Another year of big competitions is wrapped up and one of the biggest talking points for at least 3 of them, World’s Strongest Man, Shaw Classic and The Rogue Invitational is the standard of refereeing on the overhead events.
World’s had a max Dumbbell event, Shaw Classic had Log for reps using 3 different weight logs and Rogue had to change their event from Fingal’s Fingers into Log, to just Log for reps.
In every one of these competitions, the judging of lockouts has been inconsistent, with one athlete in particular courting the most controversy for being given reps that many commentators, coaches, athletes and fans are calling no rep on.
Rules
To clarify, the generally accepted rules across all competitions are that a lockout is not complete until the following criteria have been met,
1. The implement is above the head
2. Elbows are locked out
3. Head is through with arms either side of the head
4. The athlete is in an upright position
5. Hips and Knees are locked out
6. Feet are in line with each other
7. The athlete is not moving and the implement is stable over head
From the side, this should look like a fairly straight line from implement, through the arms, shoulders, hips, knees and ankle, not where the implement is in front of the head, with the head and shoulders behind the hips and knees pushed over the toes.
Criticism
Where we are seeing criticism of the standards are in points 1,3 and 7, this was especially clear on the max Dumbbell at WSM and the Log at the Shaw Classic.
It’s as if the rest of the criteria are being completely ignored and only the elbows locking out count, reps are also given before the implement has been stabilised over head and is literally falling forward, or in the case of a dumbbell, to the side as the ref says down (see the dumbbell event at the 2021 Rouge Invitational).
Yes referees make mistakes, but when it’s rep after rep, competition after competition with the same one or two athletes, it’s a lot more serious than just an occasional error. And promoters should be either replacing them or instructing them to be more critical of the athletes that are well known to bend the rules as much as they can, especially when the reputation of the competition is brought into question.
So how do we fix it?
As someone said to me recently,
“We’ve taken the comps out of the car parks, but not the refereeing”
Which is a pretty damning statement, but if you think about it, we have advanced the sport so much in terms of prize money, professionalism, training, equipment and venues, but the standards of judging hasn’t really kept pace. And there are a few things we can do to change that.
The first thing we need to do is agree on a unified set of rules.
Having everyone (promoters, athletes and judges) on the same page, for all events in all competitions, no matter where they take place, will make the judging a lot easier, it means athletes will know that wherever they compete, the rules are the same and therefore, there can be no excuse that you didn’t know it was or wasn’t allowed.
It also means that fans won’t be sitting asking, was it in the rules? Why does promoter A do things differently to promoter B? And so on.
Once the rules are unified there needs to be a a technical handbook on the rules for the athletes and how to judge the lifts for the refs just like there are in sports like Powerlifting and Weightlifting.
Currently in Strongman, there are no criteria as to what qualifies someone to judge a competition, promoters can literally use anyone they want, so is it any surprise that standards are all over the place?
In Powerlifting and Weightlifting, where they have a governing body, judges must pass exams to qualify to officiate at meets, would it be too unrealistic to expect the same in Strongman? Particularly at the highest levels of competition and especially when we are trying to increase the legitimacy of the sport. (remember how we all used to tear Crossfit to pieces for poor standards? Well, we risk that happening to Strongman when we don’t judge consistently using rules that the layperson can easily understand).
As I mentioned Powerlifting above, I genuinely think it’s high time we brought in side judges for overhead and deadlift events, their job is to look for body alignment and to scrutinise lockouts.
At the Static Monsters World Championships this year, I used a side ref who was watching for infractions of the rules regarding lockouts, athletes at Static Monsters were told that a down signal doesn’t equal a good lift, They had to wait until the side ref communicated with the head ref that it was either locked out or not, giving the athlete time to attempt the lift again if needed. This worked extremely well as communication was quick and accurate.
In Powerlifting the head ref can give a down signal, but the rep isn’t good until 2 out of 3 judges agree. Now I know this isn’t Powerlifting, but it makes sense to follow their criteria for events that draw direct comparisons to theirs.
In Weightlifting, there are the judges who make decisions at the time of the lift, but also a panel of judges that can review decisions and overturn them if needs be, effectively taking the rep off the athlete.
Many people will argue that we shouldn’t take reps off athletes after the fact, but if they are found to be contentious and on review, haven’t met the criteria, then every rep that isn’t up to standards should be discredited.
On a single lift event, the athlete could argue that they would have reattempted the rep in the time allotted were they not given it, but frankly, if it’s bad enough that it’s immediately obvious the rep is no good, they’re not likely to be successful at the 2nd or even 3rd time of trying.
Perhaps it’s time we stopped allowing as many attempts as you want in the time, and follow Powerlifting and Weightlifting in only allowing one attempt in the time given.
Fairness.
At WSM this year, in the shield carry, the athlete with the biggest distance was deducted 20m for missing the turning point by not much more than a footstep. This deduction was, to many people disproportionate to the infraction and ultimately not only cost the athlete the event win, but dropped him significantly lower in the points than a more proportionate deduction, of say, 2 metres would have.
In the max dumbbell, reps were being given to an athlete who failed to finish reps to the criteria listed above, where everyone else was text book.
Athletes who were failing to stand up the heaviest of weights were eliminated, yet this athlete was allowed to continue, despite seemingly getting worse as the dumbbells got heavier. He ended up with the event win that really, if the rules were applied to the letter, as they were to everyone else, would have seen him eliminated in earlier rounds.
People will say that taking away reps that were given in the moment isn’t fair, that it knocks athletes down too many places. But the whole point of having rules is that they are are applied evenly. And what is absolutely not fair is letting reps stand that should be disqualified. Other lifters results are severely affected when athletes get point advantages from reps they didn’t fully complete.
Here’s the thing, in a rep event with a 60 seconds time limit, you have the chance to repeat reps that aren’t given, but on a shield carry, you don’t get the chance to fix the mistake of turning too soon.
So if it’s fair to take a disproportionate amount of distance off a competitor for missing a turn by the smallest margin, then it’s absolutely right that reps should be deducted on review, even if they’re given a down signal from the ref.
One last thing I would like to see is athletes having the ability to challenge decisions, like a Tennis player can challenge the Umpire if they feel a call is wrong.
The caveat I would put in place is that any athlete that submits a challenge loses 1 point if the original decision is upheld, but if the decision is overturned, all reps that are challenged will be discredited, or at the least, a point is deducted from the athlete being challenged.
Improving standards through unified rules, qualified referees and better levels of communication between referees and athletes during competitions only benefits the sport and gives it more legitimacy. If everyone is held to the same standard at all times, the only talking points we’ll see from fans is how good the competition was, how well their favourite athlete did and how much they enjoyed it.
As it stands, I can’t see the necessary changes being made, we would need all of the big promoters to come together and agree to work to the same rules, then promoter at every level below that would need to agree too. And you’ve got a better chance of knitting fog than that happening anytime soon.