the
Official
Detroit
Judo
Club
Historical
Website

Back to Index

This article was written for publication in the USJA COACH, appearing in the October-November 1977 issue and is reprinted with thanks to the United States States Judo Association.

In Judo, as in some other sports, we frequently use the word stalling to describe the efforts of a competitor to protect a slight advantage by attempting to prevent attacks by his opponent, or by avoiding further attacking moves which might possibly be countered. The actual language of our rule book, Article 30 Prohibited Acts, is "to adopt an excessively defensive attitude." Non-combatibility, which is further described in the commentary to the article, is only one example of an excessively defensive attitude. In its original form, the rule stated "defensive posture" which was too often misinterpreted as referring only to the position of the body. In 1972, or thereabouts, that was changed to "defensive attitude" to stress the importance of intent.

If I could provide a detailed explanation which would preclude misinterpretation I would be delighted to do so. Unfortunately, as in so many of the contest rules, this is largely a judgment call, and the ability to interpret it properly is one of the marks of a fine referee. I might add that, if he is perfectly honest with himself, the competitor always knows when he is stalling.

The rule is not intended to prevent a player from pacing himself during a long match. It is not intended to prevent a player from protecting himself, in a reasonable manner, from his opponent's attacks. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the player who is behind in points will have a fair chance to improve his position. A bonus feature is that it speeds up the action and provides a more interesting match. With this in mind, we can look at some of the ways in which a competitor can be said to be excessively defensive.

By far the most common form of stalling is non-combativity which is measured by the length of time during which a competitor has made no attacking moves. For purposes of this prohibited act, an attacking move has been defined as a valid attempt to execute a technique. To be recognized as such, it should have the effect of disturbing the opponent's balance to some visible degree. I have heard of coaches who tell their competitors to wiggle their hips, or to jab out with a foot, every 15 to 20 seconds all the while maintaining a safe distance and out of harm's way. A referee who would be deceived by such tactics should be summarily dismissed from the mat, never to return.

But what of the ever popular hip wiggle, or the tentative jab with a foot? Can they never be considered as attacking moves? Of course they can. A competitor may fake an attack to observe his opponent's reaction. He may even do it twice. If he tries it a third time, and doesn't follow through, you can be pretty sure that he is stalling. This is where the experience and the judgment of the referee comes into play. Since we cannot read minds, we must be particularly sensitive to all body movements. It is the point we are trying to get across when we admonish our referees to learn to anticipate the action, and to become a part of it.

There are other classic examples of an excessively defensive attitude. Stiff-arming is one; the extremely low crouch is another. Unless they are combined with measurable non-combativity, however, a referee may be inclined toward tolerance in some instances, since a skillful opponent can often use them to his advantage.

One of the most readily recognizable stalls is the fake seoi-nage which I often refer to as hit-and-run. A competitor will grab his opponent and quickly drop to his knees, grab and drop, over and over, so long as the referee permits him to continue. This may give the appearance of action. A poor referee may even mistake it for aggressive action. Actually it qualifies as excessively defensive behavior because it effectively prevents the opponent from making any moves at all. Referees should be constantly alert to this, and recognize it for the serious infringement of Article 30 that it is.

Closely related, and equally widely used, is the dance-to-the edge. In this maneuver, the competitor rushes his opponent toward the edge of the contest area where he makes a sloppy attempt of some kind, falling to his knees and causing the referee to call matte. Immediately at the call of hajime, he repeats this maneuver. The resulting matte-hajime sequence can use up a lot of time and prevent the opponent from making any attacking moves at all. This is well within the interpretation of an excessively defensive attitude.

Another popular stall is the fake moroto-gari, where a competitor appears to be about to take hold properly, but instead grabs for his opponent's legs. Sometimes he misses entirely and falls to his knees; often he takes two or three crouching steps grabbing again and again. His actions offer no opportunity for him to score, but prevents his opponent from any aggressive moves. This is definitely excessive defensive and should be recognized as such.

In assessing the actions of the competitors, the referee will be looking for some common elements:

1. The action is rapid, sometimes almost frenzied, but ineffective. It resembles the enthusiastic attempts of a junior novice rather than the aggressive action of a seasoned competitor.
2. The opponent has very little opportunity to make an attempt of his own, or to counter in any way.
3. They are all time eaters.
4. The offender has something to gain.

There is a lot of stalling in ne waza situations, but it is considerably more difficult for the referee to evaluate. Inaction, or apparent inaction, on the mat is not necessarily stalling; it may be slow, inch by inch preparation for shime waza, or kansetsu waza, or osaekomi. In most cases where the man who leads in recorded scores appears content to maintain a scissors position without attempting to take offensive action, there is a strong possibility that he is trying to kill time. On the other hand, if his opponent is not trying to get up, but is attempting to gain advantage on the mat, then there is probably no reason for the referee to become concerned. In most cases there will be no penalty called for defensive attitude during ne waza since the referee can always call matte and return the competitors to a standing position. In stand-up situations, however, a penalty may be the only course open to the referee.

Competitors will always prefer to win a match by their own techniques rather than by their opponent's violations, and whenever possible they should be given every opportunity to do so. In this case, as with most of the prohibited acts described in Article 30, the referee's action is discretionary. He will bear in mind the reasons behind the rule, and consider the consequences of each specific infraction. He has been provided guidelines for the assessment of penalties, but he may consider one case of stalling to be more serious than another and increase the penalty if he thinks necessary.

All referees will not respond in the same manner. The more technical knowledge he has, the more success he, himself, has had as a competitor, the more experience he has had in refereeing top competition, the more easily he will recognize the intent of the offender; and the more severe will be his penalty. A competitor who resorts to stalling to protect a slight advantage and thereby achieve a win, may be successful on occasion. He must also be prepared to face the consequences when he meets a referee who can see through his tactics.

Top