JudoForum.com: Ippon? Am I missing something? - JudoForum.com

Jump to content

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Ippon? Am I missing something? Rate Topic: -----

#31 User is offline   Cichorei Kano 

  • Judo Forum Hachidan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 29-January 06

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:00 AM

View Postloudenvier, on 04 May 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

The question is not that someone lost control and fall, the question is that tori must have control thorough the throw. But I'm actually not disagreeing with you... (4) specially makes me mad... I've read a dissertation that showed without any doubt that the criteria for koka was more stringent than yuko, and that ippon and wazari were separated by only the "fall largely on the back" criteria. It was from the judoinfo site itself!


The problem, of course, Loudenvier, are not the refereeing rules themselves. The criteria for ippon aren't any different than they were in the 1990s. Take the definitions and compare them. Where it gets problematic is that as a referee you need to pass exams and tests. The examiner decides what the answer should be irrespective of whether he is correct or not. You can challenge in some occasions maybe something, but you can't challenge the examiner or committee continuously, irrespective of who is right or not, and there are X examples where the "final opinion of the IJF Refereeing Committee" is blatantly wrong. The point then gets to "who the hell do you think you are to say they are wrong ?". That isn't the issue. There is simply a problem when either: 1. what that the committee decides is contrary to what the rules say, or 2. the committee on the same incident arrives at a conclusion diametrically opposed to the previous or next committee.

The Barcos Committee has had a tenure, that in my personal opinion has been waaaaaaay too long. The previous one, the Jim Kojima tenure, in my opinion, was much better and had an entirely different philosophy. Under Kojima the guideline was to make as few changes as possible as to maintain consistency and not continuously confuse the referees. They did a good job. The Barcos Committee though has been acting as second-term president, namely insisting on pressing its stamp on contest jûdô with continuous and radical changes that have increasingly moved away from the spirit of jûdô.

So, we now have with regard to certain things the same rules. Ippon is still the same in the rules as it was at the end of the Kojima tenure. Just compare the rule. However, we suddenly get an examiner or a committee now that says we should have given ippon, using those same rules. In other words, we are dealing with different interpretation. Refuse it, and you get taken off the mat, won't get promoted to IJF-A, or won't be selected anymore. This evolution has been going on for quite some time.

The other option is to conclude that we simply have a lot of bad referees or at lot whose primary concern is passing exams, getting promoted or selected. I say ... that this is a 'option'. I am not saying that the previous sentence is my conclusion about what is wrong. However, I say this: at the 2007 world championships in Rio I very carefully watched refereeing, and I think it was absolutely dreadful, partly because of precisely this sort of crap. Yet, there was one referee who, in my opinion did not give in to this, and who I never 'caught' into giving flimsy ippon-scores to people who first landed on their knees etc. That referee was Fujii. This surprised me. It did not surprise me that it was Fujii, obviously not. The man clearly knows jûdô. What is surprising is ... how he could maintain what I deem correct interpretation of the rules while others didn't. He clearly did not get taken off the mat because of his interpretations. So, should a referee really fear the referee committee, or is that all just a myth ? Certainly at the National Level, in my opinion, IJF-A refs often have a bigger ego in controlling national and regional refs, but is this so at the International level ?

There certainly have been refs. who consistently seemed to be able to really taste the jûdô and had no problem distinguishing true ippon scores from others. Fujii iis like that, Demoor is like that, Saito was like that. So, is it really a matter of changed interpretation, or is it as painful as it may sound more a matter of refereeing quality ?

Becoming and IJF referee, as with dan-rank promotions is not merely a matter of skill, but also a serious matter of networking, not pissing the wrong people off, showing your face, and certainly taking decisions in the way your examining ref wants. Heck, every referee knows that. Every ref. who has done tests know how among each other we used to tell "oh, and if you have him, he is big on X, Y, Z, make sure you clearly show this and that, and he, he likes this and that ..." So often it boils down on pleasing so, and so, but perhaps at an international level, this just doesn't work anymore. You are dealing with so many different people and situations. There certainly are also huge differences in how the rules are interpreted. You feel this predominantly not in international contests, but if you participate in regional and national contests in different countries. I mean, not just a bit, but shocking differences. I've done this many times, and in some countries it is like they use an entirely different set of rules, and yet it are the same, but that is how they are interpreted and expect you to interpret them.

In any case, neither A nor C are or should be ippon, and personally I would not even worry about this if I knew the ref. were Fujii, Demoor and Saito. In many other cases, you'd better follow Rhadi's advice, but that does not mean it should be like that. We are then really trying to buy into what the referee's ability may allow him to see and realize, rather than simply focus on the fight and be confident in that the referee knows judo ... <_<

This post has been edited by Cichorei Kano: 04 May 2012 - 12:03 AM

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."
0

#32 User is offline   Neil G 

  • Judo Forum Ikkyu
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 25-March 11

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:40 AM

Whoops, nevermind, misread ptnippon's post. Nothing to see here...

This post has been edited by Neil G: 04 May 2012 - 03:00 AM

0

#33 User is offline   slacker 

  • Judo Forum Ikkyu
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 18-August 10

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:02 AM

View Postptnippon, on 03 May 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Once uke's knee touches the mat...


Hi, I'm still having a hard time trying to see this in this example. The angle is not the best for me.
I am not an instructor. All posts are personal opinion based on experience.
0

#34 User is offline   Francois 

  • Judo Forum Rokudan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Joined: 12-February 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:33 AM

View Postslacker, on 03 May 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Hi, I'm still having a hard time trying to see this in this example. The angle is not the best for me.


Uke tries to block tori's throw by wrapping his left leg around tori's leg; at the 0:21 mark when tori goes down, uke's knee hit's the mat and the momentum of the throw slows down. At that point uke becomes a contestant in a newaza position. Tori has both knees on the mat at the same also so at that point he becomes in a newaza position. So the only way it can be considered a throw, he needs to pick up uke off his knee, get both his knees off the ground to start a new tachiwaza sequence in order to score from a throw which he clearly does not.
"The arts of peace and the arts of war are like two wheels of a cart which, lacking one, will have difficulty in standing."�Kuroda Nagamasa (1568-1623)

"In battle, if you you make your opponent flinch, you have already won." --- Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
0

#35 User is offline   judoratt 

  • Judo Forum Sandan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 1,706
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:38 AM

View Postptnippon, on 03 May 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Uke tries to block tori's throw by wrapping his left leg around tori's leg; at the 0:21 mark when tori goes down, uke's knee hit's the mat and the momentum of the throw slows down. At that point uke becomes a contestant in a newaza position. Tori has both knees on the mat at the same also so at that point he becomes in a newaza position. So the only way it can be considered a throw, he needs to pick up uke off his knee, get both his knees off the ground to start a new tachiwaza sequence in order to score from a throw which he clearly does not.



Rarely do I disagree with Pt but I see a score Wazari Ippon or what. I see tori's knee hit the mat but the motion does not stop watch motion of both players. uke does nothing to stop or redirect the attack.
0

#36 User is offline   Cichorei Kano 

  • Judo Forum Hachidan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 29-January 06

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:33 PM

View Postjudoratt, on 04 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Rarely do I disagree with Pt but I see a score Wazari Ippon or what. I see tori's knee hit the mat but the motion does not stop watch motion of both players. uke does nothing to stop or redirect the attack.


No such criteria is anywhere in the IJF Refereeing rules, even less is such a criteria to distinguish between ippon and waza-ari. In essence it would boil down to this 'continuation' thing which is merely something you hear some refs. apparently use to justify their view during clinics, but which is nowhere in the Refereeing rules and moreover has NEVER been a criterion to decide which the score would be. If this would be a criterion, than scoring really would fall apart in a two-tier decision. For example, someone thrown on the knees and continuing flat on the back would then be a different score than someone thrown on the knees and then continuing on the side. This appears how some refs. have come to judge actions. This approach is totally unjustified and not supported by the rules. The point of decision is how someone lands. If he is thrown on the knees, then that determines, the score, and and whether afterwards, even without stopping roles on the back, side of belly, is no longer relevant for the score.

In any case, we have a very troubling situation. I think we can agree that sometimes because of speed or angle the ref. might have difficulties in making the proper decision. However, we have no such problem. Thus, this applies that we now have people with considerable judo experience even when having the possibility to watch the event over and over on video and with slow motion arrive at different decisions. If such difficulties are produced even when having the luxury to watch this on video then how can we reasonably expect that the majority of referees who do not have this luxury make correct decisions. That means that either the scoring criteria or the way actios are defined, require attention. Nevertheless, the whole thing is odd to me. Scores have been the subject of dispute for quite some time, but in the past mostly had to do with either the two players simultaneously landing on the mat, one player landing on top of the other while the action was carried out by the underlying player, or one player countering the movement. These were all the situations refs. used to hate the most. The IJF then defined what needed to happen in case of two players landing simultaneously or when it was impossible to determine who was in control. This was an improvement, even though the Sydney 2000 Douillet/Shinohara final dramatically proved that there was still room for major problems. That being said, determining proper score really was not a major problem after the IJF clarified around 1980 what needed to happen when landing on the belly, knees of butt. The major confusion then was that many lower class referees started awarding kôka any time a person touched the tatami with his butt, and the IJF had to clarify that touching the tatami was not automatically kôka, and that one actually had to be THROWN on the butt before it could be kôka. This seemed quite evident to me, but apparently had not been to many refs, and no doubt a great deal of competitors had already been disadvantaged by the absurdity that made that you desperately had to avoid during any transition to touch the mat with your butt, because sitting down often meant getting awarded kôka against. For the rest the main confusion for some time had been side landings, where the difference between kôka and yûkô generally had been interpreted mainly by force, until the IJF rewrote the criteria and clarified that the difference involved whether "on the side" was turned more towards the back or belly.

Very well, but the kind of actions as in the video with someone landing on the knees and then continuing on the back, side, head, face, butt, irrespective of any 'continuation', 'interruption', 'stop' and more things that are nowhere in the IJF Refereeing Rules never until the last 12-some years started becoming a major issue of confusion or dispute. I am trying to imagine similar things in other sports. Well, we know that in track and field or cycling video-replay in some cases is necessary to distinguish who first reaches the finish, but imagine that even when it is clear who does, there would still be discussion about who is first ? Or yes, in soccer if things go quickly, the dispute could be, particularly if the ball does not stay in the goal, whether it did at any point cross the line, of whether a player was offside, fair enough; but imagine, in soccer when it is clear that the ball went over the line of a player was offside that it then still would be a dispute if a score should be given or not. This is almost unimaginable, but this is what we see in judo. Imagine that in soccer it would not just boil down if the ball had crossed the line, but that one also would start discussing if when it did it was contiuous, too slow, too fast, apparently stopped, did not apparently stop, was smooth, was in a direct line, in a smooth line, was a transition to lying down, whatever. Quite unimaginable. Hooligans would have a blast, that's for sure, and yet this has become the reality of judo competition today. Troubling, very troubling.

This post has been edited by Cichorei Kano: 04 May 2012 - 03:47 PM

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."
0

#37 User is offline   Neil G 

  • Judo Forum Ikkyu
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 25-March 11

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

Judoratt, CK: ptnippon's point was that uke's knee touched, not tori. I made the same misread.
0

#38 User is offline   Francois 

  • Judo Forum Rokudan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Joined: 12-February 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:14 PM

View Postjudoratt, on 04 May 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Rarely do I disagree with Pt but I see a score Wazari Ippon or what. I see tori's knee hit the mat but the motion does not stop watch motion of both players. uke does nothing to stop or redirect the attack.

CK said it better than I could. There is nothing in the current IJF rules that uses continuation as a criteria for scoring throws. So once uke and tori's knees hit the mat there is no more throw according to the rules and they need to come up for tachiwaza to start again. I'm not saying it's a good rule but that's they were written.
"The arts of peace and the arts of war are like two wheels of a cart which, lacking one, will have difficulty in standing."�Kuroda Nagamasa (1568-1623)

"In battle, if you you make your opponent flinch, you have already won." --- Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
0

#39 User is offline   genetic judoka 

  • Honorary Forum Woohooshidan
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,949
  • Joined: 08-February 11

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:31 PM

View PostDr. Rhadi Ferguson, on 03 May 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

1. There's no slow motion camera.
2. There's no replay
3. The sport has a bunch of f##### rules but still lives in the dark ages in terms of challenging calls
4. The criteria is sketchy and capricious at best.

:-/

you bring up interesting points, but at least in judo if one has a video, it may be reviewed if a call is questioned. at nationals last year the video on my camcorder (as in not the official camera on the mat, just a video by a well positioned spectator that actually had to jump back to avoid being landed on) was reviewed by a fellow in an IJF jacket for one of judoratt's matches. I remember very clearly watching the world cup in 2010 and seeing a goal scored by a player who was very clearly off sides, but the refs missed it. about a minute after I pointed it out the announcers pointed it out too and showed a replay, but the score stood. if I remember correctly had it been reviewed and the score been taken away, the match would not have been won by them. but this was two years ago and my memory of the matter is a bit fuzzy. I don't even remember who was playing.

my point is that in a sport like soccer they have the funding in place, and the cameras in place since many matches are televised, to institute a system of video review. but they don't. leading to things like this:
Posted Image
and this:
Posted Image
and this:
Posted Image
and this gem:
Posted Image
getting people yellow/red cards that don't get removed. at least in judo they're more open to the idea of reviewing a call

and then just for fun, how BJJ guys play soccer:
Posted Image

in case you're wondering, most of those came from here

This post has been edited by genetic judoka: 04 May 2012 - 02:33 PM

"Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others." -H. Jackson Brown Jr.

"Wise men don't need to prove their point. Men who need to prove their point aren't wise" -Lao Tzu

"When torrential waters move a massive boulder, it is because of momentum.
When a hawk’s strike breaks the body of its prey, it is because of timing." -Sun Tzu

"The Way of strategy is the Way of nature. When you appreciate the power of nature, knowing the rhythm of any situation,
you will be able to hit the enemy naturally and strike naturally. All this is the Way of the Void." -Miyamoto Musashi
1

#40 User is offline   judoratt 

  • Judo Forum Sandan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 1,706
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

View Postptnippon, on 04 May 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

CK said it better than I could. There is nothing in the current IJF rules that uses continuation as a criteria for scoring throws. So once uke and tori's knees hit the mat there is no more throw according to the rules and they need to come up for tachiwaza to start again. I'm not saying it's a good rule but that's they were written.



I am not debating the value of the score. The point from 11.5 to 12 uke wraps his left leg arround tori the throw progresses. I don't think ukes right knee contacts the mat, are you assuming or do you see the left knee impact the mat? B


BTW thanks for the debate PT
0

#41 User is offline   slacker 

  • Judo Forum Ikkyu
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 18-August 10

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

View Postptnippon, on 04 May 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

at the 0:21 mark when tori goes down, uke's knee hit's the mat and the momentum of the throw slows down.


View PostNeil G, on 04 May 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

uke's knee touched, .


Hi PTN, thanks for the explanation and I do not disagree with your explanation which is precise. However, I think it hinges on the fact that at 0:21 uke's knee touches. I was contending this. The best angle at 0:21 is not clear, because exactly at that point uke's left knee is hidden behind blue's right leg. I think we are relying on some "visual extrapolation" to assume there is a knee touch there (2D parallax and all). Furthermore I think the momentum is broken because Burton momentarily loses control and not because of said knee touch.

I have snapped the image at 0:21 but cannot attach it to this forum unfortunately.

But as CK's latest post mentions, and as is the overriding ethos of the thread thus far, it is sad that there can be possibilities of such quibbles over something like ippon which we all know what it feels like.
I am not an instructor. All posts are personal opinion based on experience.
0

#42 User is offline   Francois 

  • Judo Forum Rokudan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Joined: 12-February 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:18 PM

View Postjudoratt, on 04 May 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I am not debating the value of the score. The point from 11.5 to 12 uke wraps his left leg arround tori the throw progresses. I don't think ukes right knee contacts the mat, are you assuming or do you see the left knee impact the mat? B


BTW thanks for the debate PT


Left knee, watching it on a large monitor and freeze framing it, I believe uke's left knee touches the mat.

Anytime for the debate. We're both probably wrong anyway.....high ranks are always wrong....Posted Image
"The arts of peace and the arts of war are like two wheels of a cart which, lacking one, will have difficulty in standing."�Kuroda Nagamasa (1568-1623)

"In battle, if you you make your opponent flinch, you have already won." --- Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
0

#43 User is offline   loudenvier 

  • Judo Forum Godan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 3,522
  • Joined: 28-June 05

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:00 PM

View PostCichorei Kano, on 03 May 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

The problem, of course, Loudenvier, are not the refereeing rules themselves. The criteria for ippon aren't any different than they were in the 1990s. Take the definitions and compare them.


I know it is a matter of interpretation. But I do believe the definitions of ippon and wazari and yuko and koka to have always been incoherent. Of course there will always be some sort of interpretation involved, but the definitions should avoid ambiguities as much as possible. Let me say that the definitions WERE never as objective as they should be. I don't want to repeat the research that has been already done on the subject, let me some time to find the pertinent article and them comment on it!

But I do agree with 99,99% of everything you said! :lol:
My professional portfolio
feliperochamachado.com.br

My technical blog
insomniae cōdex
0

#44 User is offline   finarashi 

  • Judo Forum Godan
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,301
  • Joined: 30-August 03

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:34 PM

I have a point to make namely - Does it matter whether the knee touched or not?

I have been todl time and tiem again that if Judoka A and B are in ne-waza, they get up and A throws B the throw counts. Ok it was a referee error. The referee should have said mate before the throw. The referee gets scolded, but the throw stands.

The rule was clearly intended to cover situations where both players really stand up. In this case this is not true. In this case it seems to me that the throw was initiated from ne-waza. I would say that the throw (based on the clip) was no score. On the other hand the referee was close and had a good view of players feet ....
0

#45 User is offline   Ben Reinhardt 

  • Judo Forum Godan
  • Icon
  • Group: Special Members
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Joined: 03-February 05

Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:17 AM

View Postfinarashi, on 04 May 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

I have a point to make namely - Does it matter whether the knee touched or not?

I have been todl time and tiem again that if Judoka A and B are in ne-waza, they get up and A throws B the throw counts. Ok it was a referee error. The referee should have said mate before the throw. The referee gets scolded, but the throw stands.

The rule was clearly intended to cover situations where both players really stand up. In this case this is not true. In this case it seems to me that the throw was initiated from ne-waza. I would say that the throw (based on the clip) was no score. On the other hand the referee was close and had a good view of players feet ....


It was a score. No way were they in ne waza just because uke or tori knee touched. The motion was pretty much continuous. Knee(s) touched and uke went over.

Ippon, no waza ari OK (IMO, for what it's worth).
0

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic