You be the judge? How would you call it? Win loose or draw?

[Alan Armstrong]

You be the judge, what would you do?

Do you agree or disagree with the judges decision?

Regarding a knockout at a karate tournament.

I think that the wrong person won this bout.

I don't see how a person can win a bout due to an accident!

At the least, call it a draw.

Or consider how each fighter performed prior to the accident and judge which person was best up until that point, then base a who won decision from that.

I am in favour, in disqualifying the person that used an illegal technique.

How would you score it, if you were the judge at this tournament?

[Wastelander]

By WKF rules, red should be disqualified and blue gets the "win." Typically, WKF will penalize the striker any time there is a knockout, even if they technically should call "mubobi" (failure to adequately defend oneself) to the person who was struck. That happened to my Sensei in one of the last tournaments he participated in when he was alive; the other guy completely dropped his hands and stood up out of his stance right as my Sensei threw a head kick, and was subsequently dropped by said head kick.

From the perspective of actual fighting, the person who gets the knockout wins, of course

[sensei8]

You be the judge, what would you do?

It was a clash!! In clashes, accidents occur!!

Do you agree or disagree with the judges decision?

I disagree with the Judges decision!!

How would you score it, if you were the judge at this tournament?

Thomas is unable to continue, therefore, Stefan wins!!

Under WKF Rules, Noah is right-on the money!!

[Alan Armstrong]

Light contact or semi contact karate tournaments are for me are a grey area or issue.

As it is possible to knock someone out "accidentally" and win technically.

However can lose and be disqualified for excessive contact, yet pulling punches and kicks that don't land are awarded points but only if they look authentic or could look to be damaging; as combinations cannot possibly happen in real combat situations but where one strike well placed is more feasible; hmmm!

Where let's say one combatant is similar to the Tiger out for blood, while the other is like the Crane and is not out for blood.

Sooner or later the Tiger will kill the Crane, while the Crane will never kill the Tiger, due to each one's intent is very different.

None contact or semi contact tournaments, for me are similar to the Crane' intent, not to harm each other and whilst full contact tournaments are like the Tiger, out for blood.

While this bout in question, both combatants are not wearing head protection, yet a serious head injury has occurred.

If one believes that there is no such thing as accidents only negligence, then the one that was knocked out due to, not properly protecting himself at all times is to blame.

Then this is a negligence issue and not an accident.

So the one that struck his knee in to face of the other, didn't do it accidentally, as it happend due to negligence of being in striking distance of an incoming knee.

So the point being, in this tournament, that it is okay to accidentally hurt the opponent and knock that person out, but make it look like negligence.

Making it appear as, it is due to the lack of care and attention of the recipient, otherwise it will look like excessive contact from the other.

[sensei8]

Perception is reality to THAT person. We here will have varying degrees of interpretation across the board based on our own perception through our own understandings and knowledge and experience.

This is a WKF Tournament, and whatever they had decided is their given right, and while I might not agree, I do respect their decision.

Therefore, my decision in this regards still stands, nonetheless!!

[Alan Armstrong]

Perception is reality to THAT person. We here will have varying degrees of interpretation across the board based on our own perception through our own understandings and knowledge and experience.

This is a WKF Tournament, and whatever they had decided is their given right, and while I might not agree, I do respect their decision.

Therefore, my decision in this regards still stands, nonetheless!!

Then there is no real clear cut winner or loser, only the external power that be, judged from their perspective and rules, to say who is victorious?

Another point about this bout, is that the combatant that caused the injury, did not kneel down, showing his back to the injured opponent.

I find this to be disrespectful?

Which is another reason why this person should have been disqualified, due to adding insult to injury.

[Wastelander]

Perception is reality to THAT person. We here will have varying degrees of interpretation across the board based on our own perception through our own understandings and knowledge and experience.

This is a WKF Tournament, and whatever they had decided is their given right, and while I might not agree, I do respect their decision.

Therefore, my decision in this regards still stands, nonetheless!!

Then there is no real clear cut winner or loser, only the external power that be, judged from their perspective and rules, to say who is victorious?

Another point about this bout, is that the combatant that caused the injury, did not kneel down, showing his back to the injured opponent.

I find this to be disrespectful?

Which is another reason why this person should have been disqualified, due to adding insult to injury.

In WKF, participants are supposed to stand at yoi in their starting position, generally, when awaiting a judge's call for anything, which is what he did. By the guidelines of the organization, what he did was proper, even if it isn't the "traditional" thing to do.

[Wado Heretic]

This has been, as you can imagine, a rather contentious bout in UK Shiai Kumite circles. After all, a DQ ruling would have awarded Jordan Thomas, the English competitor in Blue, the Bronze Medal. Oddly, at the podium, however, Pokorny was instead given the bronze. This has been challenged by the EKF.

My personal view and I would mention that it has been some years since I officially refereed or judged, is that this was indeed a case of insufficient defence. Looking at the technique in slow motion, the kick was pulled and controlled. Although fully extended, as per the rules, Pokorny did not drive the hip through, and there was no dangerous follow through. However, even a controlled kick will take you down if you meet the knee with your head while it is being thrown.

I will say that I agree with the final decision of the judges to award Pokorny (Red) the win after further deliberation. Prior to the deciding kick, Pokorny was the more active fighter and had sought more opportunities to score. Thompson took a controlled kick in a bad place, but it is a combat sport, and competitors need to be held to standards of aptitude. He approached nakedly and left his head open to a kick. Pokorny's error was he set up a rote combination, and Thompson did not pull away to where Pokorny expected him to be. Thompson instead kept coming forward to try and score with a Gyakuzuki, and thus the crash occurred.

With that said, I will defend the general attitude to defer to the notion of a lack of control on behalf of the one causing a knock-out or injury. As often, it is the truth. I will, however, also say that there does need to be greater clarification on expected degrees of defence under WKF rules and that referees and judges need to be considering that as well. After all, to score against an actively defending opponent, you must throw techniques with speed. To maximise speed, you must use effective body mechanics, which will also maximise power. That is why point fighters train to engage at the full reach of their limbs, as the natural limit of their reach will allow them to control their blows. This is also influenced by the rules requiring techniques to be "Seen" to be properly performed to score: hence a punch or kick must land fully extended. Yet, even at the elite level, this is not always achievable, especially during clashes or when competitors completely misjudge their opponent's movements. Hence, the matter of defence and responsibility for adequate defence needs to be considered more often than it is, especially in this age of easy access video equipment where clashes can be recorded and examined.

End of the day, though, it is a combat sport and a game. If you breach the rules, then you lose. If one of the rules is against excessive contact, or willingly endangering the health and safety of your opponent, then you should lose in the instance you break this rule. In the event a winner does not need to be declared, you could declare bouts a draw or no contest, when accidents happen which prematurely end the bout. However, problems do arise when you must declare a winner due to it being a tournament format. The judges have a few considerations based on the question: who is responsible for the stoppage? The person who got knocked-out or the one that knocked them out? If you decide it is a matter of insufficient defence, then it is the one who got knocked-out that is the loser, because they were at fault for being unable to continue. If you decide it is a matter of excessive contact, then it is the fighter that was left standing that loses by disqualification.

The TL:DR version, as the kids say, is I disagree with the decision made on the mat. I would have called this as a case inadequate defence on Thompson's half. I agree with the later overturn of the initial decision and the awarding of Pokorny with the win. I would have liked Thomspon to have won, but I have to give this one to Pokorny. Thompson met his knee with his face, Pokorny did not appear to be trying to knee Thompson in the head.

[sensei8]

This has been, as you can imagine, a rather contentious bout in UK Shiai Kumite circles. After all, a DQ ruling would have awarded Jordan Thomas, the English competitor in Blue, the Bronze Medal. Oddly, at the podium, however, Pokorny was instead given the bronze. This has been challenged by the EKF.

My personal view and I would mention that it has been some years since I officially refereed or judged, is that this was indeed a case of insufficient defence. Looking at the technique in slow motion, the kick was pulled and controlled. Although fully extended, as per the rules, Pokorny did not drive the hip through, and there was no dangerous follow through. However, even a controlled kick will take you down if you meet the knee with your head while it is being thrown.

I will say that I agree with the final decision of the judges to award Pokorny (Red) the win after further deliberation. Prior to the deciding kick, Pokorny was the more active fighter and had sought more opportunities to score. Thompson took a controlled kick in a bad place, but it is a combat sport, and competitors need to be held to standards of aptitude. He approached nakedly and left his head open to a kick. Pokorny's error was he set up a rote combination, and Thompson did not pull away to where Pokorny expected him to be. Thompson instead kept coming forward to try and score with a Gyakuzuki, and thus the crash occurred.

With that said, I will defend the general attitude to defer to the notion of a lack of control on behalf of the one causing a knock-out or injury. As often, it is the truth. I will, however, also say that there does need to be greater clarification on expected degrees of defence under WKF rules and that referees and judges need to be considering that as well. After all, to score against an actively defending opponent, you must throw techniques with speed. To maximise speed, you must use effective body mechanics, which will also maximise power. That is why point fighters train to engage at the full reach of their limbs, as the natural limit of their reach will allow them to control their blows. This is also influenced by the rules requiring techniques to be "Seen" to be properly performed to score: hence a punch or kick must land fully extended. Yet, even at the elite level, this is not always achievable, especially during clashes or when competitors completely misjudge their opponent's movements. Hence, the matter of defence and responsibility for adequate defence needs to be considered more often than it is, especially in this age of easy access video equipment where clashes can be recorded and examined.

End of the day, though, it is a combat sport and a game. If you breach the rules, then you lose. If one of the rules is against excessive contact, or willingly endangering the health and safety of your opponent, then you should lose in the instance you break this rule. In the event a winner does not need to be declared, you could declare bouts a draw or no contest, when accidents happen which prematurely end the bout. However, problems do arise when you must declare a winner due to it being a tournament format. The judges have a few considerations based on the question: who is responsible for the stoppage? The person who got knocked-out or the one that knocked them out? If you decide it is a matter of insufficient defence, then it is the one who got knocked-out that is the loser, because they were at fault for being unable to continue. If you decide it is a matter of excessive contact, then it is the fighter that was left standing that loses by disqualification.

The TL:DR version, as the kids say, is I disagree with the decision made on the mat. I would have called this as a case inadequate defence on Thompson's half. I agree with the later overturn of the initial decision and the awarding of Pokorny with the win. I would have liked Thomspon to have won, but I have to give this one to Pokorny. Thompson met his knee with his face, Pokorny did not appear to be trying to knee Thompson in the head.

Solid post!!

[Alan Armstrong]

Within the karate circuit "the appearing" to have is very important.

Appearing to have made a killer blow or not appearing to hit the opponent intentionally.

As in this case not appearing to protect one's self and consequently getting struck in the head, that appears to look like an accident.

Thompson has what I would call long (range) gangly (in and out) point scoring movements, whilst Pokorny has short (range) crisp (in fighting) ones, as this is why the clash happened; as he closed the gap on Thompson and shut him down; which works perfectly for real full contact fights.

However, this not a real fight, as full contact was not permitted.

Thompson was playing the point game where Porkorny wasn't.