "sh!tty"... LOL

 

[El_Jefe]

So as a very casual wrestling fan, I certainly don't get the nuances of the rules like I would football or basketball (though I have no clue what traveling is these days).

All I read on the Iowa board is how Penn State wrestlers are always stalling.

I read the opposite here.

When I watch us wrestle, it at least looks to me like our wrestlers are, usually, the more dynamic. Iowa particularly complains about RBY, which to me seems crazy because that dude seems to be a walking highlight reel.

Is Iowa being sore losers?
Do we have our Blue and White glasses on?

Help a newbie out....TIA

Your first mistake was reading the Iowa boards. (Kidding.) (Sorta.) (Maybe.)

All teams' fans complain about stalling, especially when losing. Including our fans.

Iowa's fans have the biggest reputation for this. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're frustrated. Sometimes that's how they have fun.

Should be noted: the general definition of stalling is when one guy stops working to improve position. Pushing pace is an indicator but not absolute -- for example, one guy takes a bunch of half-shots with no intent of scoring -- that often tricks the fans, but the refs are usually wise to that.

RBY didn't stall against DeSanto. Brooks did stall against Amine, and was called for it. Starocci and Lewis top stalled against each other in OT, because the rideout period by design demands top stalling; no ref will ever call general clingy riding in OT. Dean and Warner could've been hit with double stalls or no stalls -- IMO both worked consistently to improve position but neither could be considered an aggressor.

 

[SRATH]

I echo the don’t read other boards comment.

I don’t have the data, but I would submit our guys score a lot of points in individual matches. You don’t score a lot of points by stalling.

Stalling has evolved and will continue to do so. Iowa had a long reputation of just brawling, pushing guys backward then calling for a stall. This would be appropriate in Freestyle wrestling. Their fans are still conditioned to react this way, and the Penn State Envy they experience doesn’t help them. In most cases, things are not so black and yellow.

 

[Fratamico]

So as a very casual wrestling fan, I certainly don't get the nuances of the rules like I would football or basketball (though I have no clue what traveling is these days).

All I read on the Iowa board is how Penn State wrestlers are always stalling.

I read the opposite here.

When I watch us wrestle, it at least looks to me like our wrestlers are, usually, the more dynamic. Iowa particularly complains about RBY, which to me seems crazy because that dude seems to be a walking highlight reel.

Is Iowa being sore losers?
Do we have our Blue and White glasses on?

Help a newbie out....TIA

IMO, the problem with the stalling call by an official is that it brings out the most basic of human traits....the inconsistency of human behavior. An official, and by the way thanks Tom, has a thankless and subjective job to perform, Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Outside influences constantly tugging at him; crowd favorites and coaches getting in his ear on a constant basis are just a few of them, making his job very difficult. Personally, I am as guilty as the next guy when it comes to being critical of stalling calls. But I have the luxury of a cushioned chair and no pressured being exerted my way.

In playing baseball why does a player go 5 for 5 one day and 0 for 5 the next? In golf, why does a golfer shoot 62 one day and come back with a 72 the next day on the same course under the same conditions? Why else, the inconsistency of human behavior. Everyone has a bad, including officials.

Some officiating calls are egregious though and cannot be rationally explained. A perfect example would be to watch Cael's junior national championship match against Daniel Cormier. One of the worst stalling calls I have ever seen issued. It was a double stall call and you could hear the boo's deservedly ring out.

 

[truth-and-reason]

Tom did well at articulating a number of points.
As someone who started wrestling when I was 6 or 7 years old, officiated scholastic & college wrestling for over 20 years, and even did some volunteer coaching, stalling is the most inconsistent call in the sport.
Some of it is setting/influence of the fans and coaches. Refs can be influenced - it is the human condition. Some are more easily influenced than others. In tournaments like the Big Ten or NCAA championships, you witness even more inconsistency because there are 12 to 24 officials working the tournament, which takes me to the next point.
Regardless of the rule book and meetings, any official who ever wrestled much is going to be influenced by how they were personally coached and style they wrestled. I worked with a lot of really good officials over the years and they were very consistent 'within themselves'. Meaning, if you watched them work, you knew the circumstances that would trigger a stall call and they were very consistent. As an example, there was an older official who was an accomplished wrestler in early 70's when riding time was a factor even in H.S. wrestling and many of the rule changes associated to starting position (where you could elect neutral) - he would almost never call the top man for stalling. Again, good guy, very good official, and very consistent. - but different from me. I was much more aggressive in calling stalling - in all positions. That did not make me a fan favorite on many occasions. I could give you a dozen other examples. Each person is different.
If you watch the current guys closely, you will see the same individual patterns. Generally they aren't super obvious, but they are there.
Additionally, the vast majority of the commentators have never officiated. As Tom and I have pointed out, most of the fans, wrestlers, and coaches don't study the rules and know the various interpretations. This leads to gross erroneous and exaggerated statements. I was at the championships in-person. Watched the replay of the Dean/Warner match yesterday. Listen to the comments by the talking heads. You would think Warner got screwed and Dean should have been called for stalling. If you watch the action closely and know the rules, then you would also know their comments are just uneducated. This promotes unwarranted controversy many times.
Last observation - the edge stall call bugs the hell out of me. It isn't that the officials call it inconsistently. In fact, I would say it is one of the most consistent stall calls. I just don't like the rule/guidance. You will almost never see a guy called for stalling for sprawling out of bounds as a guy shoots on his legs. Yet if a guy (like Marinelli) is trying to bear-hug his opponent and the guy is trying to counter by lowering his level and trying to back out of the attempt and goes out of bounds they will call stalling almost every time. There is a big difference between trying to counter and actually fleeing the mat or avoiding wrestling - but they have arrived at this interpretation these days. I contrast this against one of the semifinal matches (think it was Amine's) - where it was deep in the 3rd period, they broke apart at the edge, Amine was a good two steps out of bounds, his opponent was inbounds, waited for Amine to come in and he just stood out of bounds. In my opinion - that is avoiding wrestling.
But I'm now retired and just a fan sometimes yelling at the TV or occasionally trying to influence a call (that I think is deserved) with a chirp from the stands.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Regardless of the rule book and meetings, any official who ever wrestled much is going to be influenced by how they were personally coached and style they wrestled. I worked with a lot of really good officials over the years and they were very consistent 'within themselves'. Meaning, if you watched them work, you knew the circumstances that would trigger a stall call and they were very consistent. As an example, there was an older official who was an accomplished wrestler in early 70's when riding time was a factor even in H.S. wrestling and many of the rule changes associated to starting position (where you could elect neutral) - he would almost never call the top man for stalling. Again, good guy, very good official, and very consistent. - but different from me. I was much more aggressive in calling stalling - in all positions. That did not make me a fan favorite on many occasions. I could give you a dozen other examples. Each person is different.
If you watch the current guys closely, you will see the same individual patterns. Generally they aren't super obvious, but they are there.

^^ that's a great point/observation, which I 2nd. Refs are pretty consistent with their stalling calls. As a ref, when you first work with another ref, you'll find yourself silently evaluating their calls, especially stalling. You don't always agree with their stall calls, as that's not when you would have called stalling if you were the lead ref. But by the end of the day/tournament, you can pretty much predict when they'll call stalling, as they are pretty consistent, and I presume (I've never asked) that they can do the same for you.

Additionally, the vast majority of the commentators have never officiated. As Tom and I have pointed out, most of the fans, wrestlers, and coaches don't study the rules and know the various interpretations. This leads to gross erroneous and exaggerated statements. I was at the championships in-person. Watched the replay of the Dean/Warner match yesterday. Listen to the comments by the talking heads. You would think Warner got screwed and Dean should have been called for stalling. If you watch the action closely and know the rules, then you would also know their comments are just uneducated. This promotes unwarranted controversy many times.

couldn't have said it better. Not having reffed doesn't by itself mean that someone can't learn the rules and nuances. However, it does mean that you need to work really hard to investigate and learn. As I've said many times, and as I'm sure @truth-and-reason has experienced/can verify, coaches and wrestlers (i.e., those that are directly in the sport) are constantly telling refs what the rules are, and are 99% of the time mistaken. So it's not a huge surprise that commentators, even those that are former wrestlers or former coaches, make uneducated comments about matches they are covering.

Last observation - the edge stall call bugs the hell out of me. It isn't that the officials call it inconsistently. In fact, I would say it is one of the most consistent stall calls. I just don't like the rule/guidance. You will almost never see a guy called for stalling for sprawling out of bounds as a guy shoots on his legs. Yet if a guy (like Marinelli) is trying to bear-hug his opponent and the guy is trying to counter by lowering his level and trying to back out of the attempt and goes out of bounds they will call stalling almost every time. There is a big difference between trying to counter and actually fleeing the mat or avoiding wrestling - but they have arrived at this interpretation these days. I contrast this against one of the semifinal matches (think it was Amine's) - where it was deep in the 3rd period, they broke apart at the edge, Amine was a good two steps out of bounds, his opponent was inbounds, waited for Amine to come in and he just stood out of bounds. In my opinion - that is avoiding wrestling.

yes!!!

 

[El_Jefe]

I don’t have the data, but I would submit our guys score a lot of points in individual matches. You don’t score a lot of points by stalling.

Just a general observation, not picking on you here:

While this is true, it's also used often by fans as a false argument. Both can be true.

Meaning: if you take 5 shots in the first 2 minutes, fans go ape crap if you get hit for stalling after that. But he took all the shots! He did all the scoring!

So what. Earlier action does not provide blanket immunity against current stalling. If you're stalling, you're stalling.

 

[Fratamico]

Just a general observation, not picking on you here:

While this is true, it's also used often by fans as a false argument. Both can be true.

Meaning: if you take 5 shots in the first 2 minutes, fans go ape crap if you get hit for stalling after that. But he took all the shots! He did all the scoring!

So what. Earlier action does not provide blanket immunity against current stalling. If you're stalling, you're stalling.

I agree with your summation excepting when, in the earlier part of the match the opponent is not called for stalling, only to have the early aggressor called for stalling late in the match. I have seen that scenario play out many times over the years. The timing of the match, the score, the crowd and coaches sometimes seem to have an effect on an officials objectivity. I will state for the record again; officiating is a subjective and thankless job. I do respect them for their dedication and commitment to the sport; someone has to do it.

Fans may well be the most intimidating outside influence that sways an officials objectivity. That's why wrestling in Rec Hall or at Carver Hawkeye Arena are two of the most difficult places to become victorious by an evenly matched opposing team.

El_Jefe, I have followed you for years on the old board and now this one. You are a credit to the sport and I thank you for your input.

 

[El_Jefe]

I agree with your summation excepting when, in the earlier part of the match the opponent is not called for stalling, only to have the early aggressor called for stalling late in the match. I have seen that scenario play out many times over the years. The timing of the match, the score, the crowd and coaches sometimes seem to have an effect on an officials objectivity. I will state for the record again; officiating is a subjective and thankless job. I do respect them for their dedication and commitment to the sport; someone has to do it.

Fans may well be the most intimidating outside influence that sways an officials objectivity. That's why wrestling in Rec Hall or at Carver Hawkeye Arena are two of the most difficult places to become victorious by an evenly matched opposing team.

El_Jefe, I have followed your for years on the old board and now this one. You are a credit to the sport and I thank you for your input.

Check's in the mail.

I don't like inconsistent stalling calls either. Let's not allow one guy's stalling to become justification for the other guy's stalling.

 

[Got GSPs]

Check's in the mail.

I don't like inconsistent stalling calls either. Let's not allow one guy's stalling to become justification for the other guy's stalling.

I would prefer to remove subjectivity from sports, to the degree possible at least. Why not get rid of stalling and replace with push outs or other "actions" that generate points?

 

[El_Jefe]

I would prefer to remove subjectivity from sports, to the degree possible at least. Why not get rid of stalling and replace with push outs or other "actions" that generate points?

Sounds like someone else watched Tirapelle's video.

 

[Got GSPs]

Sounds like someone else watched Tirapelle's video.

No, but great minds maybe think alike. Or every now and then my mind thinks like someone smart. Can you link the video?

 

[El_Jefe]

No, but great minds maybe think alike. Or every now and then my mind thinks like someone smart. Can you link the video?

 

[Folkstylefan]

A push out rule would take wrestling back 15+ yrs. I’m sure everyone, ( except in Iowa), really doesnt want to go back to watching head clubs, leg humping and basically sumo wrestling for 6 minutes.

 

[Fratamico]

Thanks for the link. Risk/Reward, great concept.

Years ago I advocated with a friend, Lehigh wrestling grad and head wrestling coach at my old high school alma mater, that we should have a 3 point take-down in high school. At the time of our conversation coach sat on the PIAA rules committee for wrestling. I still feel the same way except now the risk/reward caveat is in play for me. I know I am about to bring in more subjectivity to refereeing but I feel the the risk is worth it. Tiarpelle focused on position and getting out of position to execute a take-down, single leg or otherwise. A valid point. Enter my thoughts. Initiate the move towards a take-down and be successful one should be rewarded with 3 points. NOW the subjectivity, counter the take-down and be successful with a counter take-down you receive 2 points. Do they simultaneously shoot? 3points. One more reason for fans to be fans. As with a pin fall no video reviews. Don't want to slow the match down any more than it already is.

If the 3 point take-down rule were to be instituted then I feel a major should be raised to 10 points and the tech to 16 or 17 points.

If the push out rule were not instituted than we are back to stalling on the edge. Become aggressive with it, call it the Hidlay rule.

I like the riding time point, I don't want to see hammers on top get penalized. They have changed the riding time point in college a couple times I believe. I know for a fact at one time wrestlers were rewarded with 2 points for riding time if they had over 2 minutes of riding time. I would never advocate for that again.

Just a few thoughts on a very informative video.

 

[Got GSPs]

Thanks for the link. Risk/Reward, great concept.

Years ago I advocated with a friend, Lehigh wrestling grad and head wrestling coach at my old high school alma mater, that we should have a 3 point take-down in high school. At the time of our conversation coach sat on the PIAA rules committee for wrestling. I still feel the same way except now the risk/reward caveat is in play for me. I know I am about to bring in more subjectivity to refereeing but I feel the the risk is worth it. Tiarpelle focused on position and getting out of position to execute a take-down, single leg or otherwise. A valid point. Enter my thoughts. Initiate the move towards a take-down and be successful one should be rewarded with 3 points. NOW the subjectivity, counter the take-down and be successful with a counter take-down you receive 2 points. Do they simultaneously shoot? 3points. One more reason for fans to be fans. As with a pin fall no video reviews. Don't want to slow the match down any more than it already is.

If the 3 point take-down rule were to be instituted then I feel a major should be raised to 10 points and the tech to 16 or 17 points.

If the push out rule were not instituted than we are back to stalling on the edge. Become aggressive with it, call it the Hidlay rule.

I like the riding time point, I don't want to see hammers on top get penalized. They have changed the riding time point in college a couple times I believe. I know for a fact at one time wrestlers were rewarded with 2 points for riding time if they had over 2 minutes of riding time. I would never advocate for that again.

Just a few thoughts on a very informative video.

I agree that someone who dominates on top should get rewarded. What about instead of accumulating riding time points until the end, it accumulates until a net one minute and then a point is awarded and the wrestlers start from neutral?

 

[El_Jefe]

A push out rule would take wrestling back 15+ yrs. I’m sure everyone, ( except in Iowa), really doesnt want to go back to watching head clubs, leg humping and basically sumo wrestling for 6 minutes.

Oh please. The other 6 months of the year are nothing like that, with the same guys competing.

 

[El_Jefe]

I like the riding time point, I don't want to see hammers on top get penalized. They have changed the riding time point in college a couple times I believe. I know for a fact at one time wrestlers were rewarded with 2 points for riding time if they had over 2 minutes of riding time. I would never advocate for that again.

I would like to see RT dispensed with altogether, and the sooner the better.

Too much time is wasted with top trying to get on the correct side of 1:00, without even attempting to score. We see it all too often -- get RT up to 1:10 or below 0:55 and cut him. Ugh.

(Even worse: the 30-sec stall-out periods.)

By all means keep riding, just move the incentive toward scoring points. The real hammers get swipes and pins.

 

[Fratamico]

I would like to see RT dispensed with altogether, and the sooner the better.

Too much time is wasted with top trying to get on the correct side of 1:00, without even attempting to score. We see it all too often -- get RT up to 1:10 or below 0:55 and cut him. Ugh.

(Even worse: the 30-sec stall-out periods.)

By all means keep riding, just move the incentive toward scoring points. The real hammers get swipes and pins.

I just read an article where the author is all for the riding time point but with a twist. Top man gets called for stalling (not warned) the riding time is wiped out and starts from zero. I watched my grandson lose a state qualifier 3-2, he is in junior high, while dominating his opponent in the 3rd period from the top, three times the match was stopped from running the bar arm as a potentially dangerous hold. Justified because I don' want to see any injuries, He just couldn't turn the kid. The article also recommended changing the name from riding time to control time. So, after controlling the match for a majority of the time he still lost. Had he not tried a foolish cement mixer in the first period I suspect he would have won. But Que Sera Sera.

Enjoy the chat and perspectives.

 

[Folkstylefan]

Oh please watched enough freestyle to see guys shoving each other to get passivity or push outs

 

[Folkstylefan]

Of course no surprise a Iowa homer wants push outs. It is the hawkeye style

 

[Ernie Ladd]

I remember hearing/reading that if you were constantly taking a guy down and letting him up that “technically” that is stalling since you are not working for the fall.

Is/was that true?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I remember hearing/reading that if you were constantly taking a guy down and letting him up that “technically” that is stalling since you are not working for the fall.

Is/was that true?

No

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

I felt there was a lot of stalling “chatter” in regards to AB’s match. The claim is that he was not trying to turn Amine and/or riding parallel.

I haven’t re-watched the match, but I would chalk it up to one of the greatest and most difficult rides I have ever seen (maybe recency bias). I mean, seriously, he rode Amine for 3+ minutes - did you see the effort and energy expended from both guys? Holding down Amine for 3+ minutes? Come on! As El Jefe pointed out, AB was hit with a stall after Amine stood up and went OOB for about the third time. Was AB taking Amine OOB in order to get a restart? I don’t believe so. I more believe that Amine was running towards the boundary, hoping at AB would give up or to get a restart. Was the stall call on AB warranted? Perhaps, although it wouldn’t have shocked me either had they hit Amine for fleeing.

But the bigger question is, was AB working to turn Amine? My blue-and-white tinted eyes say that he was doing his damnedest to first control Amine in order to then try to turn him. I believe that working to maintain control is fair game and good wrestling from both top and bottom wrestler. In the rare instances that AB had control of Amine, he would punish him with a crossface turn “attempt” (he wasn’t turning Amine with a crossface).

The other chatter I noticed was in regards to Nick. I believe Nick smartly rode mostly parallel to maintain control, but he also kept punishing Clarke with that crossface to always show the ref that he was not just riding and working for a turn.

Great discussion.

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

Sounds like someone else watched Tirapelle's video.

I’m not a fan of Tirapelle ever since this tweet. No matter what the context, it’s atrocious to say or write something like this.

 

[El_Jefe]

I just read an article where the author is all for the riding time point but with a twist. Top man gets called for stalling (not warned) the riding time is wiped out and starts from zero. I watched my grandson lose a state qualifier 3-2, he is in junior high, while dominating his opponent in the 3rd period from the top, three times the match was stopped from running the bar arm as a potentially dangerous hold. Justified because I don' want to see any injuries, He just couldn't turn the kid. The article also recommended changing the name from riding time to control time. So, after controlling the match for a majority of the time he still lost. Had he not tried a foolish cement mixer in the first period I suspect he would have won. But Que Sera Sera.

Enjoy the chat and perspectives.

Those are complications. We need simpler rules.

 

[El_Jefe]

Oh please watched enough freestyle to see guys shoving each other to get passivity or push outs

Name checks out.

 

[El_Jefe]

I felt there was a lot of stalling “chatter” in regards to AB’s match. The claim is that he was not trying to turn Amine and/or riding parallel.

I haven’t re-watched the match, but I would chalk it up to one of the greatest and most difficult rides I have ever seen (maybe recency bias). I mean, seriously, he rode Amine for 3+ minutes - did you see the effort and energy expended from both guys? Holding down Amine for 3+ minutes? Come on! As El Jefe pointed out, AB was hit with a stall after Amine stood up and went OOB for about the third time. Was AB taking Amine OOB in order to get a restart? I don’t believe so. I more believe that Amine was running towards the boundary, hoping at AB would give up or to get a restart. Was the stall call on AB warranted? Perhaps, although it wouldn’t have shocked me either had they hit Amine for fleeing.

But the bigger question is, was AB working to turn Amine? My blue-and-white tinted eyes say that he was doing his damnedest to first control Amine in order to then try to turn him. I believe that working to maintain control is fair game and good wrestling from both top and bottom wrestler. In the rare instances that AB had control of Amine, he would punish him with a crossface turn “attempt” (he wasn’t turning Amine with a crossface).

The other chatter I noticed was in regards to Nick. I believe Nick smartly rode mostly parallel to maintain control, but he also kept punishing Clarke with that crossface to always show the ref that he was not just riding and working for a turn.

Great discussion.

Brooks mostly rode hard, but a more aggressive ref could've dinged some instances of following Amine around. And Brooks got some leeway on the top boundary calls -- Amine did run toward the edge a few times (or to be more precise: ran away from Brooks while atempting to escape), but got quite a bit of help actually going out.

Brooks and Lee both did quite a bit of parallel riding, but when was that last called -- 1973? I find it more objectionable when the ref calls bottom stalling when flattened out in a parallel ride that's supposedly illegal.

 

[El_Jefe]

I’m not a fan of Tirapelle ever since this tweet. No matter what the context, it’s atrocious to say or write something like this.

I'm sure he was 100% serious.

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

I'm sure he was 100% serious.

I don’t care if he was serious or not. It’s a terrible thing to say or write, particularly from a guy who seemingly wants to advance the sport and who has a decent following.

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

Brooks mostly rode hard, but a more aggressive ref could've dinged some instances of following Amine around. And Brooks got some leeway on the top boundary calls -- Amine did run toward the edge a few times (or to be more precise: ran away from Brooks while atempting to escape), but got quite a bit of help actually going out.

Brooks and Lee both did quite a bit of parallel riding, but when was that last called -- 1973? I find it more objectionable when the ref calls bottom stalling when flattened out in a parallel ride that's supposedly illegal.

So Amine is running towards the edge attempting to escape, and Brooks is attempting to maintain control, which causes AB take Amine OOB (and in my opinion, he was running him out to get a restart). Who’s at fault? Again, in my opinion, neither guy is stalling, but I understand that after the 3rd time or so, Brooks got the call. I wouldn’t have been surprised, however, Amine was called.

I can’t recall a specific instance offhand, but I recall seeing parallel rides hit with stalling when there’s not a lot of action on top. I’ll take your word for it in regards to 1973 - I wasn’t born yet.

 

[manatree]