Yoshihisa Ishikawa

This study qualitatively examined the validity of throwing technique evaluations when differences of opinion among judges and referees occurred when in the conventional referee positions. Three judo experts examined 65 cases of differences of opinions in the evaluation of throwing techniques at the 2011 Kodokan Cup All Japan Judo Championships. The following was shown: 1. The throwing technique evaluations by a majority vote of three umpires, when differences of opinion occurred, were deemed valid 30 times (55.4%) and not valid 29 times (44.6%), with no significant difference between the two cases. 2. The validity of the throwing technique evaluations when one or two judges disagreed with the referee’s evaluation, was significantly higher in the valid cases (45 times, 69.2%) than in the not valid cases (20 times, 30.8%). 3. The validity of throwing technique evaluations when only one judge disagreed with the referee’s evaluations, were deemed valid 19 times (63.3%) and not valid 11 times (36.7%), but there was no significant difference between the two cases. 4. The validity of throwing technique evaluations when two judges expressed the same difference of opinion were significantly higher in valid cases (26 times, 74.3%) than in not valid cases (9 times, 25.7%). From the above, it was suggested that the evaluation of throwing techniques decided by a majority vote when a difference of opinion occurred is not always valid. Therefore, in order to ensure fair and accurate refereeing, it is essential to first improve the skill level of referees and jury to reduce the occurrence of disagreements. It is also necessary to introduce a system that allows players, managers, and coaches to appeal against the umpire’s throwing technique evaluation. Furthermore, it is important to build a support system for referees and jury using the latest technology that utilizes images of matches taken from multiple angles and AI tools.

For many judo coaches in Japan, it is important to understand how top foreign judo athletes think and what their specific characteristics are, both of which are rarely known and understood. This allows judo coaches to recognize that there is a wide variety of judo athletes, each with their own unique characteristics. For Japanese judo coaches, this deepens their understanding of the sport and leads to an enhancement in their coaching prowess. Therefore, this study aimed to obtain the insights of Igor Makarov, a gold medalist at the 2004 Athens Olympics, to clarify the thoughts and characteristics of a top judo athlete from overseas. The following are the questions and answers this study addressed: 1. “What made you a top athlete?” Makarov answered, “I had the desire to be a top athlete from the very beginning, and I was determined to win against my peers and rivals.” 2. “Tell me about a time when your ability improved significantly.” Makarov answered: “I won the Under-21 European Championships at the age of 19, which gave me a lot of confidence. Whether you will live as a sportsman or an ordinary judo enthusiast depends on whether you can stand firm at around the age of 18 or not.” 3. “Did you ever have a period when you could not win matches or fell into a slump? How did you respond and get back up during a slump?” Makarov answered: “Whenever I lost, I needed to think about the reason why. There is always a problem within yourself.” 4. “Do you have a role model whose techniques you would like to try?” Makarov answered: “I watched videos of various athletes and gradually adopted their techniques.” 5. “What do you think is necessary to become a top athlete?” Makarov answered: “Most importantly, find the challenge yourself, and find the answer. Repeat this process. If you want to win, focus on one goal and go for it.” Based on the above, we believe that in order to become a top judo athlete, one must have: “A strong desire to win,” “Produce results by the deadline,” “The ability to face oneself,” “An insatiable desire to improve and a high level of observational skills,” and “Can act proactively with clear goals.” The ability to execute these at a high level is considered necessary.

This study aimed to clarify the number of nage-waza (throwing techniques) acknowledgements and objections from inside and outside the triangle made by the referees in the conventional referee positions using the International Judo Federation Refereeing Rules. The findings of the study are as follows. 1. Nage-waza acknowledgements were performed 200 times (47.4%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and 222 times (52.6%) outside the triangle, with no significant differences. 2. No objections (3-0) were made 168 times (47.6%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and 185 times (52.4%) outside the triangle, with no significant differences. 3. Objections (2-1, 1-2, 1-1-1) were made 32 times (46.4%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and 37 times (53.6%) outside the triangle, with no significant differences. 4. Objections (2-1) were performed 15 times (48.4%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and 16 times (51.6%) outside the triangle, with no significant differences. 5. Objections (1-2) were performed 16 times (44.4%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and 20 times (55.6%) outside the triangle, with no significant differences. 6. Objections (1-1-1) were made once (50%) inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line and once (50%) outside the triangle, with no significant difference. 7. Inside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line, no objections (3-0) occurred 168 times (47.6%) and objections (2-1, 1-2, 1-1-1) occurred 32 times (46.4%). Outside the triangle connecting the three referees with a straight line, no objections (3-0) were made 185 times (52.4%) and objections (2-1, 1-2, 1-1-1) were used 37 times (53.6%). There were no significant differences in the percentages inside and outside the triangles, with and without objections. The above suggested that with conventional referee positions, it was desirable for nage-waza acknowledgements to be conducted inside the triangle and for assistant referees to move. However, it could not be concluded that there was a problem in the number of objections. In the future, in situations where the assistant referees cannot present an acknowledgement of nage-waza to the referee, it will be necessary to compare the number of occurrences of objections between the inside and outside of the triangle in the conventional referee positions.