Rule changes for judo shiai are coming, and they are a big talking point right now. They have been officially trialled at the Junior Worlds and this was considered a success by the IJF. As a result, the trial has been extended at select senior competitions over the rest of the year. If things continue to go well it strongly looks like the rules will become official from 2010.
Here is the Word document detailing the changes.
Some may choke slightly with one of the first lines:
The IJF’s wish is to defend fundamental judo values.
Lest we forget the introduction of the blue gi and koka?
Working through the document, we start with FORBIDDEN in big red text referring to direct attacks or blocking via contact below the belt. You can see where this is going: No more leg grabs or even kata guruma. So this is removing direct usage of throws from the gokyo. Okay, you won’t find any leg grabs in the gokyo but they are still an accepted part of judo and have been used to powerful effect.
The punishment is somewhat severe. On the first offense, a shido penalty (as expected) is given. But the second is a direct hansokumake! Harsh. Two lapses of judgment and you are off the mat.
Now, a judoka CAN use these techniques if they are as a result of a sequence of techniques. Classic example might be ouchi-gari and with the arm coming down behind the leg to assist with completing the throw.
Secondly, they may be used as a counter. The classic would be against a failed uchimata and using Te guruma.
Here we are presented with our first problem as referees, and this has been demonstrated at the Junior Worlds. If Tori attacks and is fully committed, and Uke proceeds to counter by way of a technique below the belt, all is fine. However, there have been cases when Tori has more ‘offered the leg’ or feinted. Uke has gone for the counter as a ‘twitch’ reaction and been penalised for it. Not an ideal situation.
Naturally many are not happy with the above changes. It may be the intention of the IJF to ‘defend fundamental judo values’ but is removing techniques (and not for safety reasons) the way of going about it?
Why is this happening?
Ultimately, it comes down to judoka at the top events (such as the Olympics) being of a very similar level. This is naturally assisted by the qualification system: A nation has to be of a certain standard to even take part. The chances of ‘WOW’ ippons is therefore reduced. And what happens in a stalemate? Boring judo.
In particular, drop kata-gurumas which are immediately squashed by Uke and end up with a bit of fumbling on the ground, then ‘Matte’, then the whole thing again. It’s not interesting to watch. Remember, the IJF want judo to get more TV coverage and thus they need more excitement in the matches. Ban the techniques, liven up the judo, job done?
We shall see. The Junior Worlds did prove to feature positive judo but of course it favoured nations that traditionally use more stand-up techniques anyway (Predictably, Japan did excellently!). Competitors work around the rules, however, so it will be interesting to see what ‘mongrel’ techniques start to appear as the year progresses.
In relation to all of the above, the document also emphasises the need to penalise for ‘extreme defensive position’. Think ‘wrestling stance’ for this one. Adopting such a position in a negative judo way was previously a penalty anyway, so this is more of a clarification than anything new. It is also one I am glad to see pointed out again, as I am personally quite ‘hot’ on penalising negative judo for obvious reasons… it’s negative! STOP DOING IT!
As I have had told to me by IJF referees and taken on board, and have mentioned before on this blog, referees have a duty to penalise negative judo to absolutely make it clear that competitors need to be more positive. Moaning about ‘bad’ contests afterwards when you had the ‘power’ to do something about it, and in a strange way ‘educate’ the competitors, is no good. And also strongly remember that it is not just about penalising the negative, but giving their opponent the opportunity to shine.
Overall, I feel it is a great shame that we are having to prevent certain techniques and strategies. Referees at international level could have been advised to simply be stronger on penalties for negative judo. Now, I remember the guidance coming out on this matter previously, but from watching video footage of recent international events (pre Junior Worlds) … I just didn’t see it happening. Plenty of false attacks and negative judo, but not many penalties as a result.
You can’t blame competitors for being defensive sometimes. After all, one Ippon and they could be on the way home, especially with the ridiculous new repechage system. That was a bad idea. “Who wants to see losers fight losers?” was a heard quote and made me pretty annoyed. The competitors deserve more of a chance to prove themselves than they are currently being allowed.
We shall see what happens…
Great post Tris.
As I’ve said elsewhere the process and reasoning behind these changes concern me much much more. I hate leg grabs, but if they work is that not reason to keep them? Maximum effeciency and all that.
Defending the purity of Judo is all well and good, but Judo by design is supposed to be democratic, so the lack of process and ryu style decree of what is and is not good Judo is to me against the spirit of Judo… Hansoku Make!
Lance
Thanks Lance. I would certainly be interested to hear what consultation (if any) happened with players and coaches on this matter.
Good post Tristan
Rule Changes will be a nightmare for referees
What constitutes a combination? Is an ashi-waza enough as initial attack if so what is deemed a good enough ashi-waza? Must you break balance for the initial attack to be deemed sincere? How long a pause between first and second attack-none, split second, 1 second?
What about sode entries. Can I attack with one armed sode and switch straight to kata-guruma-from one point of view it could be deemed direct below the belt attack from another it could be deemed a combination. How much of a turn in does my opponent need to do to be deemed a real attack so I can counter with a pick up?-A feint, half a turn in, a full turn in?
NEW RULES-not thought through properly, rushed in and may become a nightmare to referee fairly. As for two shidos and out if that is kept in it will be even more of a disgrace than it being trialled at a junior world’s in the first place. Of course we will adapt and find ways through/around the rules. Clash of styles was often the best matches in the past-Russia v Japan for eg. Shame I think.
I was listening to http://www.thejudopodcast.com today and they discuss briefly the rule changes and make some interesting points. They, like Luke raised the clash of styles point. They also talked about if we should allow Judo to evolve as it has been or try to push it back/forward with radical rule changes.
I worry a lot about the two shidos and out rule. Why do we need a new penalty system for a single offence, which arguably is a minor infraction.
(For what it’s worth, here’s my opinion)
Competitive Judo VS Recreational Judo
AKA
(Maximum effectiveness VS Maximum efficiency)?
For the purposes of this argument, ‘Efficient’ Judo refers to the 40 traditional throws of the Gokyo-no-Waza. ‘Effective’ Judo refers to all variations and new classified techniques.
Many of you by now will be aware of the new rules that were trialled at the recent IJF junior world championships. One rule in particular concerns me…
“Leg Grips”
All direct attacks with one or two hands or with one or two arms below the belt are not allowed.
PUNISHMENTS: First attack: – Shido
Second attack: – Hansokumake
It seems to me on face value that this has been adopted so that Judo tends back towards the ‘classical’, more ‘efficient’ style of fighting. I believe it’s important to first ask “What is competitive Judo?” What’s it about? Is it the same as recreational Judo? Should they be the same? The following is my own opinion.
Efficient Judo is about getting the maximum effect using a minimum amount of effort. This surely is the ideal for any athlete in any sport – to perform at the highest level with the greatest ease. This arguably, and in my opinion, is what should be encouraged as ‘mainstream’ Judo. In other words, the first port of call for all practitioners of Judo whatever the ultimate goal or ambition. It is this Judo that best highlights and best encourages the principles of Kuzushi (balance breaking), Tsukuri (positioning), and Kake (execution), as well as the basic principles of movement (for comprehensive coverage of the principles of movement, see Itsutsu-no-Kata).
It is here I’m likely to divide opinions…..
“I don’t believe that ‘classical’, ‘efficient’ Judo is always the most effective”
So, what’s effective Judo? The objective in any contest is to win. Judo contests are not an exception to this rule. There are some techniques (namely leg-grabs and pick-ups) that do require a greater expenditure of energy and are therefore less efficient – but seemingly more effective, otherwise they would not be used.
So what are the possible reasons for outlawing individual techniques or even groups of techniques?
Safety issues? In some cases, the safety of athletes is compromised (e.g. Kani-Basami – scissors technique) In such cases, it is justified to ban those techniques in accordance with the founding ethos of “mutual welfare and benefit”. Are leg-grabbing techniques dangerous? I’ve neither seen nor been given any evidence to suggest so. This begs the question “Why such harsh penalties?” As non-dangerous infringements, surely a Shido for each incident would suffice. A Hansoku-make for a second offence seems harsh in the most extreme sense of the word. One is not disqualified for pulling the lapel across the chin a second time, and this can injure the opponent.
Are they inefficient? NO! Less efficient perhaps but clearly more effective often enough to have become such a major part of competitive Judo.
Do they lower the standard of Judo? This is the argument I’ve heard most often. Consistent successful use of any technique requires full understanding of the principles of Kuzushi, Tsukuri, and Kake as well as an understanding of the principles of movement. Often, this might be subconscious understanding (this is true for all techniques) but it is understanding nevertheless.
I’ve always thought that it is the different styles of Judo that makes it so entertaining. It means that every competitor is forced to continuously adapt and evolve their Judo to stay on top. Surely this only results in increased understanding of each basic Judo principle and increased Judo intelligence. How could anyone argue that this leads to a decline in standard?
Should we split Judo in two? NO! Absolutely not! As I mentioned at the start, I think that everyone should start by learning what I refer to as ‘efficient’ Judo because it better highlights the important principles that will ease and support long-term Judo development. For those that do choose to compete, I think they should have access to additional classes that teach ‘effective’ Judo i.e. learning how to win. To re-iterate, learning how to win should be the next step up after learning efficient Judo.
What I think is needed is for coaches to be able to distinguish between AND incorporate into their teaching BOTH efficient and effective Judo – rather than choose one as opposed to the other.
P.S.
Of course, this whole argument neglects to include Luke’s point. Often the initial attack can be so subtle that only the fighters can feel it. It would require a referee with an incredible knowledge of Judo movement, technique, and principles to always be able to recognise each and every situation that would allow leg-grabbing techniques. Surely a feint will count – otherwise we will soon see fighters feinting in order to bait the opponent to commit a leg-grabbing infringment!?! More tactics like this will result in even less tv friendly Judo.
(Just my opinions)
Nice blog – it does highlight many issues I personally feel it can only be a combination IF the first attack gets a defensive reaction from Uke. We were looking at the Sode or Morate combos into a kata guruma style attack – it can flow very nicely but if teh first attack isn’t reacted to then UKE shoudl be thrown, if tori is doing a combo REGARDLESS of uke’s reaction then it is part of teh initial attack – or so our bar room jury decided. However thsi si n’t covered in the IJF guidence. – Teh reaction to twitches again concerns me – and the only way I feel this will change is if twitches that are not acted on or dont have an element of kushi are penalised as false attacks – again you could argue taht trying to get an opponent to react SO he is penalised is negative judo and against the spirt of the sport. This debate is going to rumble on and I just hope it has been tweeked adn sorted out by 2012 – which in competion cycles isn’t that far away now!!
God help our sport. All the points earlier are excellent and correct. But some more points. None of the new rules come into effect until the 1st of May 2010. So we have until then to get rid of them. I spoke to Mr Barcos in Samoa along with Mr Barta. I expressed my disgust at the changes I pointed out that players who have been perfecting throws like Kata Guruma for the last 5 to 10 years will not be able to change and develop new throws and continue winning with such short notice. This is physically impossible.
It also need’s to be understood that from Jan 1st there is no shido, only a direct hansoku make for throws like Te Guruma, Tsuki nage, any form of kata Guruma even without using the hands, Any form us o ouchi gari using the hands. Ko Ouchi makikomi. Ko Chiki diaoshi and god only knows what a referee might think they see.
In Samoa Mr Barcos told me he spoke to many international coaches and they all agreed with the changes. I told him he was full of BS. No coach I speak to agrees or understands what he is trying to do. Plus, did you all know that from the next world champs in japan a country can enter 2 players in each weight division. Now that was done back in the 60’s & early 70’s. If that is not going backwards I don’t know what is. Barcos is screwing up our sport.
I am starting a petition against these crazy rule changes. I need names and help. Please email me on patrickmahon4@gmail.com to have ur name included and I will be in touch. Save the sport and help athletes.
Patrick