i think that there needs to be some sort of criteria set, either that or before matches the individual referee should explain to each wrestler exactly what will constitute a stall according to his bias. there were too many matches with plenty of action where referee bias seemed to play way too much part in the outcome of the match.

i cannot express enough how important i believe action is in matches. i wish stalling were called more, but if you have allowed something from one wrestler the entire match calling stalling on the wrestler who initiated the majority of the action with 8 seconds left in the match is something which displays obvious personal views to who the referee favors.

being impartial is nearly impossible, even if it is what you are paid to professionally do. asking someone to be 100% impartial, even if they agree and take an oath not to play favorites, is never going to be realistic.

overall the officials do the best that they can and for sure do not get enough appreciation for the matches that they do very well. however they do catch a lot of grief when they exist as human beings and exhibit human error. i dont expect anyone to be perfect, not even wrestling officials. however i would appreciate it if the officials would communicate what they are lookiing for in a match prior to the match starting and not waiting out that looking for tilts and taking shots was considered a stall.

i coach my wrestlers that the guy in the stripes is right even if he is wrong. this is true, in my 19 years involved in this sport i have yet to see a referee reverse a call based on a coaches argument. arguing causes the referee to hold grudges, especially how you handle yourself during your complaint. those of us who are intense and animated struggle late in certain tournaments with certain referees.

making threads suchs as these does not properly explain what it is that i am wanting from our officials. i think that all i am looking for is some consistancey and more importnat dedication

congrats to eric luedke for wrestling a great match in the finals against neil. the final match with leudke and neil was everything it was billed to be.

AMEN!!!

I agree with Coach Deyoe, the refs should of had each wrestler aside and told them what they were going to be looking for.The Match with Neil Erisman and Luedke(spelling) was a great one. but to call stalling with 8 seconds left in the 3rd round was a bad call in my views. I'm sure the ref seen something we didn't from the stands but 8 sec? I know Neil very well and everyone who does know him, knows that this was a very tuff expierience but we all know he will train like a mad man in the long months back to the state dance. So good luck to you Mr. Erisman and let you be succesful in everything you do, your a great wrestler, a true friend and most of all a great young man.

Here's a real kicker... I was behind the 4a table when a match went in to overtime. The referee comes to the table and asks "No one has been called for stalling, right?"

I thought, what does that have to do with anything? If they are stalling, call it. Essentially I assumed he didnt want to be a bad guy and call a guy for stalling and cost that wrestler a point.

No, actually most good officials do that before an overtime period, simply to confirm in their own mind as to whether or not there has been a warning or not. What you heard was good communication between the official and the table.

Norton 103, Madden stalled his way to a championship. Congrats.

At the 6A matches I think you could take all the
refs and asked them to describe what stalling is and you would get 20 different versions.

One match I saw had a kid ahead by a couple of points and rolled up like a ball and layed there for almost the whole third period without even a warning for stalling. Then with another ref you get dinged for nothing.

Coaches need to complain to the Kansas State High School Assocation...in mass

I watched this match because of all the hype on this forum. I could care less who won or lost, I only wanted to see a good match. Here is how I saw the match:
1. Luedke could have/should have been warned and called for stalling early in the match. Erismans little drags were some action but not great shots
2. Erisman could have/should have been called for stalling 40 seconds before the call.
3. Luedke did not have the takedown before the buzzer in the third period(correct call)but at least it was some action
4. The overtime had the only real action in the whole match(Luedke shot, Erisman counter,Luedke finish for the takedown.
If the ref would have called stalling earlier, we may have been treated to a good match by two talented wrestlers. The way it was called led to a BORING MATCH until the overtime.

Kyle_Dub#2, youve been trashing on Madden all year, and once he proves you wrong for saying hes not that good, you make up yet ANOTHER excuse.

Kyle_Dub I just want to call you a complete idiot, Madden won, live with it. You were also the same idiot that stated Spillman would beat Annon 9 times out of 10, watch out everyone, Kyle's on fire.

I guess that means that Gilliland stalled his way to a championship, too, then. Even though the ref should have given lamar the reversal.

There is a consistancy problem with calling stalling in Kansas. Not a problem with stalling, a problem with calling it.

Like most things in this sport, stalling is a judgement call — in fact it might be the BIGGEST judgement call, simply because there is no hard, fast guidelines for it. On takedowns we have "supporting points" and for near falls we have "shoulder blades", "45 degree angles" and "five-counts." But we have none of that for stalling.

This is why the state needs to hit points of emphisis for officials for stalling. From what I have read, stalling calls were much more of an issue in both Wichita and Hays this weekend than they have been all season. That makes matters worse. If kids have been wrestiling a certain way all season and not getting called, then getting called at State, that's absolutely wrong.

We need to press the state to emphisize stalling and make it stick.

Augustine stalled the whole match you can't just hold on he never even came close to turning Dennis, whne you have an ankle you have to at least make an attempt to move up and Augustine made not attempt maybe he should learn a new move instead of just holding on to legs. He should of been called earlier in the match when he just laid on top all of the 2nd period.

Sure, then it'd be like WWF where the guy takes a two count and then miraculously throws the other guy off of him.
If the refs were to start having to count stallings, there would probably be more stalling going on than there is now.

Rule 7 Section 6 Art 4 (b) legally holds the heel to the buttocks while the defensive wrestler is broken down to the mat for more than five seconds; (c) holding an opponent's leg with the use of two hands on two legs or two hands on one leg in action not designed to break his opponent down, or is for the purpose of securing a fall, or is to prevent an escape or reversal, is stalling. Repeated regrasping and holding the leg or legs with both hands or arms, merely to break the defensive man down in order to keep him under control, is a violation under this rule. Art 5 ... It is stalling when the wrestler in the defensive position refuses to wrestle aggressively by attempting to escape or reverse his opponent
There is obviously more, you can find stalling covered in Rule 7 Section 6 or on pages 29 and 30 of your federation rules book.
Refs have many different opinions, They are only human.

Bub.....your totally right, I'll eat my words about the annon spillman thing. It was more wishful thinking than anything, plus I was being biased seeing how I'm a Hoxie alum.

Stalling is part of the game. A good wrestler will know when they are up and don't want to try anything risky. Stalling can be done without being called if your good at it. But when your backin up all the time, you got to call that. I was good at stalling, and when i was up by 2 or more goin into the 3rd, i was almost unbeatable. So, its just a personal thing i guess.

I watched the Payne and Steinmetz match. After Payne took Steinmetz down, Steinmetz just sprawled out on his stomach and kept his arms extended in front of him, like in freestyle. He didn't try to base up at all, and he never got warned once. I was really surprised he never got warned, cause they easily could have hit him a couple of times.

I watched several matches at 321A specifically for stalling, also. I was amazed. In one particular 215 pound match, John of Independent and Alison of Hesston, it was crazy. I know many wrestlers who have wrestled John believe he stalls the entire match, wrestling near the edge and jumps out of bounds when the opponent tries to make a move. I think this is an absolutely correct observation. The problem was, John was doing this all three periods. He was given a stalling warning and then Alison was awarded 2 stalling points. Alison lost by one. The problem was, John was doing this the entire match, why was it only called in the third period?

Johnson vs. Kammerer 6a 145lb match. In the first period, Kammerer is on top of Johnson. Johnson, laying flat on his stomach, looks to the ref, puts both hands in the air, and gets a stalling call against Kammerer. Then, in the third period, after Kammerer had to wrestle his butt off to tie the match, he was on top of Johnson with 10 seconds to go. Johnson balled up, and as Kammerer sat on top of him, Kammerer put his hands into the air and looked at the ref. So what does the ref do? He again hits Kammerer for stalling, giving Johnson a point and the win. Now, to quote the rule book,
"Art 5 ... It is stalling when the wrestler in the defensive position refuses to wrestle aggressively by attempting to escape or reverse his opponent"
After the match, the ref told the head coach of SM West that Kammerer had attempted to show the ref up, so he penalized him. What kind of B.S. statement is that? Since when is the match about the Ref's ego? With 10 seconds left to go, that ref took the match out of the wrestlers hands and decided it himself.
When the match was over, I had 8 people I had never met before tell me that was the worst officiating that they had ever seen and my wrestler was robbed. As for the opinion of other refs, 2 that I spoke with agreed the ref of that match had made a mistake.
This isn't to say that Kammerer would have won. But, he deserved the chance in overtime to let his wrestling determine that, not the ref.