Proposed Riding Time rule change

NoVaLion2

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2018
506
724
1
SIAP, but Willie posted this on twitter: And I responded with something that I always thought was a good idea for handling this and similar situations. (I can't remember if I came up with this or heard from someone else; I have brought this up several times over the years.) So, here goes: when a bottom wrestler improves to what otherwise would be a neutral position (e.g., standing or head/legs scramble as in Willie's post above) the ref says "neutral" and swipes a 5 count. If the "top" wrestler has not improved then a stall warning is given. If you can't keep the guy on the mat and you can't keep him off of your own legs then you don't control him and shouldn't awarded for that.

I'm guessing that there are issues with this approach, but I think it would get the wrestlers back to their feet more quickly when the top wrestler is not really fully controlling the bottom wrestler. An alternative I thought of earlier today was to just award the bottom wrestler the escape and stand them back up.

Thoughts?
 

nitlion6

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2012
11,901
13,327
1
SIAP, but Willie posted this on twitter:
And I responded with something that I always thought was a good idea for handling this and similar situations. (I can't remember if I came up with this or heard from someone else; I have brought this up several times over the years.) So, here goes: when a bottom wrestler improves to what otherwise would be a neutral position (e.g., standing or head/legs scramble as in Willie's post above) the ref says "neutral" and swipes a 5 count. If the "top" wrestler has not improved then a stall warning is given. If you can't keep the guy on the mat and you can't keep him off of your own legs then you don't control him and shouldn't awarded for that.

I'm guessing that there are issues with this approach, but I think it would get the wrestlers back to their feet more quickly when the top wrestler is not really fully controlling the bottom wrestler. An alternative I thought of earlier today was to just award the bottom wrestler the escape and stand them back up.

Thoughts?
I like the standing right into a 5 count, mat return, release or top stall call.

The "I have your leg you have mine" situation I wish they would just call it properly. If two guys are in the situation and both are working to improve their position let them wrestle, if one is struggling to improve the position call the other for stalling, if both guys are just in the hang on mode and not overtly working to improve, stall both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoVaLion2

1995PSUgrad

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2019
120
114
1
Does that give an advantage to a wrestler who can't get off the bottom? If all the guy has to do is grab a leg and doesn't really need to escape, then your are rewarding him for not being able to get out.

I do agree that there are times when riding seems pointless, but let's reward guys who can work on top and get back points, which can take time to get.
 

NoVaLion2

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2018
506
724
1
Does that give an advantage to a wrestler who can't get off the bottom? If all the guy has to do is grab a leg and doesn't really need to escape, then your are rewarding him for not being able to get out.

I do agree that there are times when riding seems pointless, but let's reward guys who can work on top and get back points, which can take time to get.
If you can't keep the bottom guy off your legs -- you're not controlling him, and shouldn't be rewarded for that IMHO. Agree on the top guy working to get back points; but if the other wrestler has improved to a neutral position and you don't re-establish control then you're not working for back points.
 

nitlion6

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2012
11,901
13,327
1
Back points are the reward.
For the bottom guy, avoiding back points is the reward.

In most cases getting off the bottom is a gas saver. In Zain's freshman season he wasn't turning guys, but he was still brutal and emptying the gas tanks of many opponents. Including one who traveled a long distance on a bus to meet a very average official.

Gilman may have gassed Lizak from the bottom position, but that isn't common.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yekrut321

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Two boots in should be called stalling

Tend to agree with this - don't believe I know of a turning move or pinning combination that can be used off of "double legs-in" (and can honestly say I have never seen anyone turned or pinned from this position - in general, the bottom wrestler is flattered but the top wrestler is so square on top of them they really can't do much with bottom wrestler from there... seen half-nelsons attempted, but never successfully). A single leg in (also called a figure-4 of the leg if you hook it at ankle with other leg), has tons of turning and pinning combinations from this riding position - can-opener, guillotine.....
 
Last edited:

NoVaLion2

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2018
506
724
1
Does that give an advantage to a wrestler who can't get off the bottom? If all the guy has to do is grab a leg and doesn't really need to escape, then your are rewarding him for not being able to get out.

I do agree that there are times when riding seems pointless, but let's reward guys who can work on top and get back points, which can take time to get.
Yes, as long as they're in control. My original premise does not preclude someone building up riding time while in control. The pivot point is when they are no longer really in control. If the top wrestler allows the bottom wrestler to get to what otherwise would be a neutral position I don't they're in control and should not be rewarded for that.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
Tend to agree with this - don't believe I know of a turning move or pinning combination that can be used off of "double legs-in" (and can honestly say I have never seen anyone turned or pinned from this position - in general, the bottom wrestler is flattered but the top wrestler is so square on top of them they really can't do much with bottom wrestler from there... seen half-nelsons attempted, but never successfully). A single leg in (also called a figure-4 of the leg if you hook it at ankle with other leg), has tons of turning and pinning combinations from this riding position - can-opener, guillotine.....
Fix has turned below average guys starting off with double boots. But against good guys I agree he is stalling when doing it.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
SIAP, but Willie posted this on twitter:
And I responded with something that I always thought was a good idea for handling this and similar situations. (I can't remember if I came up with this or heard from someone else; I have brought this up several times over the years.) So, here goes: when a bottom wrestler improves to what otherwise would be a neutral position (e.g., standing or head/legs scramble as in Willie's post above) the ref says "neutral" and swipes a 5 count. If the "top" wrestler has not improved then a stall warning is given. If you can't keep the guy on the mat and you can't keep him off of your own legs then you don't control him and shouldn't awarded for that.

I'm guessing that there are issues with this approach, but I think it would get the wrestlers back to their feet more quickly when the top wrestler is not really fully controlling the bottom wrestler. An alternative I thought of earlier today was to just award the bottom wrestler the escape and stand them back up.

Thoughts?

It’s not a horrible idea in theory but there are a few issues:

1) There are probably already too many “count” stalling calls. I don’t think we need to keep adding more

2) You can’t say “neutral” otherwise bottom guy may think he got an escape

3) How are you defining what “would otherwise be neutral”? For example, technically a front headlock would “otherwise be neutral” but most would agree top has not lost control

4) As someone else said, this could lead to the bottom guy just trying to turn in and grab a leg or something
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoVaLion2

NoVaLion2

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2018
506
724
1
It’s not a horrible idea in theory but there are a few issues:

1) There are probably already too many “count” stalling calls. I don’t think we need to keep adding more

2) You can’t say “neutral” otherwise bottom guy may think he got an escape

3) How are you defining what “would otherwise be neutral”? For example, technically a front headlock would “otherwise be neutral” but most would agree top has not lost control

4) As someone else said, this could lead to the bottom guy just trying to turn in and grab a leg or something
(2) is a really good point, something else then, maybe "no control". (3) is a really good point that I don't have any ideas for how to address; maybe this change is only applied for standing and the head/leg scramble position. I'm not sure about (4), if you just turn in and grab the top wrestlers leg, I don't think you're quite yet in a "neutral" position. I don't think your point (1) is a good point -- the refs need to do more of this IMHO (i.e., enforcing existing rules); my objective with this is to keep the action moving. The more action there is, the more entertaining the sport is.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
(2) is a really good point, something else then, maybe "no control". (3) is a really good point that I don't have any ideas for how to address; maybe this change is only applied for standing and the head/leg scramble position. I'm not sure about (4), if you just turn in and grab the top wrestlers leg, I don't think you're quite yet in a "neutral" position. I don't think your point (1) is a good point -- the refs need to do more of this IMHO (i.e., enforcing existing rules); my objective with this is to keep the action moving. The more action there is, the more entertaining the sport is.

For point 1, I think the argument that's been made is that because there are so many "defined" stall calls, that refs won't really call "regular stalling" on the top guy much. And I'd agree. I guess you can put that on the refs, but I don't think adding more counts is going to help that.
 

1995PSUgrad

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2019
120
114
1
Yes, as long as they're in control. My original premise does not preclude someone building up riding time while in control. The pivot point is when they are no longer really in control. If the top wrestler allows the bottom wrestler to get to what otherwise would be a neutral position I don't they're in control and should not be rewarded for that.
I understand what you mean, but I think that by changing the rule as suggested it would reward the bottom wrestler who cannot get off bottom. Right now, like it or not, a top wrestler is riding and building up riding time and preventing the bottom wrestler from escaping, which is allowed by the rules. Just because the top wrestler isn't doing more, doesn't mean that he can't or that he should be penalized for not doing more as he is doing what is currently required (i.e. not allowing the bottom wrestler to escape).

I am not saying that I disagree with the idea behind the rule change, but let's not blame the top wrestler because the bottom wrestler can't escape.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
I understand what you mean, but I think that by changing the rule as suggested it would reward the bottom wrestler who cannot get off bottom. Right now, like it or not, a top wrestler is riding and building up riding time and preventing the bottom wrestler from escaping, which is allowed by the rules. Just because the top wrestler isn't doing more, doesn't mean that he can't or that he should be penalized for not doing more as he is doing what is currently required (i.e. not allowing the bottom wrestler to escape).

I am not saying that I disagree with the idea behind the rule change, but let's not blame the top wrestler because the bottom wrestler can't escape.

Hang on a second, a top wrestler who is only wrestling to keep the bottom wrestler from escaping, and not attempting to score from the top position (i.e., never "improves his position on the bottom wrestler" - IOW, riding for the sake of riding and nothing else) is by rule "stalling". Your notion that the bottom wrestler is the only wrestler who is required to attempt to improve into a scoring position is flawed and not a correct understanding of the rulebook (for instance, a wrestler who initiates a "parallel ride" and never deviates from this ride -- i.e never attempts to improve to a scoring position from top -- is to be called for stalling according to the rulebook. So how is "riding" a bottom wrestler only looking for riding time until the Official stalemates the action not CLEAR stalling on top wrestler? You can't possibly say that is stalling on bottom wrestler, he has improved his bottom position to the point where the top wrestler is looking for nothing but a stalemate and is attempting to collect riding time until it's called ! That absolutely is the definition of stalling on top wrestler who is doing NOTHING except attempting to stalemate the action taking place.).
 

NittanyLion84

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2016
1,590
2,292
1
59
PA - D9
Hang on a second, a top wrestler who is only wrestling to keep the bottom wrestler from escaping, and not attempting to score from the top position (i.e., never "improves his position on the bottom wrestler" - IOW, riding for the sake of riding and nothing else) is by rule "stalling". Your notion that the bottom wrestler is the only wrestler who is required to attempt to improve into a scoring position is flawed and not a correct understanding of the rulebook (for instance, a wrestler who initiates a "parallel ride" and never deviates from this ride -- i.e never attempts to improve to a scoring position from top -- is to be called for stalling according to the rulebook. So how is "riding" a bottom wrestler only looking for riding time until the Official stalemates the action not CLEAR stalling on top wrestler? You can't possibly say that is stalling on bottom wrestler, he has improved his bottom position to the point where the top wrestler is looking for nothing but a stalemate and is attempting to collect riding time until it's called ! That absolutely is the definition of stalling on top wrestler who is doing NOTHING except attempting to stalemate the action taking place.).
If only I had a dollar for every time I heard this from Bushwood, I could have retired long ago.
 

NoVa Lion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,105
5,456
1
If only I had a dollar for every time I heard this from Bushwood, I could have retired long ago.
LOL, but in this particular case he is correct. Refs seem to be consistently biased in favor of the top wrestler. when it comes to stalling calls. JMHO
 

1995PSUgrad

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2019
120
114
1
Hang on a second, a top wrestler who is only wrestling to keep the bottom wrestler from escaping, and not attempting to score from the top position (i.e., never "improves his position on the bottom wrestler" - IOW, riding for the sake of riding and nothing else) is by rule "stalling". Your notion that the bottom wrestler is the only wrestler who is required to attempt to improve into a scoring position is flawed and not a correct understanding of the rulebook (for instance, a wrestler who initiates a "parallel ride" and never deviates from this ride -- i.e never attempts to improve to a scoring position from top -- is to be called for stalling according to the rulebook. So how is "riding" a bottom wrestler only looking for riding time until the Official stalemates the action not CLEAR stalling on top wrestler? You can't possibly say that is stalling on bottom wrestler, he has improved his bottom position to the point where the top wrestler is looking for nothing but a stalemate and is attempting to collect riding time until it's called ! That absolutely is the definition of stalling on top wrestler who is doing NOTHING except attempting to stalemate the action taking place.).
I don't agree completely that the top wrestler who is trying to keep the bottom wrestler down is stalling. When a bottom wrestler tries to sit out or stand, the top wrestler is trying to break him down, not turn him; that does not mean that he is stalling. Part of the time the top wrestler just needs to ride. What if the match is tied and the top wrestler needs 15 - 20 seconds to get riding time or if the top wrestler is up by one and needs to hold the bottom wrestler down to not give up the escape point and thus win the match? I don't the top wrestler is stalling in either case when he is just trying to keep the bottom wrestler down. I understand that if the top wrestler accumulates 6 minutes of riding time, there might have been some stalling going on, but I don't think the top wrestler should be penalized for not being able to turn the bottom wrestler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyLion84

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
I don't agree completely that the top wrestler who is trying to keep the bottom wrestler down is stalling. When a bottom wrestler tries to sit out or stand, the top wrestler is trying to break him down, not turn him; that does not mean that he is stalling. Part of the time the top wrestler just needs to ride. What if the match is tied and the top wrestler needs 15 - 20 seconds to get riding time or if the top wrestler is up by one and needs to hold the bottom wrestler down to not give up the escape point and thus win the match? I don't the top wrestler is stalling in either case when he is just trying to keep the bottom wrestler down. I understand that if the top wrestler accumulates 6 minutes of riding time, there might have been some stalling going on, but I don't think the top wrestler should be penalized for not being able to turn the bottom wrestler.

Okay, you clearly don't agree with stalling being called when a top wrestler rides an ankle or leg for > 5 seconds or when a top wrestler simply hangs on to a standing wrestler.... or pulls/pushes them OB to maintain their top ("riding") position. Just because you don't like the rules regarding top-stalling doesn't mean they aren't the rules. BTW, there is a huge difference between not being able to turn a bottom wrestler, but clearly trying to turn them..... AND never attempting to turn the bottom wrestler at all.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
Okay, you clearly don't agree with stalling being called when a top wrestler rides an ankle or leg for > 5 seconds or when a top wrestler simply hangs on to a standing wrestler.... or pulls/pushes them OB to maintain their top ("riding") position. Just because you don't like the rules regarding top-stalling doesn't mean they aren't the rules. BTW, there is a huge difference between not being able to turn a bottom wrestler, but clearly trying to turn them..... AND never attempting to turn the bottom wrestler at all.

Agreed. I’ve seen numerous times where the bottom guy gets called for stalling when IMO it should probably be called on the top guy.

The recent Ayala/Schroder match being a good example. Probably some Carver influence on the ref but he hit Schroder for stalling twice despite Ayala pretty much never coming off the hip. Yes it was impressive for a true freshman to ride a 6th year senior that long, but dude was stalling. Looks like Marinelli has taught him the spiral/claw stall ride. (The PSU ankle ride should get hit for stalling more as well).
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,871
12,088
1
58
eriespecialty.com
If the bottom guy's knees are both off the mat, it ain't stalling. IMO the next offensive move is on the guy with double boots in. If he can't turn him with the double boots, move on to another offense or get dinged with stalling. Pushing down on the head isn't trying to turn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KCLion

Irv ONian

Active Member
May 26, 2020
33
65
1
One simple change (that would be an unambiguous call for the ref) that I think would GREATLY improve the whole riding time discussion--any time the action is stopped for out-of-bounds, restart the wrestling in neutral (without awarding an escape). You would need to maintain the stall call for a top wrestler who simply pushes the bottom wrestler out-of-bounds to avoid an escape.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Agree on dropping riding time, but not on adding pushouts. Just get the refs to call stalling based on the actual rules already in place.

In situations where top wrestler is doing nothing but attempting to stalemate bottom wrestler's escape or reversal attempt OR is doing nothing offensive (i.e., riding to accumulate RTA with no legitimate turn attempts), the Referee should simply call out loudly "5 Count" and begin swiping to a 5 count starting at 1. Top wrestler should have 2 choices: 1) improve their position / try a different move prior to 5-Count ending, or 2) continue to end of 5-Count, stalemate is called and both wrestlers put on their feet with no escape point awarded.
 

NittanyChris

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2001
8,486
7,861
1
Disagree with dropping riding time completely, but agree to limiting or capping it in some way. Mat wrestling is an important part of folk and should not be eliminated. Also, get rid of the stupid escape point when a guy is let up. He hasn’t earned a thing. Various ways to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yekrut321

impalanut

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
288
368
1
There is no way to allow the bottom man out without a point during the actual wrestling that doesn't require some judgement on the part of the ref. How about every time they return to restart , at that. point the top man can say start in neutral without a point. This requires no judgement as to intent during the active wrestling. If the bottom man wants the escape point he will have to earn it, if the top man doesn't want to work for a turn he doesn't have to stall.
 

NittanyChris

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2001
8,486
7,861
1
There is no way to allow the bottom man out without a point during the actual wrestling that doesn't require some judgement on the part of the ref. How about every time they return to restart , at that. point the top man can say start in neutral without a point. This requires no judgement as to intent during the active wrestling. If the bottom man wants the escape point he will have to earn it, if the top man doesn't want to work for a turn he doesn't have to stall.
I think others have proposed something similar to this: once there is a TD, bottom guy has one minute to escape and top guy has one minute to turn the guy. If neither occurs return to neutral with no escape point rewarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creamery freak

Irv ONian

Active Member
May 26, 2020
33
65
1
Re: "There is no way to allow the bottom man out without a point during the actual wrestling that doesn't require some judgement on the part of the ref."--that's not quite correct--if any time the action is stopped for out-of-bounds, you restart the wrestling in neutral (without awarding an escape), then there is no judgement call for the ref. I like the concept of riding time. So when you have a takedown (or at the start of the second/third period, depending on the wrestler choice), let the top wrestler accumulate riding time, but return to neutral any time the action goes out-of-bounds.

Re: "How about every time they return to restart , at that. point the top man can say restart in neutral without a point."--the problem with that is when you go out-of-bounds from a rear standing position--how is the top wrestler in control? This seems to happen in every HWT match that doesn't end in a first-period pin. If the top wrestler is "controlling the action" then he should be able to keep the action in bounds.
 
Last edited:

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
Re: "There is no way to allow the bottom man out without a point during the actual wrestling that doesn't require some judgement on the part of the ref."--that's not quite correct--if any time the action is stopped for out-of-bounds, you restart the wrestling in neutral (without awarding an escape), then there is no judgement call for the ref. I like the concept of riding time. So when you have a takedown (or at the start of the second/third period, depending on the wrestler choice), let the top wrestler accumulate riding time, but return to neutral any time the action goes out-of-bounds.

Re: "How about every time they return to restart , at that. point the top man can say restart in neutral without a point."--the problem with that is when you go out-of-bounds from a rear standing position--how is the top wrestler in control? This seems to happen in every HWT match that doesn't end in a first-period pin. If the top wrestler is "controlling the action" then he should be able to keep the action in bounds.
I think your first suggestion would just result in the bottom guy crawling out of bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KCLion

impalanut

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
288
368
1
Allowing the return to neutral would be the top man s choice. Not a requirement.
If the bottom guy is pulling out of bounds he should be called for stalling or fleeing the mat.
 

NoVa Lion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,105
5,456
1
Disagree with dropping riding time completely, but agree to limiting or capping it in some way. Mat wrestling is an important part of folk and should not be eliminated. Also, get rid of the stupid escape point when a guy is let up. He hasn’t earned a thing. Various ways to do this.
Dropping riding time does NOT eliminate mat wrestling. In fact, IMHO, it will make mat wrestling more important as there is no longer an incentive to just ride when on top and more wrestlers will try to turn their opponent. As it is, a large majority of wrestlers ride just to get the riding time point.
 

KCLion

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,171
1,882
1
Dropping riding time does NOT eliminate mat wrestling. In fact, IMHO, it will make mat wrestling more important as there is no longer an incentive to just ride when on top and more wrestlers will try to turn their opponent. As it is, a large majority of wrestlers ride just to get the riding time point.
My humble opinion is that this would not be the case. It moves folk style closer to free style and most back points would be feet to back or none at all.

I love the fights that take place when the riding time is approaching 1 minute and both wrestlers are working to prevent or hold the minute.

I am also intrigued by the strategic decisions that have to be made particularly in the third period whether to go down or not if that time is close to one minute either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STAND with PRIDE

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Re: "There is no way to allow the bottom man out without a point during the actual wrestling that doesn't require some judgement on the part of the ref."--that's not quite correct--if any time the action is stopped for out-of-bounds, you restart the wrestling in neutral (without awarding an escape), then there is no judgement call for the ref. I like the concept of riding time. So when you have a takedown (or at the start of the second/third period, depending on the wrestler choice), let the top wrestler accumulate riding time, but return to neutral any time the action goes out-of-bounds.

Re: "How about every time they return to restart , at that. point the top man can say restart in neutral without a point."--the problem with that is when you go out-of-bounds from a rear standing position--how is the top wrestler in control? This seems to happen in every HWT match that doesn't end in a first-period pin. If the top wrestler is "controlling the action" then he should be able to keep the action in bounds.

Agree, but I would add that action should also return to neutral on stalemates - if the best the top wrestler can do is stalemate the action being initiated by bottom wrestler, he isn't in control of the bottom man or the action.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
Allowing the return to neutral would be the top man s choice. Not a requirement.
If the bottom guy is pulling out of bounds he should be called for stalling or fleeing the mat.
Fleeing the mat doesn't exist in college anymore. I agree it "should" be stalling, but guys can probably make it look like they're not (see also: neutral out of bounds situations today).