Article ID: 2307
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.
