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

["Nashinokawa" <nashinokawa@parbrook.free-online.co.uk>]

> > > > 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).

the point I was trying to make that the dynamics are changed -- as you point
out either rikishi could get the benefit depending on the outcome.

> > 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?

If they end up deadlocked in the middle of the ring for such a long time (on
both the first occasision and the restart) then there is no effective option
but to declare the match a draw.

Itami-wake occurs when the shimpanin order a rematch as the two rikishi fell
together first time round.  If one rikishi was injured first time round to
the point he can no longer continue then itami-wake is the result.

On the issue raised elsewhere of what happens if itami-wake is the result of
a yusho decider, I too would like to know.  I asked this question to the
list (and also tried the sumo kyokai email) at the time of Waka's
semi-injured fall in his decider but have had no response on what the result
would be...

I doubt a tied yusho would be declared.

That leaves a default win for the fit rikishi
or
A yusho to the higher ranked rikishi
(In the days before deciders were permitted, the yusho was won by default by
the higher ranked rikishi if they shared the same score.)

.............................................


> > 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... :->)
>

One must remember that in Japan in general obligation and gentlemans
agreements have sufficient moral weight to ensure that the quasi contract
would look okay and be accepted. The consequences of going back would be to
be outcast by the society you were endeavouring to stay in IMHO.