Introduction
Mike Mason (3-Time WV State Champ & 1993 AA OW from Williamstown) lost in the semi-finals of the NCAA Division I National Championships in March of 1998. Mike, a WVU standout, later valiantly fought back and became an All-American, placing 3rd in the prestigious event. On the surface, it seemed to be an acceptable outcome, until you are exposed to the circumstances surrounding his infamous loss.
Mike Mason's semi-final match went into the 30-second Tiebreaker. Mike's opponent won the coin toss and chose down; he was in the driver's seat. Having not even been warned for stalling prior to the tiebreaker, the official in the match arbitrarily hit Mike Mason twice for stalling in less than thirty seconds, subjectively awarding the match to his adversary.
Many in attendance at the competition were visibly shaken by the calls, and verbally indicated their displeasure. Unfortunately, the official became the focal point of the bout, not the wrestlers who worked so hard to obtain the ultimate goal of a National Championship. Most of the great referees will freely admit that being "anonymous" when officiating a match signifies a job well done.
Because of Mike Mason's tragic mat experience, an idea took root in West Virginia, regarding traditional beliefs on how "stalling" is indicated. Being one of the most progressive states in wrestling, we decided that it was time to investigate alternatives for improving the present state of "stalling." Thus, the "The Stall Procedure" two-year National Federation (NF) pilot study in the Mountain State was conceived.
The Request for Permission
With the steadfast support of the West Virgiinia Secondary Schools Activities Commission (WVSSAC), we initiated this endeavor to improve the area of stalling in the mat sport. The Commission's only stipulation was that we first acquire written permission from the NF to conduct such an innovative project.
This was going to be our first big test. Would the NF allow us to actively experiment on such a controversial and subjective area of wrestling? Stalling has always been a nightmare (and a "sore" spot) for everyone involved with the sport.
On April 10, 1998, we composed a letter explaining the particulars of what we wanted to attempt in West Virginia. It was sent directly to Fritz McGinness, the editor of the NF Wrestling Committee's Rulebook.
On April 28, 1998, a correspondence from Mr. McGinness was sent directly to me. The operative statement was: "If West Virginia would be interested in doing some experimenting on stalling, I would be glad to approve it." We had the okay.
Later (May 19, 1998), Mr. McGinness sent a letter of concern to Warren Carter, WVSSAC Executive Secretary, regarding what our plans were for the 30-second Tiebreaker. He wrote:
With the go-ahead, it was now time to develop a formal written document explaining all the elements of the study. Hence, the creation of the original "Stall Procedure" as it later appeared publicly in print.
The Stall Procedure in West Virginia
The National Federation of State High School Associations has approved a 1998-1999 pilot study on stalling entitled the "Stall Procedure." Under the jurisdiction of the West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission (WVSSAC), it will be instituted statewide and will include all out-of-state schools that wrestle in West Virginia.
West Virginia is the first state ever to conduct such a program on a statewide basis. The following is a detailed description of the Stall Procedure.
The Stall Procedure
The new Stall Procedure, in which NO points are awarded, is summarized below:
1. Each time a wrestler is called for stalling, the scorekeeper will write the letter down and then circle it:
S -- Warning
T -- Opponent's Choice
A -- Opponent's Choice
L -- Opponent's Choice
L -- Disqualification
2. The scorekeeper will mark down and circle the opponent's choice of position after the warning stage, so there is no confusion later on how points
were scored.
3. During the match, double stalling will NOT be called with the Stall Procedure.
4. In the Overtime, if a wrestler is called for stalling after the warning stage, his opponent will be given the choice.
5. During the 30-second Tiebreaker, NO stalling will be called. Instead, if the top wrestler appears to be hanging on, a quick stalemate will be indicated. (Important Point: It is feasible that the bottom wrestler could have as many as 3 to 5 starts with this approach.)
6. Finally, since there are no points scored in the stall procedure, it is not
part of the progressive penalty chart (which includes illegal holds, technical
violations, unnecessary roughness, and unsportsmanlike conduct during a match). When a wrestler reaches the second "L," he is disqualified for stalling.
The Stall Procedure Rationale
Why develop such an approach for penalizing stalling?
1. Many sincere attempts, both written in the rules and demonstrated on video tapes, have occurred for decades to develop official consistency in stalling calls. However, it has been observed (time and again) to be virtually
impossible to train two officials to call stalling in the same manner.
2. Stalling, like "holding" in football, is just too subjective of a decision in which to award "unearned" points. Afterall, no points (only yards) are awarded when holding is indicated.
3. Too often wrestling matches have been determined by stalling (judgment) calls in the final seconds, making the official the focal point of the competition, not the wrestlers. In fact, didn't we eliminate the "Referee's Decision" years ago for nearly the same reason?
4. The way stalling is presently enforced (along with numerous other judgment calls made by referees), many coaches believe that officials have too much power in deciding who is declared the winner. The Stall Procedure may help to eliminate this perception.
5. The Stall Procedure may even assist in improving officiating consistency. The more conservative officials may now indicate stalling like their more liberal colleagues, knowing they will not be awarding unearned points on the basis of personal judgment.
Why the "No-Stall" approach to the 30-second Tiebreaker?
1. As the Tiebreaker is now set up, the official is ONLY thinking of calling the top wrestler for stalling. Of course, the bottom wrestler will lose if he stalls, but that still does not solve the problem of equal officiating fairness. At the present time, what exists is an internal "stalling" bias against the top wrestler.
2. Likewise, due to the "Luck-Factor" of the coin toss in the Tiebreaker, the winner of the flip usually takes the bottom position. So, not only does he win the toss by the element of chance, but by choosing down, the wrestler also eliminates any possibility of being penalized for stalling.
3. Furthermore, how can we expect the top wrestler to take "risky" chances for near-fall points when (1) he is quite exhausted after having wrestled for eight minutes and (2) he probably wasn't able to turn his opponent during the regular match, due most likely to the parallel abilities of both wrestlers. In reality, riding his opponent is all we should require of him at this point in the match.
4. With the "No-Stall" approach, stalemates will be called IMMEDIATELY if the top wrestler appears in any way to be hanging on, rather than riding his opponent. Thus, the bottom wrestler could get from three to five starts during this 30-second period. If the bottom man is quicker than his opponent, he will ultimately score.
5. Finally, the "No-Stall" approach may actually make the decision of choosing bottom or top after winning the coin toss a bit more challenging, which is a much fairer situation.
Concluding Remarks
The WVSSAC has always been very progressive in promoting good sportsmanship, and in supporting innovative projects that may benefit its athletes. Wrestling is no exception. It is due, in part, to the dedicated efforts of our West Virginia coaches and officials. They are constantly striving to improve "coach-official" relationships and the rules of the game--for the betterment of wrestling!
All wrestlers deserve the fairest playing field we have to offer them. Quite possibly, the Stall Procedure will be a positive step in that direction.
The Dissemination of the Stall Procedure
After explaining the Stall Procedure in printed form, we felt a need to produce a professional video that would demonstrate more clearly the important aspects of this novel approach to stalling. Such a venture would cost thousands of dollars, but we had no revenue to financially support the project. Still, we were determined to make a go of it, even without any monetary resources.
In May of 1998, I visited Scott Nolte, the sports director of Wheeling's WTRF-TV7. The only leverage I had was the fact that Scott Nolte was a former student of mine in junior high school. So, I figured, "What do I have to lose?" With my hat in my hand, I explained what we wanted to do, that we had no money, and what were the possibilities of Channel 7 producing it as a community service for the WVSSAC? Scott enthusiastically responded, "I'll see what I can do, coach. Call me in two days." When I called him, Scott simply stated, "No problem, Coach Welker. Mr. Squibb, our general manager, said we can do it." The video was then set to be taped on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, with Scott Nolte graciously offering his services as the interviewer. The taping lasted three hours, editing another 22 hours, but we were able to complete the 12-minute "Stall Procedure" video in time for the fall clinics. No words can express my enduring gratitude to Scott Nolte and his support team for their dedication to the project.
After explaining the Stall Procedure and viewing the accompanying tape at each clinic, copies were given to all wrestling officials' board associations across the state. Others were sent the NF, collegiate wrestling authorities, and anyone who took an interest in what we were attempting to do in the Mountain State. The video was highly praised for its professionalism and clarity regarding the Stall Procedure study.
The Survey Results of the Stall Procedure Experiment
At the conclusion of the 1998-1999 season, West Virginia head wrestling coaches (both junior and senior high mentors) and officials were forwarded questionaires to fill out and return. The findings were then sent to the NF in time for consideration at its annual March wrestling committee meeting. It is during this gathering when new rules are adopted for the following mat season. Below are the first year's survey results we received from the respondents regarding the original "Stall Procedure."
The "Stall Procedure" pilot study was a dramatic approach to stalling in wrestling. Of course, change of any kind has always been initially associated with strong resistance.
The Stall Procedure is no different. However, many of the coaches and officials liked the idea of a "choice of position" penalty after the warning, but they wanted point-penalties to follow. We learned.
Let us begin with the "no double stalling" approach during the match. With 101 responses from both coaches and officials around the state: 76% (73 respondents) wanted double stalling returned. That can easily be done. (Note: There were 5 who did not choose to vote on the item.)
Now let's review the choices of the "Stalling Procedure" progression of penalties. The coaches and officials had the following options:
Our request was granted during the March 29, 1999 meeting of the NF wrestling rules committee.
At this point, let me digress a bit because there is also one interesting footnote. Included in the new rule changes for 1999-2000 was a very explicit clarification. The Committee made it a point to emphasize that during the 30-second Tiebreaker, when in doubt with stalling, call a quick stalemate. Also, even when a referee felt that blatant "hanging on" was occurring, indicate a stalemate the first time. They seemed to have been seriously considering our "No-Stalling" call during the Tiebreaker.
Now back to the Committee's decision to allow us to continue our experiment for one more year. In response, we restructured our original idea, developing the "Stall Procedure: Revised" for the 1999-2000 wrestling season.
The Stall Procedure: Revised
The 1998-99 "Stall Procedure" National Federation (NF) pilot study in West Virginia was a dramatic change for penalizing stalling in wrestling. Instead of earning point(s) during the penalty stage, choice of position was awarded to the offended wrestler.
At the end of the 1998-99 wrestling season, all junior and senior high school wrestling coaches were canvassed, as well as the state's wrestling officials. It was determined that although the respondents liked the "choice of position" after the warning stage, the majority wanted point-penalties to follow. With the approval of the WV Wrestling Coaches Committee, below are the revisions and rationale for the "Stall Procedure: Revised" during the 1999-2000 wrestling season.
The Stall Procedure: Revised Format
The following is the "Stall Procedure: Revised" Progressive Penalty Chart:
1. The "Stall Procedure: Revised" will be separate from the regular progressive penalty chart, which includes illegal holds, technical violations, unnecessary roughness, and unsportsmanlike conduct during a match. Thus, the letters of STALL, along with the choice of position and point (s) awarded will be circled on the score sheet. We contend that because stalling is so subjective and virtually no two officials ever call stalling the same, it would not be part of the regular progressive penalty chart.
2. Double stalling has been reinstated with the new revision.
3. There will be no stalling in the "Tiebreaker." Instead, quick stalemates will be indicated when the top wrestler appears to be hanging on, rather than riding or pinning his opponent. Rationale for original and revised "Stall Procedure"
Wrestler Concerns -- Too often over the years we have witnessed the problem of the questionable second "stalling call" indicated late in the third period, costing one of the wrestlers the match or taking it into Overtime. Secondly, there is the "Tiebreaker" dilemma in which officials are only thinking of calling the top wrestler for stalling, and he most likely lost the coin toss. We believe that the quick stalemate is a much more equitable approach.
Coach Concerns -- Many coaches perceive officials as having too much power regarding stalling during close matches. They believe that officials often become the focal point of matches, not the wrestlers, due to last-second "iffy" stalling calls.
Official Concerns -- The majority of officials feel there is too much pressure on them to make that second "tough" stalling call that could determine the match. With the original and revised "Stall Procedure," officials are more apt to make that second stalling call, knowing the wrestlers will decide the match themselves by scoring the final point(s) -- not the officials.
Rationale for revising the original Stall Procedure
With the original "Stall Procedure," we neglected to take into account coaching or wrestler tactics toward the end of the third period. There were isolated incidents where a wrestler blatantly stalled, knowing no points would ever be awarded to his opponent. The "Stall Procedure: Revised" should resolve this problem.
NOTE: In reference to double stalling, the following interpretations
shall apply:
1. If both wrestlers are penalized for stalling at the T level,
neither wrestler would receive a choice of position.
2. If both wrestlers are penalized for stalling--Wrestler A
with a T and Wrestler B with an A , Wrestler A would
earn one match point and Wrestler B would be given
choice of position.
Concluding Remarks
At the end of the 1999-2000 wrestling season, the coaches and officials will again be sent a detailed questionaire to evaluate the "Stall Procedure: Revised," comparing it to the original "Stall Procedure" and the traditional stalling set-up. The results of this two-year pilot study will then be forwarded to the National Federation Wrestling Committee for their consideration.
Hopefully, this innovative "stalling" experiment, with the steadfast support of the WV Secondary Schools Activities Commission, will ultimately benefit all wrestlers throughout the United States.
The Survey Findings of the Stall Procedure: Revised Experiment
At the conclusion of the 1999-2000 wrestling season, the WV coaches and officials were sent a detailed questionnaire to evaluate the "Stall Procedure: Revised," comparing it to the traditional stalling set-up across the nation. The following results of this two-year pilot study were forwarded to the NF Wrestling Committee members for their consideration.
Coaches' Responses to Questionnaire (60 Respondents):
| Stall Procedure: Revised Questions | YES (%) | NO (%) |
| 1. Do you prefer giving a wrestler a choice of position on the second stalling call rather than a point? | 73% | 27% |
| 2. Do you believe that stalling should be separate from the progressive penalty chart due to its subjectivity? | 64% | 36% |
| 3. Do you like the double stalling call? | 76% | 24% |
| 4. Do you like stalemates rather than calling stalling during the 30-Second Tiebreaker? | 90% | 10% |
| 5. Do you like the "Stall Procedure: Revised" better than how stalling is presently called throughout the country? | 88% | 12% |
| General Stalling Questions | ||
| 1. Do you believe that stalling will ever be called the same by different officials? | 2% | 98% |
| 2. Whether or not you agree with an official's philosophy on stalling, do you appreciate if he is consistent in the way he calls stalling? | 96% | 4% |
| Officials' Responses to Questionnaire (39 Respondents): | ||
| Stall Procedure: Revised Questions | YES (%) | NO (%) |
| 1. Do you prefer giving a wrestler a choice of position on the second stalling call rather than a point? | 64% | 36% |
| 2. Do you believe that stalling should be separate from the progressive penalty chart due to its subjectivity? | 65% | 35% |
| 3. Do you like the double stalling call? | 89% | 11% |
| 4. Do you like stalemates rather than calling stalling during the 30-Second Tiebreaker? | 84% | 16% |
| 5. Do you like the "Stall Procedure: Revised" better than how stalling is presently called throughout the country? | 63% | 37% |
| General Stalling Questions | ||
| 1. Do you believe that stalling will ever be called the same by different officials? | 8% | 92% |
| 2. Whether or not you agree with an official's philosophy on stalling, do you appreciate if he is consistent in the way he calls stalling? | 94% | 6% |
| Total Responses (coaches & officials) to Questionnaire (99 Respondents): | ||
| Stall Procedure: Revised Questions | YES (%) | NO (%) |
| 1. Do you prefer giving a wrestler a choice of position on the second stalling call rather than a point? | 70% | 30% |
| 2. Do you believe that stalling should be separate from the progressive penalty chart due to its subjectivity? | 64% | 36% |
| 3. Do you like the double stalling call? | 81% | 19% |
| 4. Do you like stalemates rather than calling stalling during the 30-Second Tiebreaker? | 88% | 12% |
| 5. Do you like the "Stall Procedure: Revised" better than how stalling is presently called throughout the country? | 79% | 21% |
| General Stalling Questions | ||
| 1. Do you believe that stalling will ever be called the same by different officials? | 4% | 96% |
| 2. Whether or not you agree with an official's philosophy on stalling, do you appreciate if he is consistent in the way he calls stalling? | 95% | 5% |
It doesn't take a statistician to realize that these result are very significant. Overall, our West Virginia coaches and officials found the "Stall Procedure: Revised" to be very workable, and an improvement upon how stalling has been traditionally penalized. Hopefully, the findings of this two-year, innovative "stalling" experiment will ultimately benefit all matmen throughout the United States.
The NF Wrestling Committee's Reaction
The NF Wrestling Rules Committee members met on March 26-27, 2000 to make decisions regarding new rules in the sport. They were also given the impelling results of our "Stall Procedure: Revised" survey for consideration. With such positive findings, we were anticipating that the Committee would at least adopt parts of our successful experiment on stalling.
On April 17, the WVSSAC received the major rule changes in wrestling for the 2000-2001 season. Unfortunately, the Committee chose not to take any action or even acknowledge the "Stall Procedure: Revised" experiment in its press release.
Of course, we were disappointed by the NF wrestling rules committee's complacency in reference to our two-year pilot study. Still, the West Virginia wrestling community can be very proud, knowing that we had the courage to take on a "stalling" project of such innovative magnitude. Furthermore, it truly worked. Like trailblazers in other fields, maybe we were just ahead of our time. Be that as it may, we had the vision to do it first!
References