RE: Question: Within rules to grab back vertical part of mawashi?

[Juhani Sirkiä <jsirkia@utu.fi>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nashinokawa [mailto:nashinokawa@parbrook.free-online.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 1:20 AM
> To: sumo mailing list; jsirkia@utu.fi
> Subject: Re: Question: Within rules to grab back vertical part of
> mawashi?
>
> If my memory serves me right it is allowed for professional rikishi.

Aha, OK.

> I cannot believe that the gyoji could order a rikishi to change a
> grip as to
> do so would involve the stopping of the bout.  If the bout is stopped the
> rikishi should not move, unless permitted/requested to do so and are put
> back in the same position as before the stoppage if movement is
> required (or
> normal as in the mizu-iri (or water break)).

Yes, kumite as I believe it's called. Abe-san :-)?

> Stopping a bout and allowing a partial change in grip position would
> unfairly advantage or disadvantage one of the rikishi artificially.

Then again we could argue that this disadvantage is due to rikishi's
inability to get a legal grip on his opponent's mawashi (if we are to
continue using the example of the aforementioned Dejima - Akinoshima bout).

> Only if the rematch is also deadlocked is a
> draw possible. (Apart from an injury preventing a rematch when
> the shimpanin
> declare that the original bout was too close to call).

This is the itami-wake situation?

> The most well
> known is that haraite (slapping your opponent about on the face) is not
> permitted in amateur competition.

I seem to recall that at least on the highest levels of amateur sumo this
rule exists only in name. While it's officially recognized, a harite using
senshu (the most correct term for an amateur, I guess) is practically never
punished from using harite.

> However I am sure that these rules will be bent soon with retiring rikishi
> "purchasing" a stock on the tacit understanding that it is sold to the
> rikishi who really controls it on his own retirement.....

Finally something I can really comment safely due to my professional
background :-D. I believe the right legal English term is simulated (or
sham) contract which is more is less universally rejected. I don't know a
thing about Japanese judicial system but I'd be surprised to learn that this
kind of arrangement would be accepted if the real meaning of the legal act
is proved beyond reasonable doubt (yes, I know the last one sounds more like
criminal law terminology but I don't know better).

I wonder what could happen if the first rikishi in a situation you describe
refuses to turn the kabu over to the next one if the purchaser-to-be has
nothing to offer for proof for existence of this kind of agreement except
his word against word of the other rikishi? (I know what happens (judicially
speaking) and leave this as an exercise for reader... :->)

Jussi aka Kitaseiya

-------------
Juhani Sirkiä, jsirkia@utu.fi
http://users.utu.fi/jsirkia/ozumo/
Ozumo, Sport of Gods