PDA

View Full Version : refereeing for fencers



ihunter
-19th November 2003, 18:42
Having discussed the ever present problems of regfereeing at competitions the ref's committee would like to run a few 'refereeing for fencers' courses. These would be aimed at fencers who just want to referee better, not take exams as such.
It would include an attempt to disseminate the latest thinking by the FIE on topics that cause confusion and mis-understanding in the 'conventional' weapons, PIL, ROW and application of rules etc.
We would attempt to get the people there who are currently actively refereeing in World cup and other high level events, such as Keith, Mark, Mike et al.
Would anyone be interested?

Jambo
-19th November 2003, 18:57
Yes. The only problem is coordinating it not to get in the way of fencing. Are you thinking something attached to an open or separate? Cost?

Rdb811
-19th November 2003, 21:36
Originally posted by ihunter

Would anyone be interested?

Certainly both the clubs I fence at.

PM1
-19th November 2003, 21:42
I think a LOT of people would be interested, from the look of what I've been reading recently........:)

Jambo
-19th November 2003, 21:47
This might be a lot of effort/expensive and not really doable but... have you thought about doing regional sessions? For example tell all the clubs in the North East and run a session somewhere one evening that is reasonably central that everyone could come to. Could be quite a good social too. :)

Boo Boo
-19th November 2003, 22:22
I would be interested too, but - like others. It sounds like an excellent idea :)

Have often seen/heard of referee's seminars held at opens (like Leicester/Bristol) whilst I am fencing - that never works for me :( (since my mind tends to be, hopefully, with the fencing ;) ).

Scheduling would be a challenge...

Boo

Rdb811
-19th November 2003, 22:50
Shouldn't be that expensive as the venue doesn't have to be that big or good.

Keith came down one year to do a seminar at Kingston for Kingston and Streatham which went off very well, just for sabre.

Mantis
-20th November 2003, 08:46
I too would be interested.

ceprab
-20th November 2003, 09:37
Interested.

Equally interested in BFA/ref's committee/whoever doing really useful long term things like putting a full up to date english version of the rules on line, along with commentary/guidance for refereeing as

1) Many people can get at this
2) It would be accessible at any time
3) You could get at it anywhere (almost)

So I could learn the rules, and the guidance, at my convenience if I can't make it to the course and I could revise it whenever convenient.

The major obstacle I have seen to halfway decent refereeing is that no-one I know has a copy of the actual rules. As an analogy try watching a rugby or American football match and trying to work out the rules by observation. Reckon you could fairly referee even after seeing a lot of matches?

srb
-20th November 2003, 09:54
I would be interested.

In fact I might even be interested in taking some exams!

srb

pinkelephant
-20th November 2003, 10:18
Originally posted by ceprab
Interested.

Equally interested in BFA/ref's committee/whoever doing really useful long term things like putting a full up to date english version of the rules on line, along with commentary/guidance for refereeing as

1) Many people can get at this
2) It would be accessible at any time
3) You could get at it anywhere (almost)

So I could learn the rules, and the guidance, at my convenience if I can't make it to the course and I could revise it whenever convenient.

The major obstacle I have seen to halfway decent refereeing is that no-one I know has a copy of the actual rules. As an analogy try watching a rugby or American football match and trying to work out the rules by observation. Reckon you could fairly referee even after seeing a lot of matches?

Click on FIE rules at the top of this page!!!

crt
-20th November 2003, 12:06
I would be very interested in this. I have just come back in to fencing after 8 years and my refereeing skills are rustier than my fencing skills.

Perhaps the session could be videoed for those who were unable to attend? Are there any budding camera men/women out there who would be willing to have ago at this?

A booklet on how to interpret and apply the rules in a simple and easy to understand format with plenty of examples or scenarios would also be very useful. It is good to have things on paper, but it would be even better to see rules applied in competitive fights, hence the video of a refereeing training session.

A thought - those fencers who are black carded for bad behaviour should learn how to referee properly themselves before they are allowed back to competitions. Then they may realise how difficult it can be to referee to a high standard.

Tarmac
-20th November 2003, 12:58
definately interested... depending on cost and location naturally..
but would we be under the expert eye of JohnL? otherwise things might not be done properly..:tongue:

Exgeordielass
-20th November 2003, 13:00
Originally posted by ihunter
Having discussed the ever present problems of regfereeing at competitions the ref's committee would like to run a few 'refereeing for fencers' courses. These would be aimed at fencers who just want to referee better, not take exams as such.
It would include an attempt to disseminate the latest thinking by the FIE on topics that cause confusion and mis-understanding in the 'conventional' weapons, PIL, ROW and application of rules etc.
We would attempt to get the people there who are currently actively refereeing in World cup and other high level events, such as Keith, Mark, Mike et al.
Would anyone be interested?

What a good idea, I've mailed our members, to see how much interest there would be. I agree with another post that regional courses would be ideal.

ceprab
-20th November 2003, 14:30
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Click on FIE rules at the top of this page!!!

I spent most of yesterday reading them, but they aren't an official translation, don't include the most recent updates, and don't include commentary on how the rules should be applied in situations. eg the whole flicking thing - what constitutes threatening the target, is it prep. if the arm comes back before casting the flick. More rules aren't needed to cover this (and I am confident in how I interpret them - not necessarily right, but confident) but some clarification could go a long way to ensuring consistency.

whizzkid1982
-20th November 2003, 14:50
would be very interested. would also like to take exams but have no idea how to go about getting one organised? who do i talk to and when can it be done?

3 Card Trick
-20th November 2003, 17:26
http://www.murorum.demon.co.uk/fencing/north-west/training/refereeTraining.html

This link takes you to the Keith Smith / Mike Thornton Guidance for Referees booklet, which deals with "interpretation" of the Rules.

As to the Unofficial FIE Rules the amendments published on the BFA website in May 2002(the last amendments) are included in "blue".

Happy reading

Dave Hillier
-20th November 2003, 17:42
What a good idea I would be interested very. I am embarassed by how bad my presiding is.

Robert
-20th November 2003, 21:27
Originally posted by ihunter
Would anyone be interested?

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing that is needed. If it is organised anywhere I could get to I would go. Perhaps it should be on after the first two DEs of an open (say about 2pm). Most of us (3/4) are no longer fencing by then, we have a whole bunch of ideas floating around in our heads (I CANNOT believe he gave that hit!) and we are all concentrated in one place.

I would also try and drum up people from my local clubs.

Robert

Robert
-20th November 2003, 21:30
Originally posted by ihunter
Having discussed the ever present problems of regfereeing at competitions the ref's committee would like to run a few 'refereeing for fencers' courses.

Just popped into your heads did it? It would be nice to believe that our governing bodies are responsive to what we want, so go on, how much did the pressure on these boards contribute to the decision?

Robert

Jambo
-21st November 2003, 08:54
Originally posted by Robert
Perhaps it should be on after the first two DEs of an open (say about 2pm). Most of us (3/4) are no longer fencing by then,

But a significant number of good fencers (many of whom have the potential to be better ref's) are, and many others will be getting changed/eating/supporting. Better to be separate from an open IMO.

pinkelephant
-21st November 2003, 09:49
Originally posted by Robert
Just popped into your heads did it? It would be nice to believe that our governing bodies are responsive to what we want, so go on, how much did the pressure on these boards contribute to the decision?

Robert

I'm not sure I like the sarcasm here. Are you suggesting that the ref's committee is NOT normally responsive to people's suggestions? It strikes me that your attitude is that they're hung if they do respond to comments on the board, and hung if they don't. Some comments on the board are asking for information which is actually obtainable from a clear link at the top of the front page.

Boo Boo
-21st November 2003, 09:59
I think it is great that representatives of the ref's committee post on this board - it really helps to "open things up" and make things more accessable.

Something which, in general, this forum does pretty well for British Fencing.

There will always be people asking obvious questions that could be answered by the very convenient link at the top of the page (it is definitely a case of "RTFM" sometimes...).

Boo

Barry Paul
-21st November 2003, 16:26
In order to practice refereeing to get better you need to practice at some time with the top U.K. world Fencers.

They are the ones who complain about the ref, whats the chance of getting them along?????? Zero. You can hardly get them along to squad training.

So we need a stick. No more grants unless you come to a training and refereeing Day or Weekend. They could be paid? How much?They must fence seriously. Say a match winning teams wins £20 each member. Disputed hits should after the hit is given be allowed to be discussed by every one. Why did Kruse think his hit was valid? Do all the onlooking referees/fencers agree. Even better video and discuss after.

Barry Paul Leon Paul

MatFink
-21st November 2003, 17:03
:transport

Kidnapped by Aliens?

One of the biggest issues we face is that the very top fencers would rather focus on fencing (which is perfectly reasonable) and refereeing this group has become such a thankless task in the modern climate that it is difficult to persuade the next level down (ideal candidates for refereeing) that it is worth doing.

The abuse referees take even when they get it write is appauling. I recall at least one recent bout when the referee recieved constant critiscism from a coach only to be told by the same coach afterwards that there was only one hit they didn't like but 'you know how it is!!'

No wonder its hard to persuade people who are already iritated about being knock out to referee the whinging matches between coaches in the later rounds.

If your not convince that about the number of previously well noted referees who now refuse to get involved. Try a little harder you might amaze yourself

Jambo
-21st November 2003, 17:10
Refs should be capable of standing up for themselves. When you are presiding a bout you are in charge. Anyone who is disrupting the bout or being offensive can be dealt with very quickly. Under these circumstances it is not hard to be assertive.

MatFink
-21st November 2003, 17:17
During the bout the referee can exercise control, but if we look at history this more often than not leads to public criticism of them as people and as referees. If you play it safe and don't referee anything of importance then I am sure you can achieve the 'control' you aspire to but try refereeing a last 8 foil match and not being the subject of months of whinging from the club that comes out second best.

The same fencer was publicly telling everyone how great a certain referee was at the Slough Open a few years ago. They lost a fight being refereed by said referee and by Birmingham I had on good authority that this person was the worst referee on the circuit.

Until the fencers and coaches respect the role the referee plays we will always find it hard to attract and develop good referees

Jambo
-21st November 2003, 17:22
Thats certainly true. The number of people who lose a fight "because of the ref" is astonishing. As and when I believe my refing is good enough to ref a L8 or higher then I will gladly do it (I have refed a final as it happens....but at the York open between two people I know so it hardly counts).

Do I think I'm tough enough? Without a shadow of a doubt ;)

MatFink
-21st November 2003, 17:34
Thats great!!

If more fencers took the same approach as yourself, and with it developed an appreciation for what the man in the middle is charged with. Perhaps we would all be happier (and better refereed)

Here's a thought

Two of the top fencing nations in the world have referee led systems with there federations. Here's a clue the team manager/head coach of this couintries junior foil team was previously a referee who refereed 7 world finals.

This nation has more A grade sabre referees than any other.
(also worth noting the fencers from this team treat their referees with awesome respect that our fencers only reserve for, wait no they don't show anyone that level of respect)

But that could be another discussion all together, because we are clearly not referee led in our approach to training and competing, and we can't be coaching led until we actually decide on what coaching scheme we wish to be led by. Is it any wonder that our top competitors either trained abroad or our coached by people who learnt their skills outside the UK. (There are a few notable exceptions, but as a Sabruer I'm sure you will appreciate my point)

Robert
-21st November 2003, 17:55
Originally posted by pinkelephant
I'm not sure I like the sarcasm here. Are you suggesting that the ref's committee is NOT normally responsive to people's suggestions? It strikes me that your attitude is that they're hung if they do respond to comments on the board, and hung if they don't. Some comments on the board are asking for information which is actually obtainable from a clear link at the top of the front page.

I wasn't entirely serious. What is being proposed here is exactly what myself and others have been asking for, so I am very happy.

Robert

Robert
-21st November 2003, 18:00
Originally posted by Jambo
But a significant number of good fencers (many of whom have the potential to be better ref's) are, and many others will be getting changed/eating/supporting. Better to be separate from an open IMO.

I disagree, but I see this exercise as having a different goal to the one you see. In my opinion the problem with refing is the chinese whispers effect of things being taught in a chain from top to bottom. I have moaned about this at length elsewhere, and now the refs committee seems to be taking serious steps to halt the problem by taking training directly to the bottom of the pile.

To be honest this can be made to work seperate from or together with an open.

Robert

Barry Paul
-22nd November 2003, 19:28
as far as I understand sabreurs agree and understand what the refees are doing (although nobody else does), Epee is Ok till something goes wrong. Foiliest nobody agrees. Parry by dispalcement of target backwards. give me a break. Or is it brake or breack. who cares ! looks like the refereeing seminar should be on a foil training day. Barry Paul

stevejackson
-22nd November 2003, 20:18
Originally posted by Barry Paul
Foiliest nobody agrees. Parry by dispalcement of target backwards. give me a break.

Barry this is another idea that the foilists have imported from sabre. I didn't believe it when a sabre referee called a blatently short attack parried, but they repeated the process several times. I questioned this on this forum, apparently sabreurs will accept parried as a reason for their attack not arriving but will argue if you say short. Foil appears to be importing the sabre ideas, that the attack looses priority at the end of the lunge or when the back foot lands in a fleche. This seems another unwritten rule.

Australian
-23rd November 2003, 00:55
Originally posted by stevejackson
or when the back foot lands in a fleche. This seems another unwritten rule.

multiple crossing of the feet is a preparation, thus after the back foot lands, the feet are just about to cross for the 2nd time, turning it into a preparation

Barry Paul
-23rd November 2003, 10:15
Ian and Co our fencers ned help and guidance!!!!!!!! BarrY Paul

Exgeordielass
-23rd November 2003, 10:15
Would anyone be interested?

We've a fair number of novices at our Club (Guildford) who were all very keen to take part in such a Course, especially if one was done in the South-East. Any chance?

doobarz
-23rd November 2003, 10:34
Originally posted by stevejackson
I didn't believe it when a sabre referee called a blatently short attack parried, but they repeated the process several times.

Yep, we like to keep sabre special. The correct phrasing would be 'attack no, attack, counter attack (if there is a remise) but we just say attack no, reposte touche, I guess indicating the change in priority? Also, when I was taught this footwork of making someoned fall short, it was called 'the ninth parry/ parry with distance'. Perhaps lost in the translation from the Hungarian, as it was a Hungarian who taught me?

Robert
-23rd November 2003, 19:29
Originally posted by Australian
multiple crossing of the feet is a preparation, thus after the back foot lands, the feet are just about to cross for the 2nd time, turning it into a preparation

IMO, total rubbish. As long as the point is kept extended and not parried it is the attack all the way, preparation is a matter of blade-work. Sabre is completely different because the rules specifically state that the blow must land before the front foot does.

This is why we need the courses being suggested here.

Robert

Australian
-23rd November 2003, 21:10
Originally posted by Robert
IMO, total rubbish. As long as the point is kept extended and not parried it is the attack all the way, preparation is a matter of blade-work. Sabre is completely different because the rules specifically state that the blow must land before the front foot does.

This is why we need the courses being suggested here.

Robert

*sigh*

i was hoping i didn't need to quote the rules... But you're right, you do need a referees course


t.56
8.Continuous steps forward, with the legs crossing one another, constitute a preparation and on this preparation any simple attack has priority.

Robert
-23rd November 2003, 22:16
Originally posted by Australian
*sigh*

i was hoping i didn't need to quote the rules... But you're right, you do need a referees course

Para. 6 'If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line', the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade.

These appear to supersede para.8. If I attack with a straight arm you have to clear the blade (i.e parry/beat/pris de fer) or I have priority.

Fencer A fleches from a distance, fencer B counter attacks, fencer B's hit anyone?

I will concede to you that para.8 is a rather unpleasant anomoly, whose meaning is not entirely clear, but it has that in common with a lot of the rulebook. And this is exactly the reason that we need a courses for fencers to resolve the questions that you see on this forum:

Does para.7 (t.56) refer only to PIL?
Does para.5 or para.8 take priority in a fleche?
If an attack/fleche 'ends' why doesn't t.56 para.1 say that (as the Sabre rules do)?
Does an arm need to be extended or extending prior to a lunge?
Does a retreat count make an oponents attack a remise?

As Barry points out no-one seems to agree, and this seems to run from top to bottom in foil. That is why we need referee courses.

Robert

P.S Your reading of para.8 implies that a correctly executed cross-over lunge loses priority to a counter attack.

Australian
-23rd November 2003, 22:58
Originally posted by Robert
Para. 6 'If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line', the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade.

These appear to supersede para.8. If I attack with a straight arm you have to clear the blade (i.e parry/beat/pris de fer) or I have priority.

Point in line is different from a simple attack.

The rules are clear, if you ATTACK with MULTIPLE crossings of your feet then it is a PREPARATION.

If someone fleched at me from well outside distance and i performed a simple attack into it, i would appeal to the referee that it was my hit, and the way the rules dictate it, the referee would have no choice but to award me the hit.



Does para.5 or para.8 take priority in a fleche?

Both. para 5 has the general say, but if the situation for 8 is fulfilled then it becomes relevant. Whats saying that these two separate paragraphs cannot be applied to the same situation?


If an attack/fleche 'ends' why doesn't t.56 para.1 say that

It is up to the director to determine when the attack ends.

Personally, i think that an attack ends when it is parried or misses the opponent (or becomes a preparation with a fleche), and then the opponent has right to an immediate riposte or counter-attack. If there is no immediate movement from the opponent, the attacker can remise, or establish point in line.


Does an arm need to be extended or extending prior to a lunge?

Rules say extending :)

t.56 1. The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.




Does a retreat count make an oponents attack a remise?


:dizzy:

Robert
-24th November 2003, 10:35
Originally posted by Australian
Point in line is different from a simple attack.

The rules are clear, if you ATTACK with MULTIPLE crossings of your feet then it is a PREPARATION.


The rules aren't clear, because they don't say that. The only section I can find is para.8 which just isn't very clear. And PIL isn't really different from a simple attack as direct attacks must establish PIL.



If someone fleched at me from well outside distance and i performed a simple attack into it, i would appeal to the referee that it was my hit, and the way the rules dictate it, the referee would have no choice but to award me the hit.

I have never seen this awarded. Fencer A fleches from the en-garde line, fencer B counters. Fencer A's foot has to hit the ground before he reaches the target but noone ever gives the hit to B. Now it is very possible that the rule is intended to do exactly what you say, and this is why guidance needs to be provided.



Both. para 5 has the general say, but if the situation for 8 is fulfilled then it becomes relevant. Whats saying that these two separate paragraphs cannot be applied to the same situation?

You did. You say that para.8 supersedes para.5.



It is up to the director to determine when the attack ends.

Personally, i think that an attack ends when it is parried or misses the opponent (or becomes a preparation with a fleche), and then the opponent has right to an immediate riposte or counter-attack. If there is no immediate movement from the opponent, the attacker can remise, or establish point in line.


How do you establish PIL if your arm is already straight and the point is already threatening the target? What action do you take from this position to establish PIL?

The rules actually specify that any correctly executed attack must be parried or completely avoided (i.e attacks don't end they are stopped by doing one or the other).

I presume you are also with the group Barry has been moaning about who say that a step back to avoid an attack gives you priority and allows you to lunge onto the oponents extended arm?

The English used is unclear in lots of cases (rather like the last sentence of my previous posting). Take t.56 para.1 which you quoted as saying that the rules say 'extending'. I know from talking to lots of older people that many people for many years read exactly the same words and thought it meant 'extended'. The English can carry either meaning. It could mean that the straightening of the arm (ie its full extension) must precede the lunge.

Or Para.8, what extactly does continuous mean? More than one? A whole load of them? Do the steps make the whole action a preparation or just the bit after you decide it becomes continuous? (Rhetorical, your opinion is quite clear).

When I was first taught I was told a cross-over forfeited priority (the interpretation you are putting here, though interestingly no-one suggested it applied to a fleche) but I was also taught that if you lunged while your arm was bent the oponent got the point (extending or otherwise, and based on exactly the rule you quoted for the 'extending' interpretation). Another coach (rules in hand) told me that if a remise lands before a riposte (even a tenth of a second) it has priority because by definition (he thought) there must have been a pause in the parry (t.60 1(c)).

Another ambiguous rule: (t.60 2(c)) If fencer A feints, B parries, A disengages (compound attack) and then A holds his point steady intending to make a second disengage when his oponent takes a compound parry. If B instead of taking the parry lunges at A and produces a double hit, who gets the point? Does B get it because A made a momentary pause (he clearly did)? Or is the rule ignored?

I am not saying you are wrong on this. What I am saying is that what is written on the page can only get you so far. That is quite a long way as I am sure in practice we would call the vast majority of hits the same way. But on the nuances, there I think training courses are the only hope for consistent interpretation (and it is consistency rather than any particular view-point which matters).


Robert

doobarz
-24th November 2003, 10:46
Blimey. As a sabre ref, I have just read the rules for foil and I am confused. All I would add is that last weekend I got into an arguement with some Germans after I had reffed them in sabre, and my (which I believe to be correct) interpretation of the rules they thought was wrong in respect of when an attack ends. There has been much talk previously of differing interpretation between countires, I suspect Australian and Robert's discussion could be this.

As Mr Hunter says, your either on the list or your not.... so lets get taught by those who are.

Australian
-24th November 2003, 10:57
Originally posted by doobarz
There has been much talk previously of differing interpretation between countires, I suspect Australian and Robert's discussion could be this.

That could quite possibly be due, you'll get to see my refereeing when i'm in the uk from january... i'd love to be involved with any refereeing discussions British Fencing has

Boo Boo
-24th November 2003, 11:01
There shouldn't be any difference - at least not between people who fence at main stream competitions in their respective countries. Otherwise every A-grade would involve big arguments...

Boo

doobarz
-24th November 2003, 11:12
Originally posted by Boo Boo
There shouldn't be any difference

I agree. However, in my experience there is. Could be that I, and the people I was refereeing are just not top flight yet...

Saxon
-24th November 2003, 11:51
Preface this entire reply with "I may be wrong, but..." :)


Another coach (rules in hand) told me that if a remise lands before a riposte (even a tenth of a second) it has priority because by definition (he thought) there must have been a pause in the parry (t.60 1(c)).


I'd say that coach is wrong.
Remise is successful only if it hits before the riposte starts. It's up to the referee how much of a pause would break the phrasing and turn it into attack-counter. For example, in sabre it almost always seems to be that if an attack fails for whatever reason, the response is seen as a riposte, no matter how long it takes to turn up.

Another reason - every time you parry you would have to riposte with opposition to prevent a remise from hitting as soon as you take your blade away to begin the riposte.




Another ambiguous rule: (t.60 2(c)) If fencer A feints, B parries, A disengages (compound attack) and then A holds his point steady intending to make a second disengage when his oponent takes a compound parry. If B instead of taking the parry lunges at A and produces a double hit, who gets the point? Does B get it because A made a momentary pause (he clearly did)? Or is the rule ignored?
[/B]

It's not a compound attack until the actual attack (an attack preceded by one or more feints). The way you've phrased it it looks more like A's feint, instead of being the start of a compound attack, establishes a PIL. A then derobesan attempt to take the blade, and hits when B lunges.


Then again, I get shouted at so much for my refereeing, these may be a couple of reasons why...

Robert
-24th November 2003, 13:40
Saxon,

I was just throwing up examples of how the written rules 'could' be interpreted differently. Doorbaz is probably right that some of these are regional differences.



There shouldn't be any difference - at least not between people who fence at main stream competitions in their respective countries. Otherwise every A-grade would involve big arguments...


Boo,

These people aren't refing at Leicester, Bristol, Colchester or Cardiff. 90% of the fights are being presided by fencers themselves, with no specific training. And fencers then store the decisions away in their heads and use it when they preside.

And there aren't arguments very often at these events. Most fencers are like me, if the president just said that pointing your foil behind your head and flicking to my shoulder after I launch a direct attack is your hit then for the next five points it is; fencers do not appeal, even on points of rules, because it is very bad manners. (They moan about it afterwards of course, but they don't appeal the call).

Which is why the present suggestion of the ref's committee to hold a seminar directly for fencers is such a welcome one.

Robert

PS The refs committee might also consider another large group who might want to attend an event like this, parents. I spoke to several parents at a Juniors event this weekend, several were non-fencers who would like to develop a better understanding of why decisions are made the way they are.

Gav
-24th November 2003, 14:00
The refs committee might also consider another large group who might want to attend an event like this, parents. I spoke to several parents at a Juniors event this weekend, several were non-fencers who would like to develop a better understanding of why decisions are made the way they are.

Well we [the fencing club] have tried this. Parents are initially warm to the idea but if it involves taking them away from their kids during competition then they seem to lose interest. I can only think of one parent who made the effort to learn the rules - but then he decided to take up fencing as well.


And there aren't arguments very often at these events. Most fencers are like me, if the president just said that pointing your foil behind your head and flicking to my shoulder after I launch a direct attack is your hit then for the next five points it is; fencers do not appeal, even on points of rules, because it is very bad manners. (They moan about it afterwards of course, but they don't appeal the call).

hmm

I've seen plenty of fencers argue [sorry request clarfication] from the ref's - other fencers or otherwise. You've obviously never ref'd a decent Epee bout, sometimes Epeeists can be downright picky, and will pick you up on the slightest error. I believe that it says in the guidance for Ref's that when ref'ing Epee that you know the rules because "they are the last recourse of a fencer who has lost a hit". There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification so long as you are polite about it.



These people aren't refing at Leicester, Bristol, Colchester or Cardiff. 90% of the fights are being presided by fencers themselves, with no specific training.

Dunno about Colchester but there are definitely see plenty of ref's floating around doing their job at the others. Maybe it's because I do Epee - who knows...

Boo Boo
-24th November 2003, 14:17
Refereeing is one of those things that is very difficult to discuss on the forum - although you can discuss the rules, the biggest problem is different people's perception of the timing of the actions.

I hope that 95% of your poule fights at the big opens were refereed by experienced fencers (generally, the top 2 or 3 ranked fencers in the poule share the refereeing). They should be capable referees.

Boo

srb
-24th November 2003, 14:34
I agree with Boo Boo. At the last open I fenced in, during the poule only two of us presided, except for when we fenced. Then the 3rd ref made a mistake on the poule sheet.

I either have 'ref' or more probably 'mug' tatooed on my forehead. I got specifically asked to ref some DE's at the Welsh. I then presided two incredibly difficult fights. One with the whole Cyrano clan standing to my right, and the Bristol clan to my left. The fight was very close and went to 15-13. During the fight I had to warn two Cyrano spectators for coaching, and every decision I made was questioned by the Cyrano fans if I gave it against their fencer. The heckling was so bad that it was unsettling the Bristol fencer that he actually asked me if I could ask them to be quiet.

Afterwards I was knackered and mentally drained, and I then found out that I had to go straight on the piste to fence. The result of this, is that next time I am in this situation I will try and make myself as invisible as all the other fencers around me. I don't mind doing my turn (in fact I actually enjoy presiding), but I am not going to let it be at the detriment of my fencing again.

srb

Jambo
-24th November 2003, 15:29
Agree wholeheartedly with srb on that one, I try to avoid refing as much as I can if I'm still fencing, it completly ruins my focus.

Robert: People do argue all the time (or is it cos I'm a sabruer?), if you dont like the way a ref is calling things make sure he knows it and ask him to fully phrase everything.

Where's Ian gone anyway? Was hoping for some indication of what they might be planning by now.

Robert
-24th November 2003, 15:34
Originally posted by Boo Boo
I hope that 95% of your poule fights at the big opens were refereed by experienced fencers (generally, the top 2 or 3 ranked fencers in the poule share the refereeing). They should be capable referees.


Alas, not true. I avoid presiding at one of these events if I can avoid it (though I do a lot at the smaller opens) primarily because I don't want to get into an argument with someone who can beat me 5-0 and thinks this gives him some special insight into how the rules should be applied. But, I would say these (where the top 2 or 3 ranked fencers preside) are where I have seen the worst presiding, and certainly the places I have seen the most flagrant examples of awarding an attack to any forward movement.

I do not really understand why being a high ranked fencer makes people think they are qualified to ref a fight any better than a low-ranked fencer?

Robert

Jambo
-24th November 2003, 15:37
You seem to know the rules very well. This is pretty rare for a less experienced fencer (well for most of us in fact), most better fencers assume they know more than people they can beat because usually they do, purely through having been around a longer time (and have seen a fair bit of high level refing). This is where a lot of the misconceptions about the rules come from though.

Barry Paul
-24th November 2003, 17:28
So to get back to the question.
The answer is Yes quite a few fencers would like to have a refereeing meeting.
Should there be top fencers present? I thinks so
Should they be made to come for the graeter good? I think so.
Should it be three weopon? Don't know

Over to the refreering committee. Barry Paul

Keith.A.Smith
-24th November 2003, 18:43
I think these ideas of a training session for fencers who want to be referees is a very good one and would happily help with one.

I think explaining the conventions etc to the parents would be a great idea too.

As a ref you have to accept that tight fights can get tense and you have to concentrte fully and if necessary get tough!!

Keith

PM1
-24th November 2003, 20:33
Yes please - info for parents, too !!!! I spent part of last year's LPJS Whitgift handing out info for parents, who were very pleased to receive the same (on the whole). Tell us what our kids won't..........!!

ceprab
-25th November 2003, 10:02
Originally posted by Robert
The rules aren't clear, because they don't say that. The only section I can find is para.8 which just isn't very clear. And PIL isn't really different from a simple attack as direct attacks must establish PIL.


Direct attacks are not requires to establish PIL (full extension) they are required to demonstrate extension (relative concept). Somone who fences with their arm 80-90% extended as their en-garde will find it difficult to extend further without reaching a PIL but someone with a traditional en-garde need only make a clear offensive (threatening) extension toward the opponent.



I have never seen this awarded. Fencer A fleches from the en-garde line, fencer B counters. Fencer A's foot has to hit the ground before he reaches the target but noone ever gives the hit to B. Now it is very possible that the rule is intended to do exactly what you say, and this is why guidance needs to be provided.


I gave this just this weekend :). A fleche from out of distance that requires more than one step falls foul of t.56(8) and a simple attack into it is on preparation.



You did. You say that para.8 supersedes para.5.


p8 and p5 are not contradictory. Apply p8 - if someone is crossing their feet repeatedly p.5 becomes irrelevant as they are not attacking, they are preparing.



How do you establish PIL if your arm is already straight and the point is already threatening the target? What action do you take from this position to establish PIL?


You allow one period of fencing time to pass without being hit. PIL is then re-established. A specific action is not necessary.



The rules actually specify that any correctly executed attack must be parried or completely avoided (i.e attacks don't end they are stopped by doing one or the other).


When an attack is adjudjed to have been completely avoided it loses right of way. t.8(d).2 defines the redoublement as a new action that is made against an opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target. The fact that it is a new action includes implicitly that the first acction has finished ie initial attack failed.
Where the arm is not withdrawn the situation may be a remise t.8(d).1 provided it is both simple and immediate, in which case the initial attacker will still have ROW if the opponent had simply retreated.



I presume you are also with the group Barry has been moaning about who say that a step back to avoid an attack gives you priority and allows you to lunge onto the oponents extended arm?


It would depend on the situation. I would say that the attack had fallen short and failed rather than been parried (as Barry complained about) if someone stepped back to avoid it. Alternatively, if the attack has stopped dead then it could be defined as a pause in a compound attack, allowing the opponent to stop hit in time (t.60(2)d.
If the lunge onto point occurred immediately while the attackers arm is still in place I don't think I would give that as attack failed. If it wasn't immediate then it could well be a lunge onto PIL. When I have given similar things recently it has also included the factor that the attack probably missed a bit as well and had to be redirected onto target in a secondary action. I don't ref at the heady heights Barry is involved with.



The English used is unclear in lots of cases (rather like the last sentence of my previous posting). Take t.56 para.1 which you quoted as saying that the rules say 'extending'. I know from talking to lots of older people that many people for many years read exactly the same words and thought it meant 'extended'. The English can carry either meaning. It could mean that the straightening of the arm (ie its full extension) must precede the lunge.


It could be read either way. I believe I suggested that a guidance booklet could be published (and publicised!) some way up this thread for just such a situation. For my money see the bit earlier in this post about wanting to see a clear extension from the fencers normal en-garde.



Or Para.8, what extactly does continuous mean? More than one? A whole load of them? Do the steps make the whole action a preparation or just the bit after you decide it becomes continuous? (Rhetorical, your opinion is quite clear).


I share the opinion of your adversary: fleche ends after the back foot has come down and the attacker is simply preparing from that point.



When I was first taught I was told a cross-over forfeited priority (the interpretation you are putting here, though interestingly no-one suggested it applied to a fleche) but I was also taught that if you lunged while your arm was bent the oponent got the point (extending or otherwise, and based on exactly the rule you quoted for the 'extending' interpretation). Another coach (rules in hand) told me that if a remise lands before a riposte (even a tenth of a second) it has priority because by definition (he thought) there must have been a pause in the parry (t.60 1(c)).


If the arm is bent throughout the lunge then it is vulnerable to counter-attack, but I would argue that extension must begin before the lunge to establish ROW, and must continue to extend throughout the lunge to direct the point at the target. If a remise lands before a reposte the referee must judge wether a period of fencing time has passed to decide if the remise was in time.



Another ambiguous rule: (t.60 2(c)) If fencer A feints, B parries, A disengages (compound attack) and then A holds his point steady intending to make a second disengage when his oponent takes a compound parry. If B instead of taking the parry lunges at A and produces a double hit, who gets the point? Does B get it because A made a momentary pause (he clearly did)? Or is the rule ignored?


B because A made a clear momentary pause. During A's compound attack the point needs to threaten continuously and should be moving towards the target to make it a continuous attack. If A keeps moving instead of 'holding steady' then the attack has not ceased and A gets the hit.



I am not saying you are wrong on this. What I am saying is that what is written on the page can only get you so far. That is quite a long way as I am sure in practice we would call the vast majority of hits the same way. But on the nuances, there I think training courses are the only hope for consistent interpretation (and it is consistency rather than any particular view-point which matters).


Likewise. :)

Experienced authorities on the rules.... marks/10 ?

ceprab
-25th November 2003, 10:05
Originally posted by Saxon


It's not a compound attack until the actual attack (an attack preceded by one or more feints). The way you've phrased it it looks more like A's feint, instead of being the start of a compound attack, establishes a PIL. A then derobesan attempt to take the blade, and hits when B lunges.



This sounds like a better reading than my one actually. I was assuming that A was being more aggressive than actually was stated.