Referee Articles

Referee Notes from 1999 Events

  Dr. Martin L. Bregman

Commentary on some technical points observed at recent events

World Championships at Birmingham, England:

The following points were made by Mr. Kojime at the referee meeting held the day before the first day of competition:

• Report to the commission if the medic takes longer than 1 minute and the referee team intends to award the win to the opponent.
• The opening and closing "Rei" to the joseki is "not necessary."
• In exceptional cases the commission will voice a "Strong Opinion" but the decision will still rest with the team on the mat. In actuality the commission did call one team to the edge of the mat I believe on the third night but that what was said was not reported.
• Starting with the 2000 Olympics, female contestants will no longer wear a belt with a white stripe. Mr. Kojima stated "a Black Belt is a Black Belt."
• Starting with the next Quadrennial, a candidate for IJF-B need only be a Nidan; IJF-A candidates still must be Yondan.
• All referees invited to the Olympics or the Worlds must attend the seminar held before the event.
• To be rostered for the Olympics a referee must be rostered at one of the two World Championships held prior to the Olympics.
• The proper rei on the mat edge is the responsibility of the team on the mat.
• In a direct Hansoku Make situation, after agreement by the 3 officials, the referee should give the penalty and then report to the table that the competitor cannot continue on in the event.
• In an injury situation at the awarding of Ippon, the score should be awarded, the medics should be called and then the team should move to the side of the mat.
• Referees are not to be used at weigh-ins. Members of the technical commission are to monitor weigh-ins so that the referees will be fresh for the competition.
• Where a technique occurs on the line and the Referee disagrees with the line judge on in or out, a discussion should be held prior to awarding a score or not.

USJA Junior Nationals (1998); Toledo, Ohio.

1. What to do with contestants committing flagrant acts against the spirit of Judo.

At the recent USJA Junior Nationals, in a Gold Medal Match in one of the Young Men's weight divisions, a double Honsoku Make was called. The competitors were from New York and from Canada. Evidently their tempers had been heating up during the match and near the end the Canadian jabbed the opponent with his elbow as he was trying to get loose from a grip after the referee had called Matte, and the New Yorker turned and punched his opponent on the side of the face. The referee stepped in, ceased the altercation, called his judges, and one of the A's acting a Jury was brought into the discussion. It was decided to eliminate them both from the competition and vacate their medal standings. This is in direct agreement with IJF policy. Acts against the Integrity of the Sport of Judo (the spirit of Judo) must be dealt with harshly. These types of acts are in direct philosophical conflict with even the act of bowing to the opponent and to the mat (ie: representation of all those helping to provide the venue and event).

It was said by at least one individual that the players who took third should be moved up to take the Gold and Silver medals. This is not IJF policy as those two players did not in fact earn those medals. I dare say if one comes from a background of being on the dole, getting something for nothing (Money, Rank, Positions, etc.) one would expect to be moved up to get a medal one actually did not earn. The comparison was that at the Olympics, if a player fails a drug test, the medals are awarded to those below. However drugs are physically-enhancing substances which are determined to have been the cause of the victory of one player over another. In the case at the USJA Jrs. the Bronze Medalists had been defeated by other athletes who, later, in another match, acted immaturely and with bad temper, enough so to be eliminated from the event and from the medal stand. The Bronze Medalist were not involved.

The comment was that "We have forgotton what we are there for", if we don't award those higher medals to the players who actually won the Bronze Medals. I would think that kind of mentality might occur only if you are the parent or coach of one of the Bronze Medalists, but should not occur even then. The question is what are we there for? We are there to insure that the correct players win their correct places, within the rules. We are there to insure that once a player decides to break the rules the harshest expression of punishment will be doled out so that other, younger, players will not follow that example. We are there to encourage competition, and to help youngsters grow into respectable, adults, and ultimately we are there to have fun with our sport, and to make sure it does not turn ugly as it did.

2. A player surrenders, what's going on?

If a player taps out, but there is no visable indication of an infraction, then that player shall loose the match. Referees need to have the best vantage point, if that means getting down on one knee to see what is going on during a "face-down" choke from the rear, for example, then so be it. To say that "he surrendered but it was for an infraction that I did not see, and therefore was for extenuating circumstances," is unacceptable. In this case the referee must act more competantly. He/she must place himself in a position to see a possible infraction. The player being infracted may need to help by raising his head or pointing, but it is ultimately the referees responsiblity to see any infraction that occurs. If he doesn't see it and doesn't award the Ippon, then every opponent who surrenders can claim a foul, and every win would be overturned at the discretion of the official. On the other hand if a foul can be "proved" to have taken place (ie: seen by one of the judges, etc.) then the appropriate penalty would be in order.

For coaches in this particular case, it is necessary to protest immediately, to remediate the problem before the next round in the division has occurred. Tardiness in reporting to the Chief Referee, the Coach Liason, or the Tournament Director will result in subsequent rounds being played and the protest dies for lack of spontaneity.

1998 National Jr. Olympics; Johnstown, Pa.

1. In or out, what counts, what doesn't?

a) Any throwing attack started out of bounds will not count in the scoring, or in the decision should Hantei be needed. However, should Tori step out in order to throw (prior to kuzushi being established) or fall more than 1/2 body out of bounds attempting Sutemi waza, a penalty should be given, and therefore the act of stepping out of bounds will enter into a score. b) Any throwing attack starting inbounds, but ending with Tori placing a supporting member (foot/leg, hand/arm) out of bounds BEFORE Uke's landing will not count as a score, but the attack should count in the Kinsa total for Hantei, as the original attack was inbounds. c) Any throwing attack starting inbounds and finishing with Tori landing or placing a supporting member out of bounds, or landing on Uke, AFTER Uke's landing will count as a score or as an ATTACK (kinsa) in case Uke did not land in a scoreable position (ie: on the stomach). d) Should an attack inbounds be countered and the original Uke (now Tori) COMPLETES the counter out of bounds, it will count, as above, only if the new Tori does not place a supporting member out of bounds prior to the countered player landing on the safety zone; No score will be derived should the new Tori place a supporting member outside before the countered player lands. As above, if the counter begins in bounds it should be counted as an ATTACK (kinsa) toward a hantei decision regardless of the nonscoreable outcome.

2. Making decisions, after being overruled.

Should you, from the chair as a judge, signal a value for a technique (Koka, Yuko, etc.) and be overruled by the referee and other judge, and then be expected to make a decision at the termination of the match you must remember that what you signaled would have left the match uneven should you have had your own way. What would the score have been if you were the referee and there were no judge? That is how you must vote in a Hantei situation once you have committed yourself to a score with a signal. The same is required of the Referee who is overruled by the judges. You must ask yourself, should it come to Hantei, what would the score have been if there were no judges, and then vote accordingly. Anything else is unacceptable. The assumption is of course that Referees all have a right to their opinion under the guidelines of the rules and the angle of view, and that your angle may or may not be better than those of the judges. You made a call, now stick with it. If you change than you are admitting that you made a mistake in the first place which brings your appreciation, rather than your angle of view, into question, and of course we all know that Referees never make mistakes of appreciation! (just a little sarcasm here). Coaches seeing you call Waza-ari, then have it over ruled to Yuko, will expect you to vote for the player that scored that technique should the score be otherwise even at the end of the match. Not to do so indicates that you are easily led, have no determination, and have no idea about what is going on out there. To say that other unscoreable attacks by the other player prior to or subsequently since the score in question changed your mind indicates that you do not know how judo is scored. No amount of Yukos beat a Waza-ari, and certainly no amount of unscoreable attacks beat a Waza-ari unless of course you called a Waza-ari for the opponent and were then waved off by the judges to nothing. This last, of course, would further bring your appreciation into question.

The same is expected in the case of a signaled penalty. That penalty had it been agreed to by the other two officials would then have left the match uneven at the end and should determine your vote in a Hantei situation. You committed yourself, now have the guts to stick with it. It is the only acceptable response.

3. Accepting evaluation criticism, how to cope?

Every member of the USJI Referee Certification Subcommittee acts as an evaluator, a reevaluator and/or a certifier of all U.S. IJF-B, PJU-C, and USJI-N class referees. We are all different: some coming from competition backgrounds, some not; some having refereed Class A events (ie: Olympics, etc.), some not; some having been or are still coaches of their own dojos, some not; both genders are represented on the RCS; several ethnic, religious, financial, educational, and socio-economic backgrounds are represented, and everyone has a single vote. Additionally each has a different style of critiqueing the referees at lower levels.

Some are fairly brutal in their approach, lording it over the lower level officials, making them feel like they committed a major crime by committing an error at the one extreme; Others, more in the middle, are no nonsense, here's the beef, here's what to do in the future, fix it, go on; Others at the other extreme, will try to cajole their charges into accepting the IJF interpretations, smiling, joking, a lot of deserved or even undeserved pats on the back, starting out each evaluation with "You did a good job, but......" Most of the RCS members fall into some grouping between the extremes.

We all need to remember that the referees we are critiquing are people who are, after all, volunteers like themselves but without the experience that the A's have developed. Regardless of approach, all are trying to do one thing, and in so doing guarantee that our competitors will have only competent officials officiating their matches, they are trying to make you better.

There is no doubt that some are easier to take than others. It was so for me, as I was coming up. But remember, no matter how the message is delivered, it is important not to forget the message. You may think that this so and so is a no good @%$#& of a human being but is she/he telling you to correct something that needs to be corrected? We all have our favorites, we all have our least favorites. Determine for yourself which to attend, with this criteria: If I do what he/she tells me, do I believe I will be a more competent Official??

Then of course, once you become an IJF-A, you can tell those you didn't like on the way up to "Go jump in the Lake." Actually the water is not that bad.