the
Official
Detroit
Judo
Club
Historical
Website

Back to Index

Written to Judo Times, it appeared in their February 1973 issue titled "A Look At Referees In Competition"

For some reason, an astonishing number of people consider themselves authorities on judo contest rules. I am frequently confronted by parents, for example, who tell me that this referee, or that judge, is very poor. In one recent instance, in Konan, the parents of a very promising boy took him from the instructor who had developed him, and moved him to another club where the instructor is considerably less competent in every way. Why? Because as referee in a match over which the judges were split, he had awarded the decision to the other boy. And it was in only a small shiai where nothing was at stake but a cheap trophy like dozens of others that the youngster had already won.

Sportswriters Shouldn’t Criticize Officials

In all sports and in all parts of the world, the referee is "the bad guy." "Kill the umpire!" is almost the constant refrain for baseball fans. At least in judo, however, I believe that this attitude should be discouraged to every extent possible — particularly in print. On various occasions I have read published reports of major events containing statements tending to foster that attitude. A few examples—

In the 1971 World Championship at Ludvigshaven there were several instances when penalties were imposed against Americans for stepping out of the playing area. I recall reading a report saying that the referees were assessing this penalty frequently. Of course the statement was true, but the emphasis was misplaced. It implied that the officials were somehow at fault. If any editorial comment was called for, I believe it would have been more responsible to say "It appeared that this violation was committed frequently by a great many competitors." In fact my own remarks would have continued, "It is a sad commentary on the quality of our instruction, and on our competitors and coaches that our men have been ignorant of the rules or have disregarded them." Thus the emphasis would be put exactly where it belongs — on the Competitors and on their instructors, not on the referees who were only enforcing the printed rules.

This very magazine's report of the 1972 Olympics included the statement: "...and though the JUDO TIMES reporter thought it out of bounds, the referee and judges ruled otherwise." That sort of editorializing contains the implication that the officials were wrong. A thinking reader would say to himself, "Here is a man who has no recognized qualifications but is disagreeing with three men who have proven themselves and have been certified as referees of the highest level in the world." Most readers do not think that deeply, however. They read material and absorb more impression than fact. And their impression in this instance is that the three certified officials who were presiding had all failed to see the action as clearly as had one unnamed reporter.

To Win A Match You Don’t Have To Be Aggressive

I have frequently read statements such as the following: "Although "B" had been the aggressor throughout the entire match, the decision was given to "A." That is one of the amateur's most frequent criticisms of the decisions of a team of qualified officials. And yet, anyone who has ever studied the contest rules should know that the aggressor who is completely unsuccessful in all his attempts must lose to the defender who makes only one attempt which clearly upsets his opponent's balance and merits an award of kinsa.

As a matter of fact, this particular rule has been the subject of much serious discussion at recent meetings of the IJF Sports Commission. There have been suggestions that some number of kinsas — 10, for example — might be considered equal to one near waza ari, or that some number of aggressive movements might be adjudged to outweigh a kinsa. Thus far, however, these suggestions have been rejected because they are contrary to the fundamental principles of the sport.

Judo is not primarily an aggressive game. Judo is "the gentle way" — breaking a man's balance through the application of prescribed techniques. It is very true that we have embarked upon a serious program to encourage more action, but the quality of the action is of prime importance. The hit-and-run approach which we see all too frequently, even in international competition, is no more an example of true judo than are the actions of the lumbering giant who overpowers a smaller opponent, drags him to the mat and lies on him for the required 30 seconds. The "junk man" should never be rewarded with a decision over the technician.

I do not for a moment imply that the criticisms I have cited are deliberate attempts to discredit the referees. I suspect they are more likely the mistakes of untrained and inexperienced reporters. I am not in any way trying to discourage honest criticism in the form of an editorial or an article published under the by-line of a recognized authority. I would be the last person in the world to say that decisions are always good, or referees always right. We are all extremely conscious of our responsibilities and of our shortcomings.

We spend a great amount of time studying, watching, discussing — trying to learn from our own mistakes and the mistakes of others. At the Olympics, for example, most days ended for us in a bull session where the conversation was almost entirely concerned with those very things. I am merely pointing out the power of the printed word. I should like to see that power used constructively — to let readers know that there is a continuing program to improve the quality of refereeing throughout the world, and to encourage them to support that program in our country. It would also be well to remind them occasionally that, although the officials are not always right, they are considerably more likely to be right than are untrained spectators.

Even Officials Shouldn't Criticize Publicly

I have been criticized, in the past, for repeatedly insisting that a certified referee refrain from commenting on the decisions, or the ability or integrity, of his peers. I believe I am perfectly justified in that statement. I am not attempting to protect the personal feeling of any individual referee. Rather, I am concerned for the best interests of the sport. If a certified referee is involved in an unusual number of questionable decisions, no purpose is served by discussing his abilities or his shortcomings with the other referees, with the contestants and coaches, or with the spectators. Doing so only serves to foster distrust in all decisions of all referees. A more constructive approach would be to make sure that his case is brought to the attention of the Certification Committee. Members of that group will then observe him and take whatever action they deem appropriate. I feel very strongly that certified referees, and all other leaders of the judo world, should do all that they can to instill in competitors and all other interested people a complete confidence in the decisions of referees.

A player who has lost a decision after attacking without pause but failing to demonstrate superior technique should not be patted on the head and told that the referee is blind or was prejudiced against him. He should be reminded that a good, solid technique will always merit ippon, and then there will be no need for a decision.

When a player loses a match because his beautiful technique was ruled out of bounds, we should remind him that the player who stays in the middle of the contest area never encounters that problem.

These are positive actions that will help not only to build confidence in the officials, but also to build good sportsmanship and better judo.

Top