College wrestling, year in and year out, battles for attention.   Scraps of media coverage in the national press produce excited glee in the wrestling community.  And, oversights by the national press are viewed as a collective slap in the face to the proud history of the sport.  College wrestling to the knowledgeable wrestling fan is an unparalleled thrill.  In Albany this past spring, east coast residents were happy to say, "its great to have the NCAA's here, what a great experience to have a wrestling tournament of this caliber."      Inevitably though, once the thrill of the last matches fade from memory the obsessed wrestling fan will turn to thoughts on how the sport of college wrestling can be improved.  The prevailing opinion among wrestling fans, is that for the sport to survive things must change.  Things must change, but what things?      To get the wrestling community to agree on change is difficult.  And, to produce change that tears at the sanctity of true victory could further damage the sport of wrestling.      Coaches and wrestlers nationally still berate the dawning of victory by the "flip".  At the top of a lot of people's minds is the need to revisit the flip.  The arguments are old hat if you win the flip you win the match.  So, discussing the minutiae of the flip really does not accomplish much.      In order to truly improve the format of the sport of wrestling, maybe the wrestling community needs to take a deeper look at the rules of wrestling.  After all, the flip is in place because the two wrestlers were unable to distinguish between themselves who the true victor was and who felt the sting of true defeat.      However, in many matches during the NCAA tournament and throughout last season it's possible that decisive victory could have been gained if only the rules---or more accurately----the interpretation of the rules was more precise.  Presently, the wrestling community seems unhappy with the flip but lacks a detailed proposal on how to enhance wrestling so that the true victor can be distinguished without going to overtime.      So, let's take a closer look at the situations in collegiate matches that lead to a blurring of the lines between true victory and true defeat.  Can we improve the sport of wrestling?  Certainly.  Does it need a massive overhaul of rules?  Definitely not.      The sport of wrestling can discover true victory by attacking the vagueness associated with four common techniques and tactics coached and practiced in collegiate wrestling.  And, it will not deal a disfiguring blow to the sport of wrestling.  Rather, the enhancement will lead us to a clearer understanding of true victory.    First, to promote consistency and reward attacking wrestlers the "lockdown" should be called for stalling.  Second, true attacks and attempts must be reciprocal.  Third, out of bounds should be called as a necessity of safety, and not a safe-haven for retreat.  Fourth, an initiation of a "zone" will assist referees in calling a match by ending fleeing the mat.     Minor victories happen in a collegiate match all the time; a wrestler avoids giving up a takedown as time expires, a minor victory.  A wrestler escapes before his riding time is erased, another minor victory.  But why do we allow the initiation of a stale mate to be called a minor victory.      Tactically, in collegiate wrestling coaches will eventually teach their wrestlers how to "lock down" an opponent.  Maybe it was the prevalence of John Smith's low single attack that led to this defensive wrestling.  But now, just as Smith's low shot seemed to revolutionize offense for the sport, the defensive quest of locking up a stalemate has had a detrimental effect on true victory.      A lock down is the maneuvering of a defensive wrestler who has given up position under attack to lock, squeeze or, hold an opponent so that he cannot finish his initial attack.      A wrestler from a school shoots a single leg and begins to elevate his opponent.  The opposing school's coaches will commonly be heard yelling "lock him down".  In turn the wrestler on the defensive might drape down his opponent's back, step behind the shooter's arm and lock a tight leg-scissor around the attacker's body trapping one arm to his side.      Hold that position so the shooter cannot advance to score, and the referee will stop the action and call a stalemate.      Certainly neither wrestler was advancing to score.  But were both wrestlers attempting to score?  Obviously not, one wrestler took the risk, and looked to finish his attack, the other wrestler looked to stop action or movement so that the referee would stop action.      In this specific case, the defensive wrestler was rewarded for his defensive action---or inaction.  Instead of simply breaking the inaction, referees should be instructed to call stalling on the wrestler that initiated the lockdown.  When initiating a lockdown or a situation that leads to a stalemate once should be enough.  If the wrestler relies again on a strategy of locking the action down a penalty point should be assessed.      Presently we have allowed lockdown wrestlers to advance to such a degree that some wrestlers have taken a lockdown strategy and found ways to score.  The goal of calling a lockdown as stalling is not to keep wrestlers from attempting counter offense like a hook and roll, a re-ankle, or a diver; rather, the intent is to keep wrestlers from repeatedly attempting this and finishing the counter in a lockdown that is called a stalemate.      If a wrestler attempts a hook and roll to defend a shot and is unable to finish his counter-attack and holds on for a stalemate then he will be called for stalling.  If he has already been called for stalling and he again attempts a counter-attack that may lead to him gripping for a stalemate, then it will become his choice whether to hold on for a stalemate and give up a penalty point or whether he will relinquish his grip on his opponent.  If he chooses to loosen his lockdown squeeze he may give up the takedown, or he may scramble and counter the original shot.      Locking down opponent's when they shoot may not become a viable option for wrestlers, unless they are extremely proficient at scoring off of defensive counter-attacks.  Note that moves are not being deemed illegal or labeled as stall tactics.  Instead holding or gripping to stop movement is considered stalling.      The byproduct that the wrestling community should be demanding in situations like this is that wrestlers must seek offense.  Offensive wrestling is the draw for the sport.  So, continuing to reward a wrestler by calling stalemates without penalizing them is detrimental to the future of wrestling.    Next, wrestlers must not be allowed to feign attacks and attempts and expect to be rewarded by the referee with getting an opponent called for stalling.  Instead refereeing in the collegiate style should reflect the philosophy of "true attempts and true attacks must be reciprocated".      Control the center and control the tie-up are two common morsels of wrestling wisdom which coaches pass on to their wrestlers from the edge of the mat.  Wrestlers have become skilled at bulling opponents off the mat.  Eventually, the cry from the crowd will go out, "he's stalling", if one wrestler is repeatedly backed off the mat.  The idea is that one wrestler is controlling the center of the mat and gaining an advantage of a strong tie-up that forces the other out of bounds.      In a simplistic view of wrestling more akin to the Japanese style of Sumo some fans want to see the repeated crowding of an opponent off the mat rewarded with the score.  However, most wrestling fans, instead of rewarding Sumo-styled-scoring would much rather reward the thrust and parry of a well-wrestled duel between skilled wrestlers.      What often happens in the case of one wrestler bulling an opponent out of bounds, that can be lost on the less astute wrestling fan, is that one wrestler gets pushed out of bounds because he repeatedly breaks solid position.      Consider solid position to be the strongest wrestling stance a wrestler can hold.  In order fo