Gutwrench, I totally understand where you are coming from. We argued more than our fair share and once you get warned the arguing is over. I certainly would like more consistancy on some calls. As far as sucking up, no. But I do respect the tough job they have and have walked in their shoes. And you have made my point by your comment on the front head.

Gutwrench,

Coach Neil is absolutly correct in his assertion that an escape can be given in a front head lock situation. NFHS rule 5-2-2 states "It is an escape when the defensive wrestler gains a neutral position and HIS OPPONENT HAS LOST CONTROL" I used uppercase on the most important part of this rule. Many people are unser the assumption that there must be a "seperation" of the two wrestlers for an escape to happen which is absolutly false. The escape comes one the offensive wrestler has lost the control that he once had.

So how do we as refs decide this? Well in the above mentioned case let me play a few scenarios. The defensive wrestler moves to a position where his torso is facing the offensive wrestler (which by the way is a commonly accepted critera for an esacape), but the offensive wrestler puts in a front head lock. Well from here the O wrestler hasn't really lost control yet because there is a good chance he can swing back behind and maintain his control. As a ref you recognize this and don't give an escape because that would give the O wrestler another point in the escape-takedown exchange.

Now in another situation the D wrestler now comes to 1 or two feet and yet the the O wrestler maintains a front headlock. ( There is an illustration of this in the back of the rule book, I believe it is number 52.) This is another trick situation. But here is the key that I'm quite sure the ref you are refering to was thinking. If the ref has decided that control has been lost he will "hold" that call until there is a definate seperation, or until the wrestlers go out of bounds, or until the period is over, so as to prevent the aforementioned escape-takedown exchange. So in a spectators eyes the ref hasn't signaled the escape yet then one of the three situations happens and the point comes, and they are outraged, because they don't understand why he didn't already give him the point.

So my point is that ref most likely had established that an escape had occured. Also another factor plays into this. And that is if the O wrestler is making an honest attempt to move back behind the D wrestler. If he does not that makes an even better case that he has had diffucltly mainting control and thus the D wrestler deserves an escape.

Now for my oppinion about this. If I see an O wrestler with a good front headlock in and the D wrestler isn't making an attempt to come to his feet or free himself from the headlock, then no way will I award and escape. On the flipside of that if the O wrestler is not wrestling aggresivly and trying to regain position behind the D wrestler, or the D wrestler snags a leg and is in the process of pulling it in as they go out of bounds, I may award an escape. Its a case by case thing.

I hope this long post has shed some light as to how and why this might have happened. And as always I encourage people in doubt abotu some of the rules to get yourself certified and go out and experiance a tournament or two for yourself and you'll find out its a world apart from both Spectating and Coaching.

Nigel,
I understand "holding" the call until the wrestlers break or go out of bounds but the call I can't understand is waiting until the end of the period. If both westlers are in the same position for 15-20 seconds and the ref holds the call until the end of the period, it seems the O wrestler is at an diadvantage. The O wrestler is not increasing his motion because he thinks since no points have been awarded, he still has control. In my opinion, it is either an escape or it is not. I think most fans react to the point at the end of the period more than the other two examples. In a tie match, the O wrestler would assume if he stays in the same position, he will go into overtime.If the ref waits until the end of the match and awards the D wrestler 1 point, the O wrestler has lost the match and in my opinion is at a disadvantage. Again, I think it is either an escape or it is not.

Nigel, you go to great lengths to defend the wrong call. The ref made a basic mistake. period. It's not a big deal but there's no great formula for judging when an escape is earned. You can't give an escape to someone who hasn't earned neutral position. In the case of front headlock or 1/4 nelson for that matter, the O wrestler still has control regardless of his intent to score from that position. So if the O wrestler comes out front with a front headlock and then grabs an ankle and returns behing the D wrestler it's not one escape and two takedown. This is basic stuff. It should be called the same way every time. You could hit the O wrestler for stalling with the position, but the best call for the good ref especially in the tie breaker is a quick stalemate. Watch college refs and you'll see that call made consistently. The refs do have a tough job and do it well. But they do get paid a little and can take some constructive criticism.

I think you you misunderstood what I wrote, and what I said was not the wrong call, I've seen it and called it myself many many times. Neutral position is gained when the offensive wrestler has lost his established control, a 1/4 nelson and front headlock are not always indicators of control. For the same reason as if both wrestlers were neutral and one shot in and the other placed either one of these holds on him, does that mean he now has control and gets a takedown? Absolutly not, so to say that because he already had control and then came into this position especially if the defensive wrestler caused the action, means that he retains control always is false my friend. Its is very easy for someone to do a stand up with a 1/4 nelson in, and a slide by with a front headlock. There is a fine line on this judgement call and it will always be called differently from Ref to Ref. I do agree on a fairly quick stalemate, unless the O wrestler keeps going back to the same hold, then its stalling. As far as putting the O wrestler at a disadvantage by holding the call, that is unfortunatle, however it is his responsibility to work for a fall, by continually going into either of the two aforementioned positions its more likely he is just trying to maintain control, and thus presents an opportunity for the D wrestler to score an escape. Its difficult to describe the situation on a talk thread, but being right there in the action and having to make the call, its actually pretty darn easy to tell when the O wrestler has lost control.

Nigel,
OK, it's easy to call. Why "hold" the call until the end of the period? If it is an escape, call it when it happens so both wrestlers know the situation. I simply think holding the call until the end of the period is unfair to the wrestlers. I think it would be easier for the refs to call it as soon as possible. I've never seen any call get the coach and fans upset as much as a call at the end of the match when it appears nothing has changed. I was not at the Bobcat, I'm not talking about a call at that tournament, I'm just trying to figure out why the call cannot be made when the ref decides it's an escape.

Heres the bottom line WISCOMBE WON. There will always be a question on a close call. It all matters where you are standing and who you are pulling for.Dont take away from a great win on Justins part. He beat a great wrestler in Malloy.We can debate this point till the cows come home and the bottom line stays.Both wrestlers did a great job in a classic and much anticipaited match congrats to both.Trust me on this Kirk does not suck Up!
RICK

Am i the only one who seems to realize that all of this arguing over whether or not the ref. should have given wiscombe an escape point or not is mute? I mean seriously guys, i think if memory serves me that in fact the reason that wiscombe won that match was not because he had gotten away from Malloy, but rather because Malloy was attatched to Wiscombe's ankle therefor warrenting a stalling call. Malloy had already been warned in the match, and therefore this one cost him a point and the title. Now i know that some of you will say that the whole point of the top guy is to stall out in double overtime, but in fact and Richard Salyer could back me on this one i'm sure. In double overtime the first man to score a point is declared the winner, and if no man scores then the offensive wrestler (man on top) wins. The top man must still try to work for points, and stalling can most definetly be called. Either way it was a great match, and both wrestlers deserve praise for their match.

Ron, as I explained earlier ref hold the call to make sure that a quick takedown is not scored. But make no mistake when I say holding a call I don't mean like 30 seconds, i'm talking about 5-15 seconds, otherwise if in the opinion of that ref the O wrestler has not lost control then it will be a stalemate. As far as the wrestlers knowing what the situation is, if they are paying attention to the ref while wrestling then they have some serious problems.

tiltin,

I've thought about that kind stalling call before and I'm still confused about it. I follow all your reasoning perfectly. But the fact that the top wrestler wins if he is still in control is in essence "scoring a point" because he wins if he does it. Why would one want to try to turn the bottom man if the whole overtime is designed to hold him down. During the regular match time, if the top man just holds the bottom man down, theoretically it would end in a tie, so its not necessarily advantageous to do this. Also, the bottom man cannot be called for stalling (unless he doesn't want to win) so its sort of a lopsided call. The only time I think stalling could possibly be called is if the top wrestler immediately lets bottom man stand up and grabs the ankle or picks up a single.

Richard Salyer could help us out on this one by posting the scenerio under "points of emphasis" in the back of the new rule book page 53-54. Basically the rule book states that in double overtime if a wrestler drops to an ankle and even if he is not control wrestling that he SHOULD NOT be called for stalling but the referee should immediately call a stalemate and the match should be restarted. I would just like it to be called correctly or at least the same way by all the officials at the state tournament.

Mamsawn, you should have finished reading the paragraph where it clearly states that if a wrestler goes to a "hang on" manuever again then he should be called for stalling. In other words you are given one opportunity to use a hang on move, after that it becomes stalling.

Also, with what Nigel is saying! The wrestler has to make an attempt to improve his position and where as just holding on to the ankle would not be making any effort to improve his position.

You guys are right, but there is supposed to be an immediate stoppage the first time a "hang on" manuever is used, a stalemate and restart before any stalling is called in double overtime.

I am a little new to this forum thing and don't read it alot but just looking over it brings me to a conclusion:
Mr Isom, you must have lots of time on your hands because I see your name quite often on here making statements, defending statements, and all-in-all lots of wasted time backtracking. I don't understand why you feel the need to respond so much to things that should be water off a duck's back. Move on!
I got on here to read people's opinion of the 'best match at the bobcat' and end up reading about interpretations of the rulebook and who is right and who is wrong. To get things back on track I thought Wiscombe vs Malloy was the best match, but a close second was Peterson vs Deeds. I was thinking Peterson was crazy for not cutting him at the end but it all worked out. Great tournament!
Also, Mr Isom you will probably prove my point about having too much time by responding to this.

As a matter of fact I do have lots of time on my hands between classes and things of that nature, but then again I don't really have time to create new accounts without my name on them just to try to berate others, so how about you move on. Imagine that, a forum where no one responds because if they do they have "too much time on their hands" In fact I wasted my time even responding to your outlandish nonsense.

But to answer your question, I will respond to false statements anytime I see them especailly regarding questioning of officials by people who are certainly not in the right about them.

Point to you....
I still think you should not worry so much, just say it and go on.