Search  
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 ..:: Discussion Forum ::.. Register  Login
     
 TRUE Discussion Forum
SearchForum Home
     
  Discussions  Ask the Ref Doctor  Falling vs. Fal...
 Falling vs. Fallen
 
 3/7/2006 7:25:31 AM
User is offlineScott Zeiter
56 posts
3rd




Falling vs. Fallen
I know that this subject was probably beaten to death in personal conversations and possibly on other sites. But I want to open a discussion amongst our more senior referees on this subject. I understand the rules are pretty clear in differentiating between a falling and fallen opponent.

I also understand that it is ‘legal’ to strike a falling opponent before they reach the ‘fallen’ point. However, it has been recently argued in a referee seminar, that although it is legal to strike a ‘falling’ opponent, the ‘falling’ opponent is somewhat in a state of un-preparedness, and it could be interpreted that by striking the ‘falling’ opponent that it is ‘unsportsmanlike’ and does not fall within the ‘spirit of taekwondo’. Therefore this could be interpreted as a ‘Prohibited Act’ and a Kyong-go penalty applied based on the following:

    “…or any misconduct on the part of a contestant or a coach.
    In this instance, the undesirable behavior includes physical actions or attitudes which
    cannot be accepted from a contestant or a coach as amateur sportsmen or Taekwondo
    practitioners. Details of these actions are as follows:
    When any unnecessary or undesirable act with regard to the contest, or any behavior regarding the contest itself, which is not within normally accepted limits is committed.”

What does the Doctor, and other senior referees have to comment on this?
Scott Zeiter
I'm just here for the food...
 3/7/2006 9:27:20 AM
User is offlinerwaitman
8 posts


Re: Falling vs. Fallen

My Personal opinion only, Scott...you laid out a good question.

INTENTIONALITY....and then right along with it....SUBJECTIVITY....

The referee is there, up close and personal....not no one else!

...of course that means the next part is  CREDIBILITY (of the referee), KNOWLEDGEABILITY :0) (of the referee), and EXPERIENCABILITY :0) (of the referee) because no matter which call you make...half the people will not be happy campers....

ain't this fun?

Randy Waitman

 
 3/7/2006 11:12:01 AM
User is offlineJeannette
176 posts
2nd


Re: Falling vs. Fallen
Wouldn't you think that this would be one of those situations where the referee has to try to determine intent?
For example if the ref thinks the attacker was intentionally trying to hurt an unprepared opponant, as opposed to a situation where the attacker was moving into a kick as the 'faller' was going off balance, and the attacker was simply unable to stop in time?

Whaddya think, doc?
 3/7/2006 2:02:55 PM
User is offlineScott Zeiter
56 posts
3rd




Re: Falling vs. Fallen
Jeannette,

Yes. That's the question. Also, what about the situation where the attacker was not intentionally trying to hurt an unprepared opponent, but instead moving in to kick, to intentionally score before the opponent hits the floor. For example, he sees that his opponent is falling, and will hit the floor, but tries to get that point in while his opponent is off balance and take advantage of him being unprepared (or she, I don't mean to be sexist:)?

I’ve heard valid arguments both ways. Some say that’s unsportsmanlike and should be penalized, others say he didn’t hit the floor and it’s a valid point.

I’d love to hear what the doctor says on these. Also, what do the other referees have to say?
Scott Zeiter
I'm just here for the food...
 3/7/2006 2:23:59 PM
User is offlinebckwh
104 posts
2nd


Re: Falling vs. Fallen
Excellent question once again! The Doctor appreciates such excellent and well-thought queries. Now, to the response...One of the reasons that Referees are required to be Black Belts is because of the experience gained from going through such a program. This experience is not limited to Black Belts (by no means), but is more likely to be found among those who have completed a Black Belt Program. It is this experience that must be brought to bear when determining whether a competitor is intentionally attacking a falling opponent in a manner consistent with unsportsmanlike conduct, or if the attack was merely a strategic one meant to take advantage of an opponent;s lack of balance. Consider also that a Referee on top of their ring management skills will somtimes be able to step between two competitors before the falling competitor can be taken advantage of. Technically, a successful attack to a falling opponent should result in a valid point being scored. However, should the Referee determine intent of the unsportsmanlike conduct variety, the point (if scored) must be nullified and the penalty assessed to the attacker. As we all remember from Center Referee 101, the main purpose of the Center Referee is the safety of both competitors. Another purpose of the Center Referee is to ensure a fair playing field for both competitors. So, the alertness and quick responsiveness of the Center Referee and the experience of the Center Referee will be the determining factors in how this situation is handled in real life.
~BHarris
 Page 1 of 1
NextPreviousNo Rating
  Discussions  Ask the Ref Doctor  Falling vs. Fal...
SearchSearch  Forum HomeForum Home     

Copyright 2005-2008 by CBSolutions.com   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement