TRUE Discussion Forum

Forum Home

Discussions

Ask the Ref Doctor

Methods of Scor...

Methods of Scoring

7/25/2006 7:11:32 AM

Jeannette

176 posts

Methods of Scoring

Hey Doc

In the 2004 referee manual, in the section titled 'Methods of Scoring-Principals of Independent Decision Making' reproduced here on the news page under the title 'Methods of Scoring-July 25' it says;

4) Principle of non-reevaluation of a previous judgment.
Once a decision is made it must not be changed under any circumstances. Even if, by the referee’s own judgment, that decision was a mistake, it must stand. The only legal course of changing decisions is through arbitration.

Of late, referees have taken the approach that if you make a mistake, the referee should immediately seek to correct that mistake. Do you see this policy as a change, or simply a clarification? Do you have any further comments or thoughts on this subject?

7/26/2006 4:11:40 AM

bckwh

104 posts

Re: Methods of Scoring

Ms Woodard, I think that this is a case where we, in the USA, have taken a proactive approach towards making sure that the correct athlete wins, even if it means admitting that a mistake was made and then fixing the mistake. Internationally, the flexibility is (possibly necessarily so) less present. Nationally, I think that it is important to ensure that the best athlete gets to represent our country in international events.

Some mistakes cannot be corrected, of course. For example, errors in judgment, such as different perceptions of what is a valid point. Some judgment calls will only improve as a judge/referee's experience base is broadened by experience.

Cases where there are computer errors and factual mistakes, I think that officials in the USA may be ahead of the policy trend internationally in a good way. Truly, this approach epitomizes the concept of "Athletes first."

~BHarris

7/26/2006 6:39:10 AM

Jeannette

176 posts

Re: Methods of Scoring
Modified By Jeannette on 7/26/2006 5:40:09 AM)

Thanks Doc. Once again, the referee corps in the US is ahead of the curve.

This brings me to another question on the same subject. In 'Methods of Scoring-Scoring the Valid Point' it says;
A. Committing a violation after delivery of a technique: If a contestant, after delivery of a scoring technique, seeks to avoid or impede the opponent’s retaliatory technique by holding, clinching, stepping on or kicking the opponent’s leg, etc., the point is invalid. However, if the violations occur independently of the scoring technique, the point remains valid after declaration of the penalty.

This seems to specifically spell out a list of violations that can occur after the point which can result in invalidation of the point. However, the addition of 'etc.' in that list opens things up and, to this feeble brain, muddles the issue. A frequent topic of discussion amongst those who have nothing better to do is the issue of what to do about a point gained just prior to falling to avoid an attack. Such an act seems to fall into the list noted above, yet we are instructed that a point gained prior to such an action is valid.

Can you bring us clarity?

7/26/2006 12:40:41 PM

Jaime Schulte

11 posts

Re: Methods of Scoring

I second the question. At Juniors I saw a number of kyungos called for an infraction that occurred immediately after scoring, but do not recall seeing the point invalidated.

Back in February at NCTA Nationals I was center for a match where a competitor scored a turning kick and immediately landed in a clinch with obvious holding of the hogu straps. The other competitor then struggled trying to get free. I invalidated the point and called a kyungo on the kicker. The coach immediately began protesting that the infraction occurred after the kick scored, so the point should stand. He was ok with the kyungo. The TA called me up to the table and essentially said the same thing. I deferred to the TA and reversed the invalidation of the point and continued the match.

Seems like invalidating the point would be acceptable, however, under the rule noted by Jeannette. The intent of the infraction was to prevent the counter from happening.

Also, could we reasonably add pushing to "holding, clinching, stepping on, or kicking the opponent's leg, etc"? That would seem to fall under the "etc".

8/6/2006 1:45:04 AM

bckwh

104 posts

Re: Methods of Scoring

I will respond to both Jaime and Jeannette with this one response, if I may.

First, let me say that no rule can clearly cover every happenstance. One seeks clarity of meaning, to a degree, but must also allow for necessary vagaries in order to have flexibility of the human thought process. For example, take the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides for the right to bear arms. Still, one is not allowed to bear arms in federal buildings as a citizen. We are granted the freedom of speech, yet one is not allowed to yell "Fire" in crowded public buildings, etc. The application of the human thought process further defines and codifies rules. This is true also with regards to sports regulations, and to Taekwondo.

Better officials are long-time students of the sport of which they officiate, not just dilettantish participants. Knowledge may be gained at every event at which one participates, especially if one approaches said events with the intent of learning something, as opposed to being convinced that we already have all the answers for every situation.

To that end, with regard to the rule cited by you both, it is important to understand that some techniques will result in a bit of uncontrolled body movement or displacement, such that it is nearly impossible to prevent forward momentum from carrying a player into the other player. It is simply unavoidable contact. However, what happens after that contact becomes a matter of further evaluation and interpretation by the Referee. So, a turning back kick that carries the player who throws the kick into the other player may be allowable. Thus, if, in the determination of three of the four judges, a valid point was scored, the point should be allowed to stand. After completing the technique, should that player then grab and hold the opponent, the player should be subject to a penalty.

Superior Referees understand that one must determine intent before enacting penalties such as invalidation of a point. Unless an action is obvious to the casual observer and meets the "Common Person" Test (What would a common person think?), it is important for the Referee to have established boundaries of intent on the part of the player. This is done by first giving a verbal warning to put the player on notice about her/his actions. The second occurrence may give cause to feel that intent has been established. The competitor who executes a technique and falls the first time may have been clumsy, or may have been attempting to evade. A Referee must address the action in order to help determine intent. If nothing is said and the Referee assumes that the contestant slipped and fell, it is more difficult to establish verifiable intent for the next occurrence of falling down. The value of verbal warnings for all possible rule infractions (unless they are obvious) should not be taken for granted. Use them.

In Taekwondo, competitors are encouraged to attempt dazzling displayes of kicking prowess, using turning, jumping, spinning techniques. Invariably, these actions may result in a clinch ensuing. Sometimes points may be scored before the clinch takes place. It is the job of the Referee to understand Taekwondo competition and the movements that make Taekwondo special, in order to correctly assess penalties that are consistent with the intent of the rules, even if varying from the letter of the law.

Hopefully, this provides some clarity in the form of food for thought.

~BHarris

Page 1 of 1

Discussions

Ask the Ref Doctor

Methods of Scor...