PDA

View Full Version : Rule Changes, reiterations, clarifications, and opinions for 2001



MarkF
18th May 2001, 08:58
http://www.usjudo.org/refnotes/2001RU~1.HTM

There is a disclaimer with this article, but I think this is an important read for referees and competitors alike.

My own disclaimer:

The rules/regs link of US judo was all ready posted, but I found this one, in particular to be of significance.

Mark

MarkF
21st May 2001, 08:43
And I thought these comments would be of interest since more changes have occured just since the Sydney games of 2000: An Example:

For example, in a situation where one judge gives an Ippon for one contestant (blue) and the referee and the other judge give Yuko to the other contestant (white), the 3 referees should meet to discuss the awarding of the score. January 1, 2001

[This does not make sense to me. If the referee gives the score yuko he will give it and it will be scored. If one judge agrees with the referee both in score and who threw then the majority of three rule would apply. The other judge would only know that the score was given to the "wrong" competitor after the score was recorded on the scoreboard. A conference would only interfere with the flow of the contest and affect the fighting spirit of the competitors.

This , in my opinion is significantly different from the inside/outside issue involving a judge who has the better view of the action on the line.]

In future IJF Events, the IJF Referee Commission will all congregate in the area where the finals are being held to observe the contest. January 1, 2001
****
Note: Again, the IJF plainly states in future IJF events.

I understand this means events not under the direct sanction of the IJF, so it is, at best, a recommendation to follow their rule, not a rule covering all judo events/shiai.

I take it to mean everyone agrees?
*****

Mr. Richard J. Celotto

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and commentary expressed in this newsletter on Interpretations, Clarifications, Reiterations and Changes of the rules is that of the author. It may not necessarily be that of any National Organization.

MarkF
21st May 2001, 08:45
And I thought these comments would be of interest since more changes have occured just since the Sydney games of 2000: An Example:

For example, in a situation where one judge gives an Ippon for one contestant (blue) and the referee and the other judge give Yuko to the other contestant (white), the 3 referees should meet to discuss the awarding of the score. January 1, 2001

[This does not make sense to me. If the referee gives the score yuko he will give it and it will be scored. If one judge agrees with the referee both in score and who threw then the majority of three rule would apply. The other judge would only know that the score was given to the "wrong" competitor after the score was recorded on the scoreboard. A conference would only interfere with the flow of the contest and affect the fighting spirit of the competitors.

This , in my opinion is significantly different from the inside/outside issue involving a judge who has the better view of the action on the line.]

In future IJF Events, the IJF Referee Commission will all congregate in the area where the finals are being held to observe the contest. January 1, 2001
****
Note: Again, the IJF plainly states in future IJF events.

I understand this means events directly under the direct sanction of the IJF, so it is, at best, a recommendation to follow their rule, not a rule covering all judo events/shiai.

I take it to mean everyone agrees?
*****

Mr. Richard J. Celotto

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and commentary expressed in this newsletter on Interpretations, Clarifications, Reiterations and Changes of the rules is that of the author. It may not necessarily be that of any National Organization.

Bob Steinkraus
21st May 2001, 21:32
What the dickens is wrong about gripping the back of the gi?

I'm sorry - this strikes me as further nit-picking. There are already too many rules, and too big an obsession (in my view) with constant attack. Add to that the nearly impossible distinction between attack and false attack, and you have (again in my view) a situation in which too many rules lead to players fighting to get the other competitor disqualified instead of throwing/pinning/locking your way to victory.

It's petty. For Heaven's sake, let them fight, and let the referee get out of the way. Competitors will figure out what grips work and what do not. Why does everyone have to take a standard collar and elbow grip? If you experiment with some weird grip, and you make it work for ippon, other people will either adopt it or figure out a way to counter it.

It's finally happened. I have turned into a crotchedly old man muttering "competition has ruined good judo".

I will never believe it is as big a thrill to hear the ref say "Ippon!" as it is to hear him say "Keikokyu."

MarkF
22nd May 2001, 10:56
One can grasp nearly any part of the dogi to do a nagi, or whatever, presently, it is the extended grips, or non-grips they are trying to eliminate. But by doing so, the eliminate a good part of judo, too, so I agree with you, Bob. I thought the guy who wrote the opinions was being pretty straight ahead on what he thought made sense, or did not.

Hey, How 'bout them passivity rules which have forced players to completely ignore ne waza, as it isn't worth the trip!?:smash:

Again, though, none of these rules are forced on anyone in any shiai where the IJF is not the direct standard of conduct. IOW, if they isn't there, you doesn't have ta follow 'em.:toot

Mark

dakotajudo
22nd May 2001, 14:15
Part of the problem is taking a physical activity that is not inherently a sport and making an international sport from it.

Consider wrestling scoring rules, which are fairly simple. The goal is to for your opponent to touch in shoulders on the mat. You are awarded for actions that progress toward that goal (takedown, nearfall points) or for defensive actions (escape, reversal).

Stalling is generally simpler to call. Since you can attack without taking a grip first (double leg), there are few grip related stalling penalties.

Contrast this with judo. Judo shiai to a large extent attempts to replicate the battlefield mentality. The first one to the ground generally loses.

This in itself will make judo more defensive. Consider, in wrestling you can give up a take-down with nearfall points, but if you can get back to your base you can recover from that. In judo, if you give up a throw, your match may be over.

Part of the problem is to increase the pace of action in judo matches - osaekomi time decreased 5 seconds. Didn't the call for same side grip decrease from >5 seconds to 3-5 seconds? Isn't there discussion of reducing match time to 4 minutes?

I know my practice of judo hurts my competition. We tend to take longer on the mat that referees allow, so I don't move into a finishing position in ne-waza as quickly as I should. The last tournament I entered it seemed like the refs broke up ne-waza just when I got into position to actually do something.

Oh well. I still practice judo the way that suits me, and I see competition as a tool to refine my skills, so I'm not to worried about IJF rules.

I've noticed that most local refs follow IJF rules because they want to be certified by USJI, which tends to follow IJF standards.

Peter

MarkF
23rd May 2001, 09:52
Originally posted by dakotajudo
Part of the problem is to increase the pace of action in judo matches - osaekomi time decreased 5 seconds. Didn't the call for same side grip decrease from >5 seconds to 3-5 seconds? Isn't there discussion of reducing match time to 4 minutes?



Hi, Peter,
Your right, of course, but in doing so action suffered. Back a while, there were times when being a defensive player would have one waiting out the other, or waiting for such time in which one would lose his focus, and then, wham! That's impossible now. It didn't mean the officials let it go without warnings, but say both red and white had just finished a 90 second period in which both attempted many waza, but no one scored. When tired, judoka (and I suppose wrestlers, too) tend to become defensive, but in doing so, many times gaeshi techniques became a factor, or did osaeomi, shime, etc.

So I agree with your assessment of what judo was to be in the beginning. Nothing wrong with judo the sport and never was, really.


Actually, Some of the changes have happened recently, since the 2000 games. It was supposed to clarify what "more than five seconds" meant, so it was made this "three to five second" rule. It still is a judgement call made by the mat shinban. It is similar to an eight count, or ten, in boxing. For example, most commissions' rules don't say ten seconds or eight seconds, but a ten count. Now, say a fighter knocks down the other and is shown what corner to wait, but comes out of the corner before the count is complete. The referee will again tell the fighter to wait in the neutral corner, and, instead of picking up the count again, starts the count over. This is perfectly legal, but again is up to the referee. This was always for the safety of the boxers, as is the five minute rule for a deliberate foul. The boxer can be hurt badly, but if the ref doesn't see the foul, the fighter must continue or give up.
******

But I understand what you mean in not having the time to put on a good offense in certain situations such as osaekomi. Most tournaments where I live are done by the old rules. For rule infringment, one is given one warning. Another, and he loses the match. Seems a bit stern, but them we do not score koka or yuko (it is waza-ari or it isn't). It still is thirty seconds for Ippon in osaekomi, waza-ari is twenty-five (this one I think should go to twenty seconds because it would get them moving).

If the match time is lowered any more, it is going to be nearly a points only sport such as wrestling. The debate over whether this is bad or good can continue forever.

But removing, what you say is a battlefield symbolic victory, is becoming a reality. Going for Ippon on every nage attempted makes an exciting match, but the one question I get the most is "How do you watch a judo match?" I suppose the answer is like watching any other sport. With some experience at watching the matches, as in any other, people will understand, but adding to the fray what they say will make the matches more interesting, rules which require even experienced, but older judoka, to know all the rules, has not added to the experience and interest in judo, at least in the US.

OK, so now I'm an "old guy" and am a bit flustered. So were my teacher's peers, as they complained about the changes after the war. "It was never the same" is what I here from any of those who are still around today.:)

Ben Reinhardt
27th May 2001, 04:35
Originally posted by Bob Steinkraus
What the dickens is wrong about gripping the back of the gi?

Ben R.: Hi Bob, not enough action on Judo-L, eh ?
Nothing at all, really. The problem is that if you can do it and pull uke down, you can force a "defensive posture" penalty. A favorite tactic of practicioners of "negative Judo". Some say that the IJF want to see "good, clean, stand up Judo". Something I would think we all can appreciate.

Bob S. wrote:"I'm sorry - this strikes me as further nit-picking. There are already too many rules, and too big an obsession (in my view) with constant attack. Add to that the nearly impossible distinction between attack and false attack"

It's not really that hard to distinguish a false attack. That's why they pay us referees the big bucks, Bob. ;-). It's to stop "flopping" as a stalling tactic. As to constant attack, we are doing a combative sport or test of your skills, whatever. If I'm in a fight, I ain't going to stand around and let the guy hit me. Besides, it looks better on TV !


Bob S. wrote:"and you have (again in my view) a situation in which too many rules lead to players fighting to get the other competitor disqualified instead of throwing/pinning/locking your way to victory. "

Ben R.: All the "negative Judo penalties" are designed to STOP this type of Judo. The athletes come up with ways to get around and play the rules to win. The IJF comes up with rules because of that.

Bob S. wrote:"It's petty. For Heaven's sake, let them fight, and let the referee get out of the way. Competitors will figure out what grips work and what do not. Why does everyone have to take a standard collar and elbow grip? "

Ben R.: You don't have to take a standard elbow and collar grip, Bob. You can grip both lapels, both sleeeves, high collar grip, cross grip, whizzer, belt grip, over the back. No sleeve end (negative Judo again). Some of them require an attack within 5 seconds or it's a shido. Why ? Because they are used to STALL. Negative Judo.


Bob S. wrote:"If you experiment with some weird grip, and you make it work for ippon, other people will either adopt it or figure out a way to counter it. "

Or more importantly, how to stall with it. Thus all the negative Judo penalties.

Bob S. wrote:"It's finally happened. I have turned into a crotchedly old man muttering "competition has ruined good judo"."

Come on Bob, you've always been a crotchedly old, muttering man ! :-)


Bob S. Wrote: "I will never believe it is as big a thrill to hear the ref say "Ippon!" as it is to hear him say "Keikokyu."

No, I don't think any of the top level competitors think that. A lot of them have money and careers on the line, though, so I bet they are not too upset about it. Especially of their opponent did something illegal directly to deserve the keikoku...

I think Judo is getting better, as evidenced by the 99 WC tapes and 200 Olympics tapes I watch over and over again. Lots of agressive, skilled Judo. Lot's of ippon and wazari, and not nearly as much loss by accumulation of penalties.

Kind regards,
Ben Reinhardt


:) :)