uke getting hurt

Mary Eastland wrote: I question this. The instuctor could have let him up and used another uke to illustrate his or her point. People shouldn't be injured because of their ignorance. What do you think? Mary

I expect to be injured because of my ignorance. That's the way of the world, why should it be different on the mat? If a person is not ready to be injured they shouldn't be on the mat.

If he doesn't believe what he's told why should he believe what happens when the instructor swaps him for a more co-operative uke? It's already established that he doesn't listen to the instructor and that clearly he believes the instructor is lying to him about the possibility of injury, swaping him for another uke isn't going to change that.

That being the case injury is the only path to learning in this situation and if he isn't willing to accept responsibility for his own injury despite being warned then he should be asked to correct his attitude or leave the dojo.

Budo is about learning to accept reality, not finding ways of avoiding reality.

Mary-

I appreciate the comments. I don't know if I would go as far as to imply that my [non-infected] students "... continue to go through life, and blood-drawing aikido practice, in a state of dangerous ignorance." That seems pretty judgmental at least. If you wish to critique my directions please direct you comments towards me. My students are some of the best and well-educated people I know, many who possess some level of medical training. They understand the reasons under which I ask them to train and why I ask them to do so.

My conservative stance is because I do not believe it to be fair to direct the majority to assume the individuals with whom they are training are infectious or pose a risk to their safety. I believe students put their trust in me that I will minimize the risk of injury to them when they train. Because I have that trust we can safely train very hard.

I apologize for the thread drift. My original point was to state that we are responsible for the risks we bring into the dojo. We are also responsible for any... corrective measures than are required to maintain a safe training environment. I did not intend to start a PC debate over a specific risk. I believe the HIV debate has several threads elsewhere that are probably better for those who wish to continue that debate.

Ron Ragusa wrote: Hi Raul, Yes, the teacher was explicit in his instruction. However, if it was me and my uke wouldn't stay down, for whatever reason, I'd have let him up and chosen another uke who better understood the point I was trying to make. Speculating on the incident Keith referred to in his post, I'd say that there was a clash of egos involved and that the instructor let his get the better of him. A learning experience for both parties. I hope they both learned something from it. Best, Ron

The clash was between the students ego and reality and reality won. Sure he could have been swapped for another uke but that only teaches him that the teacher is lying. The technique is clearly ineffective, that's why the teacher has called for a more co-operative uke. An act of kindness has denied the student the injury he needed to grow.

Sorry my edit time ran out attending to children.

The last thing I wanted to address was Mary's comments about the assumed risk of training. I think it is fair to state that as students of a martial art we assume a risk in our training. We should be vigilant and aware of those risks and take action to minimize them. This action is both against physical injury and medical risk.

Jon Reading wrote: I appreciate the comments. I don't know if I would go as far as to imply that my [non-infected] students "... continue to go through life, and blood-drawing aikido practice, in a state of dangerous ignorance." That seems pretty judgmental at least.

That wasn't exactly what I said. I stated that this practice enables people to remain ignorant. Obviously this would not include people who already know better by virtue of knowledge gained outside your dojo. I feel that a policy of "no people with (fill in the blank)", stated as such, has some dangerous holes in it, partly because most people are not aware of their own status (there are a lot of blood-borne diseases out there, and most people never get tested for any of them), and partly because it doesn't really address the facts of how blood-borne pathogens are transmitted (the risks of HIV transmission are very different from the risks of hep B transmission, for example).

Trying to bring this back to the subject of the thread, consider the example of a student whose physical condition means that aikido training is a serious strain (for example, a non-infectious medical condition). This goes beyond ukemi and into the rigors of the training itself. What is the instructor's responsibility to curtail this student's activities (or is there one)?

Just my $.02 (pre-tax), but I think both parties share the responsibility here. The uke erred because he did not follow instructions, but the instructor could have chosen to release the lock yet again and avoid injuring his student. It's never OK to injure, possibly seriously, just to prove a point. Get another uke. The same message would be sent, without the drama. There's a big difference between a little pain and risk of lasting injury. Bad moves all around...

Mary Eastland wrote: I question this. The instuctor could have let him up and used another uke to illustrate his or her point. People shouldn't be injured because of their ignorance. What do you think? Mary

I don't know. There doesn't seem to be enough information.

Again, as I said before, this thread was started by taking a short comment out of context of another thread. The instructor did *NOT* injure the student. The instructor allowed the student to come up into a sankyo and feel that he was locked up and that it was painful. It was not more than what you'd find in any relatively high level practice. He was NOT injured.

Okay, I officially give up. Sheesh.

Jon Reading wrote: Mary- I appreciate the comments. I don't know if I would go as far as to imply that my [non-infected] students "... continue to go through life, and blood-drawing aikido practice, in a state of dangerous ignorance." That seems pretty judgmental at least. If you wish to critique my directions please direct you comments towards me. My students are some of the best and well-educated people I know, many who possess some level of medical training. They understand the reasons under which I ask them to train and why I ask them to do so. My conservative stance is because I do not believe it to be fair to direct the majority to assume the individuals with whom they are training are infectious or pose a risk to their safety. I believe students put their trust in me that I will minimize the risk of injury to them when they train. Because I have that trust we can safely train very hard. I apologize for the thread drift. My original point was to state that we are responsible for the risks we bring into the dojo. We are also responsible for any... corrective measures than are required to maintain a safe training environment. I did not intend to start a PC debate over a specific risk. I believe the HIV debate has several threads elsewhere that are probably better for those who wish to continue that debate.

I like your approach, Jon.
A few weeks ago, someone was bleeding from their hand, while training; I knew nothing of his life, or any diseases he might have, so seeing his blood all over the gis of people was quite un-nerving, and I was glad not to train with him.

It's an atmosphere I didn't like to be in, and I don't think I could focus on training if I knew my partner had a communicable disease; I think safety-first is the best approach, and I commend your looking after your students.

Hello,

here in Belgium we have to undergo a medical test once a year, if not we aren't allowed to do aikido. So IF I had HIV, Hepatitis or a dangerous heart condition, whatever, it would be the doctor's decision to allow me to do aikido, not the dojo cho's responsibility. But I don't have the least idea which are the criteria of exclusion....

In our dojo it happens from time to time that someone gets wounded, but I never saw anyone shrinking back from training with that person thinking he would be infected. I'd think the risk is minimal - there should be two open wounds coming into contact, not some drops of blood dripping from a lip you've bitten during awkward ukemi....

As to the sankyu...I'd think he got what he asked for.

Best regards,

Eva

I think some are reading into Keith's story what they want to see. To my mind: Keith was there, he knows the shihan and the sankyu, I'm willing to take his word for what happened.

Keith Larman wrote: Again, as I said before, this thread was started by taking a short comment out of context of another thread. The instructor did *NOT* injure the student. The instructor allowed the student to come up into a sankyo and feel that he was locked up and that it was painful. It was not more than what you'd find in any relatively high level practice. He was NOT injured.

Hi Keith:
I am not commenting on what happened in that specific incident...I used it as a jumping off point for discussion. I don't understand why you are getting so upset. Mary

Mary Eastland wrote: Hi Keith: I am not commenting on what happened in that specific incident...I used it as a jumping off point for discussion. I don't understand why you are getting so upset. Mary

That's not how it seemed to me when I read the post that began this thread. You quoted an account of specific incident and then said:

"I question this. The instuctor could have let him up and used another uke to illustrate his or her point. People shouldn't be injured because of their ignorance."

That sure sounds to me like you were finding fault with the conduct of that instructor in that particular instance (and blaming him for something that did not happen -- injury), and not using the incident as some sort of abstract "jumping off point". It seems fairly obvious to me why Keith would be exasperated, if indeed he is (I know that I would be).

And then there were speculations that "there was a clash of egos involved and that the instructor let his get the better of him." That's a judgment made on the skills and ethics of the teacher. By people who weren't there.

I haven't seen a post from anyone who felt responsibility (some, most, all) lay with the "instructor" that has taken into account the additional facts Keith offered to clarify what occurred.

We really have two scenarios here:

Instructor calls up uke to demonstrate technique. Uke doesn' follow instructions. Instructor, frustrated, injures uke to make a point.

This one did not happen. Whatever one might say about it, this simply didn't occur here.

Teaching Shihan comes over to address an issue he sees in experienced Sankyu's ukemi for sankyo. He even takes ukemi himself to show Sankyu how to avoid the problem. Sankyu continues to take ukemi incorrectly, and ignores further instructions when he is again taking ukemi. Shihan finally allows Sankyu to puts the sankyo lock on himself through improper ukemi. Sankyu complains that, when applied, Shihan's sankyo hurt. Sankyu was not, however, injured.

This one did happen.

So, what to people think about what actually occurred?

Are any of the differences between what you originally thought happened and what actually happened important to your opinion about what actually happened?

:Why?

:Why not?

Regards,

The fact is that no matter how benign the actual outcome of the incident both instructor and student had the opportunity to make choices along the way. Both chose to behave in the manner that they did. To insist that the student was totally at fault and imply that the instructor was somehow just an innocent bystander who did nothing to contribute to the situation or had no choice to behave otherwise is just plain wrong.

Ron

How did the instructor "contribute to the situation"? What choices did the instructor make that you consider at fault?

Since none of the people in this incident are mentioned by name and few of us even have any idea who they are I don't think many people reading really care all that much what happened in that specific incident in that specific dojo.... I don't personally.... It's natural and I think almost inevitable that everyone will use it as a hypothetical situation to discuss a general issue.

Maybe better though if we all make it more clear and explicit that it's the hypothetical situation we're interested in, not the actual situation.

Mary Malmros wrote: How did the instructor "contribute to the situation"? What choices did the instructor make that you consider at fault?

Oh please Mary, the instructor was part of a two person interaction. If you want to believe that the instructor just stood by with a blank mind and let the situation unfold without making any decisions regarding how he was going to respond, well, that's your prerogative. Regarding your second question, as I stated before, the instructor could have called for another uke instead of trying to force a solution with the original uke.

Best,

Ron

In the scenario where the student just felt some pain but was not injured, and he was advanced enough to have felt such pain many times before presumably, and he basically knew it was coming.... it doesn't sound like anything bad even really happened, so no need to worry about who was 'at fault'. No one. Nothing bad happened.

If we assume a similar scenario though where uke did get injured? Then I would say probably both... How much depends on whether the teacher would have had reason to believe uke was both experienced and mature enough to move away once he did start to feel the lock coming on. If it was reasonable to assume uke would not end up getting injured, than I wouldn't blame the teacher that much. But if the teacher knew there was a good chance this uke would resist badly enough to get himself injured (even if it was because he was pig-headed), than IMO he should have stopped....

And on the other hand I would say the uke was also at fault if he knew enough to stay down but chose not to or thought he could call the teacher's bluff... but OTOH less at fault if he was testing the pin out of genuine confusion or honestly trying to understand what would happen.

So actually even in the injury scenario personally I think it could range all the way from both being very much at fault, to one or the other being mostly at fault, even to neither being much at fault. All other things being equal I would tend to give the senior more responsibility though because they have far more experience, knowledge, power, etc...

Ron Ragusa wrote: Regarding your second question, as I stated before, the instructor could have called for another uke instead of trying to force a solution with the original uke.

My reading of the scenario is not that the instructor was looking for a demo uke; rather that the instructor was doing small group teaching specific to THAT student's ukewaza. As I'm sure we have all felt many times, an uke coming up into a correctly held, extended but not clamped down, lock will indeed feel the non-injuring flash of pain that happens with nikkyo or sankyo.
I have been in some situations where the instructor explicitly does a very slight release of a lock because he WANTS uke to come up - this demonstrates to the instructor that the uke is doing "continuous attacking".
But in this situation as it has been very clearly written: the point the instructor was trying to get across to this specific student was to please relax and accept the pin. This was not the instructor getting angry, this was the instructor instructing and noone was harmed. This to me falls well within the realm of normal teaching of a body art.

Ron Ragusa wrote: Oh please Mary, the instructor was part of a two person interaction. If you want to believe that the instructor just stood by with a blank mind and let the situation unfold without making any decisions regarding how he was going to respond, well, that's your prerogative. Regarding your second question, as I stated before, the instructor could have called for another uke instead of trying to force a solution with the original uke. Best, Ron

If you're going to start your response with "Oh please Mary", as if I were some kind of idiot child, you can at least refrain from concluding it with an insincere "Best".

And you still haven't answered my first question. All you've done is say, in effect, "Did so!" I asked you how he "contribut[ed] to the situation". If you don't want to answer it, then don't. Silence is always an option, and may be the best one in a thread where the second-guessing of motives seems to be the main course.

Wow.... this thread is getting interesting. Sounds to me like the third kyu was kind of being an (_!_) about the situation. It happens. I doubt he could get to that point in training (3rd kyu) and not have experienced any pain or to know better. If he is pulling this with the sensei, more then likely, he is doing it to others and he could be severely hurt working with the wrong person.

If the person were new, things would be different. Sounds like the sensei did his best to educate his student first and it sounds like he gave him a bit of pain, but nothing to cry about. My guess is the guy got pissed because he got hurt doing something he shouldn't have. Maybe he gets away with this behavior with other people, but he didn't get away with it this time. People can get upset if their point has been proven wrong. I guess I should say, I am not neccessarily saying this happened in THIS situation, but it does happen.

If you want to start a jumping off point, maybe it needs to be made more clear. State the quote and then say, this got me thinking.... if this were to happen with a beginner (or throw in whatever other variables you want), how would you feel about the situation? OR, leave a quote from someone out all together and create your own story or situation.

Poor Keith, he is going to stop talking all together if people keep taking things out of context. I know I would.

Ron Ragusa wrote: The fact is that no matter how benign the actual outcome of the incident both instructor and student had the opportunity to make choices along the way. Both chose to behave in the manner that they did. To insist that the student was totally at fault and imply that the instructor was somehow just an innocent bystander who did nothing to contribute to the situation or had no choice to behave otherwise is just plain wrong. Ron

Hi Ron,

To me, this conflates causation and moral responsibility. Yes, both contributed to the outcome.

If the actual outcome was, however, "benign," then the idea of attributing fault seems out of place.

In fact, if the outcome was benign, despite Sankyu's conduct, I'd be inclined to give the instructor credit, not blame.

Sincerely,