Here are the additional sources which permit the coach to request a conference for any reason he wishes.

Rule 6-6-6, page 33:

"When a coach believes the referee has misapplied
a rule or disagrees with judgment, the coach may approach the scorer's table, request the match be stopped (when there is no significant action) and discuss the matter with the referee directly in front of the scorer's table."

Case Manual situation 6.6.6C:

"COMMENT: This rule does allow a coach to approach the scorer's table to discuss any matter with the referee. The coach may even discuss disagreement with a judgment call..."

Case Manual Section 12 - Coaching, page 83:

But if you think it would serve the sport well to allow the coach unlimited conferences without any consequence, then you fail to understand the rationale for this rule. I'll share an example from a Regional Tournament I worked 3 years ago to illustrate the point:

I called a Technical Violation (TV) on GREEN for failing to remain inbounds. The coach disagreed and wanted to discuss it. I asked him if he wanted a conference. He wouldn't answer - instead he kept asking how it was a TV against his kid. Again, I asked him if he wanted a conference and he finally says "Yes." I tell the wrestlers to remain in the center circle and I go to the table to listen to the coach. After he goes on for 15 seconds, I explain that GREEN failed to make every effort to remain inbounds and that's why he earned a TV. I then issue the warning for Coaches Misconduct. At that point, the coach asks why and says "I didn't say anything out of line and it only took 30 seconds." I told him I'd explain after the match ended. So, afterward, I ask him, "During those 30 seconds, how many points were scored? How many aggressive moves were initiated? Was the conditioning of the superior wrestler rewarded?" Answers - Zero, None, No.

Now, imagine if the coach was allowed to interupt the match for 20 - 60 seconds at a time, multiple times in a single match, without any consequence. And then add in the risk that the other coach could do the same thing. Matches could take forever to complete. And everyone watching would wonder if the referee was competent and whether he could control a match.

I have an idea... any time a coach doesn't agree with a call, we should call both coaches to the bench and come to a gentleman's agreement on how it should go. I'm sure both coaches will see it the same way as only the referee will be wrong. Am I sarcastic?? You bet!

- Was that a 2 point or 3 point near fall?
- Isn't that the second stalling call?
- Did you award near fall + a takedown?.

My technique for these types of questions is to simply answer them as I'm walking back to the center of the mat to get the wrestlers in their starting positions, thus there is no interuption in the match.

If the question is not about my call, but regarding the logistics of the match, then that is not a conference either. For example, if the coach is concerned that the clock was still running after I blew the whistle for out of bounds. Or, if the coach is wondering if the scorekeeper captured all of the points I signaled. In these types of situations, if I believe there is a legitimate concern, I will take my own timeout to check with the table, review the scorebook, etc.

I always make it very clear when a conference is taking place. I always ask the coach "Are you requesting a conference?" If he says yes, then I tell the wrestlers to stay in the 10 foot circle or I will penalize them. Then I go to the scorer's table and meet with the coach.

The Coaches Misconduct rule is in place to allow coaches an avenue for correcting perceived wrongs. The coach may not always be right, but he is entitled to the conference. And when the conference is over, one of two things will occur:

1) A correction will be made by the official. This could mean adjusting the score, reseting the clock, changing a ruling that had been previously applied incorrectly, etc. No Misconduct Warning is given when a correction results from the conference.

2) The coach will receive a Misconduct warning if no correction results from the conference. So, if the coach asks for a conference to disagree with a judgment call, a Misconduct will ensue. If the coach asks for a conference after the official applied the rules/interpretations correctly, a Misconduct will occur. If the coach calls a conference to complain that the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl, he will receive a Misconduct. The sequence for Misconduct goes like this - first offense is a warning, second offense is -1 Team Point, third offense is -2 more Team Points and ejecting the head coach.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct can also occur in conjunction with Misconduct. These are two separate items. The fact that a coach is nice and calm and respectful during a conference that yields no correction will still be warned for Misconduct. If the coach has a conference that yields no correction and acts in an unsportsmanlike fashion, then he will receive a Misconduct warning + an Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty (-1 Team Point).

The Misconduct penalty is in place to prevent frequent, needless interuptions in the match. When a conference takes place, no scoring can occur, no aggressive wrestling action can take place, wrestlers get to rest and possibly get cold. That is why the choice of a coach to request a conference must carry some type of consequence, and why a coach is limited to a maximum of 3 fruitless conferences in a day. And, it's also why a conference that results in a correction receives no penalty. There is no such thing as a "free" conference - the choice by a coach to call a conference means he accepts the potential consequence associated with that conference. So, if he doesn't want to be warned or penalized, he better be sure that he is bringing the official over to make a correction.

All Misconduct penalties go against the head coach. If the assistant coach requests 3 fruitless conferences, then he will remain at the event while his head coach gets ejected. Or, if the head coach has a fruitless conference on one mat at the tournament while his assistant is doing the same thing on a different mat while the teammate in the corner is doing the same thing on a third mat, the head coach will be ejected.

1) Repeated backing up in the neutral position, without any attempt to initiate a takedown is a pretty strong indicator of stalling. The only mitigating factor would be if the opponent is just pushing him toward the boundary line, and ultimately, out of bounds. There can sometimes be situations where the opponent has superior strength and is able to push the other wrestler across the mat with the tie up applied.

2) When we talk about riding "parallel", we need to make a very important distinction - is the defensive wrestler broken down or is he on his base? Once broken down, then the offensive wrestler needs to initiate a pinning hold and work to improve his position. However, when the defensive wrestler comes back up to his base, then the offensive wrestler may return behind the hips and work to break him down again. I often hear people yelling about the top guy "riding parallel" when he is busy trying, but not succeeding, to break his opponent down. The top man is not required to "come out to the side" before the bottom man is broken down any more than the bottom man would be required to put his head down and raise up his arm so the top guy could insert a half nelson. Once broken down, then there is more onus on the top man to demonstrate he is working on improving position. Simply riding parallel at that point will be considered stalling. But don't forget, the bottom man must also be working to improve position - he cannot simply lie on the mat with his hips down, or just sit on all fours like a table without initiating some type of escape/reversal manuever.

Rule 5-10: An escape is when the defensive wrestler gains a neutral position and the opponent has lost control beyond reaction time, while the supporting points of either wrestler are inbounds.

For the situation described in this post, it sounds like there was no escape. If the defensive wrestler is able to come to his feet, face the opponent, and that offensive wrestler immediately drops down to the legs, then we probably have not achieved "neutral" position and we have not achieved "beyond reaction time".

My personal opinion is that too many officials give away escape points too easily. I have coaches all the time that are asking "Wasn't there loss of control?". Sometimes my answer is "Maybe. But he never achieved a neutral position. No escape." And then the coach is stunned, thinking I've cheated their kid out of 1 point. Why does the coach ask for this? Because he must have seen his kids rewarded all too frequently for actions that do not fulfill the definition of an escape. I had a coach request a conference the other night because I didn't award an escape to his wrestler. After listening to his inquiry ("Why no escape?"), I told him the definition of escape from the Rule Book. He said, "I'd like to see that in the book." And I said, "Certainly, I'll show you after the meet." And afterward, I indeed showed him and he learned something he previously didn't know.

My approach is this:

Loss of control - we can all generally see this fairly clearly.

Neutral - keep in mind the following principle, that the wrestlers remain in the positions they started in until the official signals a change in control. In other words, at the start of the match, they remain in neutral until I award a takedown. When they start on the mat, the offensive wrestler remains in the control position until I either award an escape or a reversal. You will often see officials with the arm extended with a particular color (Red or Green) as a visible sign to everyone of who remains in control, especially in the scramble situations. Next, my test for when a wrestler has achieved a neutral position is this - if I told the wrestler to move to a position 10 feet away on the mat, could he get there in a second or two. If yes, then he has probably achieved a neutral position. If no, then the top guy retains restraining power over the bottom man and you'll see my extended arm visually indicating that the top guy is still in control.

Beyond reaction time - the wrestler has to have enough time to establish his position. Turning and facing alone is not sufficient, if the top guy is right in on a tight bear hug within an instant or if he has a deep double leg shot dumping the opponent to his butt. When action goes out of bounds or the period ends, then we may have to make the call without the benefit of "reaction time".

Another thing to keep in mind is that "control" means that the wrestler in the advantage position (the offensive/top wrestler) has restraining power over the opponent. By implication, he remains in control until the official awards a change of control. And that change of control will not be awarded until the defensive wrestler has proven that the top guy no longer has restraining power. So, some extreme examples:

a) Top guy uses optional starting position, immediately releases the opponent and takes 2 steps back. Until that bottom man turns and faces (or the top guy goes around in front), the bottom man has not proven that the offensive guy cannot restrain him, even though he isn't even holding onto him. The bottom man has not proven that he can defend himself from the top man quickly reestablishing a hold and restraining power over him.

b) Bottom man stands up and breaks the hands and takes one step away from the top guy. His back is still facing the top guy as they go out of bounds. No escape because until that bottom man faces and proves the top guy cannot restrain him, we still have the top guy in control. Why, because the top guy is in position to quickly follow up and reestablish his hold on the bottom guy and physically restrain/control him.

1) A reversal that is completed out of bounds.

2) Wrestlers on their feet, defensive wrestler controlling one leg of the offensive wrestler (e.g., has the leg off the ground with a single leg takedown manuever), and the action is stopped (due to time expires, wrestlers going out of bounds, wrestler committing a violation).

In both of the these exceptions, the NFHS is basically rewarding the defensive wrestler's aggressiveness and recognizing that the defensive wrestler could have been neutral at any moment of his choosing (if he hadn't instead chosen to pursue the reversal). In situation 1, we have the defensive guy ending up in control, on top, out of bounds. Theoretically, if he had not continued the move to its conclusion, he could have chosen instead to break apart and be neutral and remain in bounds. In situation 2, the defensive guy had the option at any moment to release that leg and then they definitely would have been in a neutral position.

Section 7 Overtime
Art. 1....When the constestants are tied at the end of the three regular periods, they will wrestle overtime. Overtime will consist of a one minute sudden victory period, and if needed two 30-second tiebreakers. If the score remains tied at the end of the two 30-second tiebreakers, a 30 second ultimate tiebreaker shall take place.

The procedure will be:
a. no rest between the regulation match and sudden victory;

b. wrestlers in the neutral posistion;

c. the wrestler who scores the first point(s) will be declared the winner; if no winner is declared by the end of the sudden victory, then the following procedure will be used;

1. two 30 seconds tiebreakers will be wrestled to completion and score kept as in the regular match;

2. the referee shall flip a disk to determine which wrestler has the choice of the starting position for the firest tiebreaker;

3. the wrestler who has choice in the first tiebreaker may select top, bottom or defer the choice to the opponent;

4. at the conclusion of the first 30-second tiebreaker, the opponent will have the choice of positions as stated in 3;

5. Whichever wrestler has scored the most points in the two 30-second tiebreakers will be declared the winner;

6. if the score is tied at the end of the two 30-second tiebreakers, the choice of positioin for the ultimate tiebreaker will be granted to the wrestler who scored the first point(s) in the regulation match; if no points are scored in the regulation match, a flip of the disk shall determine the wrestler who has the choice (points for double-stalling or simultaneous penalties shall be considered as no points for the purpose of the tiebreaker choice);

7. the wrestler who has choice may select top, bottom or defer the choice to the opponent;

8. the wrestler who scores the first point(s) during the ultimate tiebreaker will be declared the winner. If no scoring occurs during the unltimate tiebreaker, the offensive wrestler will be declared the winner and the match point shall be added to the offensive wrestler's score.