The WTF have now implemented these amended rules from 2009 – World Cup held in Baku, Azerbaijan (June) and World Championships held in Copenhagen, Denmark (October).

Among the most significant implementations have been:

1. 3 points for the head kick
2. 2 points for the back kick or the continuous turning kick
3. 8m by 8m contest area
4. 5 second “fight warning” call followed by kyong-go if there is continued non fight activity after 10 seconds.
5. use of electronic body protectors – ebp
6. video replay system and coach appeal process

Some countries have started to implement these amended rules, but with varying forms of video replay or review jury or even with the process for scoring the 3 points or 2 points.

Comments and feedback on the amended rules are welcome on this forum.  I have opened a new topic for this as the former forum topic was on the proposed amendments which was before implementation, and this one is post implementation. 

you can back-refer to the pre implementation forum views anytime here.

or

you can cross reference to the post and comments on the amended rules here.

or

you can refer to the following posts and comments on the use of the ebp's click link below:

http://www.ata-wa.org.au/forum/sparring/electronic-body-protector/page-1/

There is now a clear drop in those "points" that may have been scored from any contact with the arms.

In the manual scoring format, there are instances when the kicks make contact with the arms and also either making contact with the body hogu or pushing the arm onto the hogu due to the force of the kicking impact.  In these instances in the manual scoring format, judges could award the point when determined that there was sufficient force being delivered and there was some contact being made.

In the LaJust ebp format, these instances where points could be scored has been eliminated.  This has substantially reduced the controversies that were present when debating if there was sufficient contact made or sufficient force delivered in the kick.  There is now insufficient force level measured or sensor contact made between the foot sensors and the ebp becasue the arm has been hit before the ebp, and hence insufficient force or insufficient sensor contact had made to record a high enough force level to score the point. 

As a result those points that were mistakenly scored due to kicks making contact with the arm and which made a substantial loud sound has been eliminated. 

This is a big plus for the sport. 

This should now flow onto the tournaments where no ebp's are being used and any kicks that land on the arms should not be scored, unless it is clear there is substantial contact made between the kicking foot and the body protector.  There should be total elimination of any points being scored with contact made on the arms only.  Referee judges must be better skilled in this area, if not it will only prove that the electronics and the ebp's are better "skilled" than human referee judges.

The below is a commentary on non fighting on the 5 second fight warning time clock followed by the 10 second potential kyong-go warning penalty.

Taekwondo have in past years been “dubbed” as boring because all the fighters do in the ring was to bounce up and down and there were very little fighting during the match.  If you're a player or a coach, you would call it strategy.  Yes they are strategies all right, but they are boring strategies, very defensive minded and which makes the sport “boring” to the public.  There were virtually no technical exchange for very long periods of time or there were no action at all, except for bouncing up and down or the odd flick of the arms and legs to fake an attempt to attack.

For those who understand the sport, they do appreciate the game plan and would patiently wait for some movement and some very quick flurry of action and hopefully a fantastic delivery and some knock out kick would explode, ..  somehow.  Aah yes those precious moments, but too few to satisfy the general public.  But when they connect eg like the Dae Sung Moon's jumping spinning kick that knocked out Alexander Nikolaides in the heavyweight final of the Athens Olympics, well that was a brilliant kick well worth waiting for.

Unfortunately it is a physical combat sport and the “play” is on the human body, and players do not want to get hit and be scored on, so there is much of the “wait and see” tactics being used or just staying in prime standby position waiting for the opening and then “ka-boom” a flurry of kicks or even a singular kick is exploded, and sometimes it is so fast that it is like a blur, and out of nothingness, a point is scored, such is the speed of the kicking attack, that taekwondo enthusiasts really appreciate, including the referees and the corner judges.  There is no time to relax or nod off, one must really concentrate and stay focus, ..  in case the action comes and go and you miss it.  Thank god for video that can capture these explosive actions and best of all slow motion replay, it makes the action well worth watching over and over again.

You would not think so, but it is quite hard for the referees and the judges to anticipate such moves and to focus their full concentration of each player waiting, waiting for the explosive kick, in attack or in counter attack to score.

Unfortunately, taekwondo the sport and the game is not only played for the players and their coaches, they are played for the public, under the view of a global spectating audience, especially in the Olympics and watched on television.  So it has to be explosive as well as it has to be exciting and entertaining and NOT boring.  There must be movement (as opposed to just bouncing up and down), there must be fighting engagement, after all it is a physical combat sport, so there must be physical fighting and blows to each other – it is a combat sport.  The spectator and crowd expects it, so the players must deliver.

The referees, they have to enforce the rule and bring the excitement out of the players and get them to engage in fighting, if not to encourage fighting to score points at least on the minimum get the players to engage in fighting.  The referee also needs to move as well, and staying put in a stationery position is no fun at all, one gets cold and actually tiring just concentrating and anticipating for any explosive action of movement.

There has been much debate on how to get the players to engage in fighting and I am sure there are lots of views and theories on how this can be done.  The latest rule enforcement is one such way.  In the event there is no physical action by either or any player in engaging to “fight”, the referee will after 5 seconds command the players to “fight”.  Of course this is the initial 1st warning, because the referee will watch intensely and monitor if there are any fight action or any engagement of fighting by either or any player.  The rule to enforce is to penalise either or both players by a kyong-go (half point warning) if there is no evidence of fighting or fight engagement. 

Easy to say, but referees have to be conscious that there is a lot of pressure here from both players as neither want to give away any opening to allow the other to attack or counterattack to score the point.  The point is very precious, so the strategy is not to give any opportunity for the other to score, one may interpret this as being negative play, or more accurately boring play, and non adventurous, or low risk taking.

Nonetheless the rule is there, so it must be enforced.  If after 10 seconds there is still no sign of any fighting or attempt for any fighting action or fight engagement by either or any player, the kyong-go must be given.  You will find that after the first warning is given, the players will engage.  It must also be a test by the players to see how far they can stretch the time before the referee would enforce the rule.  I have seen referees not enforce the rule diligently, sometimes maybe due to so much concentration they lose track of time.  But for me, I keep an eye on the clock on the score board and count down to the 10 seconds and soon after if there are no action to engage in any fighting activity,  I will pick the player who is more defensive and penalise him-her with the kyong-go, of course if both are inactive, then both will get the kyong-go.  I find that the players soon get the idea and will engage in fighting within that 10 second time frame, the next time round.  They know, they do not want to lose that half point because it could become a full point “freebie” given to his opponent player, if penalised again.

The players now know they have to engage in some form of fighting.  IN time they work out another strategy, and sometimes it would appear to be spontaneous from both players, they will stretch the time and within that 10 second “time zone”, both would attack each other with no real intent to place kicks in scoring positions.  If you can just picture both players just advancing towards each other in a fighting engagement movement, this then kills off the 10 second penalty time zone.  And yes the fight clock starts again.  If this happens once too often, then I suggest a verbal warning be directed to both players so to keep them on their toes that you are onto them.  A pep talk before the commencement of the next round helps.

The case for this rule is to encourage more active fighting action from the players, and my view is that it has worked to a certain degree.  The players do understand this rule and they try to bring some fighting action forward, but they will not do so if there is any indication they may be at risk of being scored on.  I suppose it is better to lose “half a point” rather than be scored on with a point.

The coach appeal and the video replay system was implemented with some success.  It is still very new and in its infancy, but seems to be acceptable so far from comments received.  There are areas that would require fine tuning and clarity.  Some parts need further improvements and process amendment to make it work well.

This video replay system process for reviews to help confirm or arbitrate on sporting decisions is not new, it has been introduced to such sports as rugby, cricket, tennis, athletics, swimming and others.  Most sports use this review system by the judges and referees to help their decision making, but in taekwondo it has followed such sports as tennis and cricket where the players or the coaches appeal or challenge the initial decision made by the judges or the referees.

In taekwondo sport, a coach can appeal any factual judgement made by the corner judges or the referee, eg an appeal for the 3-points score on a head shot or an infringement given or not given (kyong-go or gamjeom).  The appeal is only against the human factual judgements made but not on the electronic body protector scoring system.  So in a way the appeal is against a human judgement but not one made by a non human scoring system.

The video replay system is not perfect.  Some of the issues that would require further review and fine tuning include:

• the time lapsed before an appeal can be considered as valid.  At the world championships there were appeals made many seconds elapsed after an incidence, and some were made at the end of the round.  There were some confusions by coaches and officials alike as there were no guidelines on the time elapsed.
• the more experienced players would initially call to his coach to lodge the appeal if he thinks there should be one lodged for a 3 point head kick, he would be in the best position to know if his kick connected or if the kick from his opponent connected on him;
• the coaches would confirm with his player if there was any contact made before he would lodge his appeal.

The above would require review and hopefully the outcome of a set of guidelines to use

• the positioning of the video camera.  During the world championships only one camera at position #1 (as in the current 4 corner judges position) was used.  So the view can only be made from one camera angle and there were quite a few appeals that were ruled inconclusive, eg a 3-point head shot was not scored as it missed the target, the coach appeals and yet on video replay appeal, the 3-points was awarded because the camera view showed the kick towards the intended target but not the connection but the intended target moved.  Vice versa there was also instance of an appeal where the 3-point head shot was scored but it was clearly missed, but the video camera could not conclusively determine if the head kick connected, and the 3-points stayed.
• there must be more cameras to be used and these must be placed at different angles.  The most accurate would possibly be at each of the 4 corners and one from the top view.  Realistically, there must be at least 3 cameras minimum in order to have a conclusive view during video replays.

It was very clear that one camera cannot be conclusive for video replay analysis.  In a live telecast situation where multiple TV cameras are used, they could show instances where the one official camera view was limited and inconclusive.  To make the video replay system and process most effective, more cameras needed to be used, meaning more technical operators and more costs.

• The one appeal per match is more than enough, and coaches need to use this appeal as a strategy for the match and use it only when necessary and essential, eg if the match was very close and towards the end of the match is when it would be crucial to use.  There had been instances where a coach would launch an appeal and it got turned down (as in lost the appeal) and hence leaving no appeal left for later use and if it turned out to be one of those crucial ones that mattered, it could have turned the match.
• there are those who would use the appeal anyway towards the end of the match or when the coach felt he had nothing to lose, eg when his player was on the losing end and any appeal to gain some point is worth the appeal.  This is more prevalent to close matches or the sudden death round where any appeal that looked likely or have possibility of gaining a point would be used.

The use of the appeal is a strategy that the coach or player need to fine tune as each match progresses.  Any appeal process used does take time to go through and prolong a match.

Having technology to help assist any sport to reduce any human error in judging a match is good.  What is implemented is a video replay system that is appealed by the player or the coach and not by the officiating judges or referee.  In this sense, the final judgement is taken away from the officiating judges and referee.  But at least the final arbitrator for the final ruling is still being made by a review jury that comprised a very experienced referee (and currently practicing) and a member of the supervisory (or arbitration) board.

The international sport of cricket recently introduced the video replay (and appeal) system where a player can appeal a decision.  They have similar appeal mechanism that allows them 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings where in taekwondo it is one unsuccessful appeal per match.

It does add some excitement to the sport for the spectators and creates an environment where judges and referees decision can be challenged.

The other big positive is now players and coaches will really need to know the competition rules if they were to appeal or challenge any decision made by the officiating judges and referees. 

At the world championships, if the appeal for video replay does not cover any part of the rules or have any relevance to the competition rules, the referee would simply just take the appeal card and consider it as a lost appeal because it has no relevance to the competition rules.  Similarly there is no appeal against the ebp, so any appeal lodged will be accordingly be taken and accepted by the referee as a lost appeal.

I present here some background on how the +2 points and the +3 points were possibly amended in the amended WTF competition rules.

I met up with a respected International Referee from Yemen while I was in Copenhagen.  He is also the current National Team Coach and Technical Director for Yemen.  He explained to me his efforts in his suggestion to WTF to reward efforts of high technique and variety of techniques in scoring.  His efforts possibly led to the amendments to the scoring of +2 points for turning kicks and +3 points for head kicks in the competitions.

Master Abdulrahim Salman Mohammed was kind enough to provide me with his article titled Aesthetic aspects of Taekwondo where he outlined the lead up to the +2 points and the +3 points scoring.  The below is an extract from his article- and it is interesting reading:

(Aesthetic aspects of Taekwondo):

Taekwondo in fact belongs to the aesthetic sciences that use the human body as an instrument of artistic expression. Aesthetic, however, is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of beauty, taste as well as appreciation of art. And since taekwondo is an art represented by the last syllable (DO), it has had then an artistic expression that creates a direct relationship with the spectator through demonstrating different types of high quality techniques.

Those interesting techniques may strike and motivate the sense of beauty of the spectators, and make them feel the pleasure and ultimately taste the joy while watching taekwondo competitions.

To taste any art, however, two principle factors should be taken into consideration, creativity and diversity.   In the case of taekwondo, creativity is represented by high quality of techniques, and diversity is represented by variety of techniques i.e. different type of kicks.

Unfortunately, in most of today's taekwondo competitions we neither find high quality of techniques nor variety of kicks. What is happening in some matches is just holding, pushing, grabbing and sometimes wrestling like business. 

The other problem is that the majority of contestants are fond of using only one type of kick which is Bandal-Chagi, (round-house kick), the very easiest frontal kick, the matter that makes taekwondo quite monotonous and boring.  

Besides, it gives the impression to the spectators who are not familiar to taekwondo that taekwondo has only one kick!  Taekwondo has never been like that, it is remarkable for its beautiful kicks and harmonious techniques.  If we use a metaphor we can say that “Taekwondo is like a pearl covered by sand'' and it is time now to shake off that sand and present it to the world in its glittering and splendor.

However, It is also true and fair to say that contestants and coaches have nothing to do with the aesthetic or the beauty of taekwondo, because their main goal is only how to win the match and get advanced medal.  Therefore, they always seek for the easiest and the fastest way by which they can reach their opponents and gain points without spending much energy.  For this reason, we notice that the majority of contestants try to use Bandal- Chagi all the time during the match, and if we visit any training place worldwide, we may see that 90% percent of the training session focuses on such kick, neglecting other kicks and techniques.

Although there have been many attempts made by taekwondo scholars to modify the competition rules in order to overcome such boredom and monotony of taekwondo competitions, all their efforts were focused mainly on modification of competition rules only.  Of course competition rules are so crucial factor that needs to be treated seriously.

But in my point of view it is just part of the problem and not the whole problem. We actually need to cover all the problem aspects and finally put the solutions altogether in one package.

To encourage high quality of techniques and variety of such techniques, two  suggestions may be made in this regard:

1. we may follow the rule of (one-two-three) i.e. 1 point is awarded to the body middle part kicks, 2 points are awarded to front face kicks, and 3 points are awarded to any face kick that involves turning of the body like Spinning Whip Kick, for example. In this case the judges press the button of 2 points as usual, and the third point is added by the central referee regardless if the referee counts or not.

note: the competition rules for a head kick is now +3 points.

2. we may also follow the rule of (one-two-three) again i.e. , 1 point is awarded to Bandal- Chagi or any other middle part front kick, two points are awarded to any middle part body kicks that involve turning of the body, provided that such kicks are in line with taewondo basic techniques, and finally two points are awarded to any face kicks plus one point added by the central referee regardless if the referee counts or not. It is to say that the competition scoring system should give big advantage for contestants who have high capacity of performing different taekwondo techniques effectively.

note: turning kicks to the body is now +2 points.

The implementation of the +2 points and the +3 points have been very well accepted by players, coaches and referees.  So we have to thank Master Abdulrahim Salman Mohammed for his efforts in suggesting this change.  Master Abdulrahim received a citation from WTF Technical Director, Mr Dai Won Moon in recognition for his effective and useful contribution. 

Well done Master Abdulrahim Salman Mohammed

click below link to the article post on the WTF amended competiton rules:

http://www.ata-wa.org.au/wtf-competition-rules-changes-to-be-implemented-from-june-2009/2009/04/26/#comment-242