Overall the GTA was an example of how tournaments should be run. The organization was fantastic. They waited a little bit longer to start due to the weather.
The whole tournament ran in a reasonable amount of time, but they could have improved upon this by not doing round robin play. Also, fighters and refs were sometimes unaware at the start of a divison whether or nto it was round robin or straight tourney bracket. In my opinion they should do straight tournament brackets (things will run faster).
GTA rules. Overall not a bad set of rules but they need tweaking. The video replay rule was poorly administered, as the parameters were not clearly defined. It may have cut down on complaints, but in at least one case it completely robbed a fighter of a match. Basicly replay should never occur after the fact, and to stop matches to look at calls ruins the flow. I think only what happens in the final ten seconds should be reviewable, and even then it needs to be limited to did one guy tap, was a move used illegal, should points have counted. Other rules I took issue with, was the no guard pass points rule if you pass into mount. Also, there needs to be a greater understanding of stalling and running, with clear definitions as to how to deal with it in terms of points and DQ's. In no-gi the -1 for pulling guard is just a bad rule. It is submision wreslting not wrestling. If it were up to me I would award at most an advantage to the outher guy when someion pulls guard. That way the guard guy can't go nuts and win on agressiveness ( he has to at least come close to a sweep or submission), and the guy on top actually has to do something on the ground. It's SUBMISSION wrestling not wrestling, time to do away with silly rules.
Reffing, well I am biased, nobody complained to me about calls, and I was never video challenged, and all the other ref's did agreat job as well (in the matches I watched there were only a couple questionable calls).
Sportmanship was great amongst competitiors and coaches alike, with the unfortunate exception of one coach. I won't name him, but his comments did not go unnoticed nor were they appreciated.
TTT for a great tournament, and a Job well done by KATA. I look forward to attending their future events.
Also, special thanks to the CJA for sanctioning the event.
It was well done. The electronic timers were good. Some of the divisions didn't have many participants, so maybe that was the reasoning for the round robin.
Mark Bocek handled a dispute at the end of the day in a very professional manner. Two thumbs up for this event!
I would say that Bocek handled the dispute properly. However, one competitor would have gone for more sweeps (including in the final half minute, and would have played differently had he not been up 4-2 on the score board. Upon review they gave it to the other guy. This is why the review system is unfair, because it completley disadvantaged the other competitor, who simply played under the circumstances he was under during the match. Also, in the review some other poor calls by the ref were not challenged, as only the team putting down $50 was picking and choosing what they cared to debate. I don't know who would have won had the match been properly called from start to finish. But I do know that match strategy is unfairly hindered when what it was predicated on at the time can be completley overturned after the fact.
I can imagine being up 5-0, not having any sub opportunities, and then having all my points taken away due to only having held each position for 2.5 seconds. And not only that I would have held the postions longer had the ref not already given me the points. Then have it ruled that my opponent made 3 advantages in the match including a flying triangle attempt in the final 2 seconds ( giving my opponent the 3-2 advantage edge). And losing the match.
Like I said I don't wish to dispute who won, I don't believe that we can ever fairly know how the match would have gone. Robbing both competitors a chance to work their respective games.
The only compliants I heard throughtout the day, were about a couple of the refs. I think if you voulenteer to be a ref, you should be 100% confident in your knowlegde of the tournament rules and of the sport!!
Poor reffing can make or break a tournament in my opinion!! Just my 2 cents!!
i think for the firs ttime ever i agree with josh..
im not a big fan of the negative 1 for guard pulling.. I actually like to play off my back and work my actually ground game but not going to risk it in a -1 situation where the other guy can just avoid for the rest of time.,. f they have -1 for sitting guard then they should atleast allow a period were there are no points.. mabye the first 3 minutes of a 6 minute fight..
As a ref it is impossible to please everyone. YOu definately need to know the game and have confidence in your knowledge of the rules. Also, a lot of spectators don't realise that you need 3 seconds straight of control for points. This is especailly tough when a guy almost has the guard pass points but can't get 3 straight seconds of control. I have seen a guy hold the cross side with various degrees of control for 15-20 seconds but not earn the points.
"But I do know that match strategy is unfairly hindered when what it was predicated on at the time can be completley overturned after the fact."
But still, you have to wonder how are up on points if you didn't takedown/sweep/pass/mount. Knowing in advance that the other guy can protest the decision with videotape after means that you have to toss aside the usual "match strategy" and keep attacking until the end. I'm not faulting anyone, I'm just suggesting how to adapt to this system to ensure victory.
"Also, in the review some other poor calls by the ref were not challenged, as only the team putting down $50 was picking and choosing what they cared to debate."
Easy...just drop down $50 yourself dispute whatever you want.
I think that the videotape dispute system used at the GTA has its advantages and should be tried again.
"In no-gi the -1 for pulling guard is just a bad rule. It is submision wrestling not wrestling."
No, no, no! This is so wrong I don't know where to start. The ability to take down your opponent is the ability to DICTATE the conditions of the fight. If you pull guard why should I engage? I can just walk away.
Takedowns, and takedown DEFENCE, are a fundamental aspect of grappling that too many BJJers feel they can safely ignore. This is a huge mistake and limits your overall effectivness as a grappler, so I agree with it 100%. If you remove this rule (non GTA specific btw) then why not just start matches from the knees?
Bottom line, if you don't want to give up the -1 then maybe you should spend more time working on your standup, you'll be a better grappler for it.
your point is well taken adn i do work my standup to avoid such situations but in a grappling tourney where i would actually like to play bottom as i woulds have yesterday. it takes a lot out of the fights.. I say let them go if you want to sit down fine. the other guy now has to learn how to pass guard or finish not just takedown and stall or run away
I was discussing it further with one of my friends, and he convinced me that the only fair approach is to have one offical camera per mat. If that camera can't decisively determine what happenned then the ruling on the mat by the ref during the match stands. Also, the complaining party would have to outline exactly what they are protesting, and run the risk that during a review if something useful to the other side turns up it may be taken into consideration as well.
As a spectator, for what it is worth, I was pleased to see what I took to be quite a good turn-out considering the bad weather conditions and the fact this was a first effort.
I believe I saw reps from clubs as far away as Ottawa (Ronin) which suggests these guys are SERIOUS about competing. RONIN is to be commended for their support.
Magnus, thanks for noticing us lonely Ronin guys. It was a long trip down in the bad weather, but well worth it, great tourney, good competitors.Watching Claude fight was well worth it, man that dude is smooth. KashK,good job reffing!
"Also, in the review some other poor calls by the ref were not challenged, as only the team putting down $50 was picking and choosing what they cared to debate."
In the only review that I witnessed Mark perform, he viewed the entire match on tape and scored it independently. It was not a matter of picking and choosing parts of the match to review.
Overall a great tournament by KATA and Mark. I thought the round robin/double elimination was great for competitors. I agree w/ Claude and Josh, and personally dislike the -1 for sitting to guard, particularly in short time limit matches. But I understand that it matches ADCC rules.