Can somebody go into some detail about this "no false attacks" rule?
After watching the vid BKR posted in the grip fighting thread, it seems like even though the intent is good, that this is just a shitty rule. Maybe I'm just a noob, but how often can one say without a shadow of a doubt that an attack was false? That Korean fellow got called for one at least once for an ippon seoi nage that seemed legit to me, it just didn't take Ono to the mat.
How will this affect setting up one technique with another technique? Does this restrict tori to committing to one technique and hoping for the best? Will tori receive two penalties for setting up an attack with another, and neither take uke down?
The IJF bans more things
False attack is usually someone trying to avoid a penalty for non-combativity. They don't want to make a committed attack and risk getting countered, so they make a half-assed one and hope they look busy to the ref. If the attack is a feint used to set up something else that is perfectly fine so long as the second attack is sincere. However most people will tell you that combinations work best when the first attack is also an honest one. I agree it can be a tough call.
Looked at that other vid - not sure what that was, looked like he slipped. At any rate I'm not going to second guess the ref on the floor from watching a video.
Of course, but what I'm taking away from this is that judo musn't be just grappling, it has to be grappling that exemplifies an ideal. Or at least that's the story the IJF is sticking to; maybe there's also a business or political angle. Meanwhile, pragmatists aren't yet or can't be alienated. Is that about right?
Originally Posted by BKR
I teach kids the basics of Judo and I don't really worry about the constant rule changes. As competition nears, I only teach what they will use during competition and to be aware of certain rules. Some refs are more lenient others are by the book.
All these rules take the fun out of Judo, especially when teaching kids.