PDA

View Full Version : over-ruling the technology?



DrT
-19th January 2004, 12:55
OK, another stupid question. A fight is in progress and both fencers' weapons seem to be fine. Then A clearly hits B, but no light comes up and it is then found that A's weapon is faulty. Can the president award the hit?

pinkelephant
-19th January 2004, 13:13
Originally posted by DrT
OK, another stupid question. A fight is in progress and both fencers' weapons seem to be fine. Then A clearly hits B, but no light comes up and it is then found that A's weapon is faulty. Can the president award the hit?

No.

You can annul a hit which has been registered by the apparatus, but you can't award one which hasn't.

DrT
-19th January 2004, 13:26
That seems a little unfair when, if the points were real, B would have been a kebab. I would have thought that the electric scoring should be there to assist the president, not replace him.

Rdb811
-19th January 2004, 13:31
Are you sure that A did hit or did it land flat - the equipment is there to to consisitent.

DrT
-19th January 2004, 13:35
In the case I was presiding it was obvious. The hit landed in the middle of B's chest, the fencers both stopped, I called halt and was just starting to mark the score on the sheet when I noticed that the light hadn't come on! :o

Rdb811
-19th January 2004, 14:17
Obvious in this case - but wen it's not clear cut - when the acton cease to be obvious. In any event - the A's failure to light up could have been caused by not attaching the body wire properly.


You'd be ruiring epee referees to suddenly make judgement calls - which is where the 'actions starting before the halt ' rule falls down - the only solution is to keep on prodding until the thid halt.

Eddie
-19th January 2004, 14:47
so what would happen if the lame were shown to be at fault, would an obvious hit still not be given? It seems a little unfair especially when there is an obvious hit that it can not be awarded i have had one or two occasions where in sabre club matches i have hit some one on the mask and there was a resounding clack of metal on metal and yet no light came up, yet there was an obvious hit that all watching could not refute.

Eddie

pinkelephant
-19th January 2004, 14:54
It's just tough luck. If a foil lame were at fault, it would register off target anyway, rather than not at all.

DrT
-19th January 2004, 15:54
That does sounds particuarly harsh. I can understand that when the attacker's weapon is faulty they are penalised by not getting the hit. In the case where the defender's kit is faulty the attacker should not be robbed of the hit (IMHO).

pinkelephant
-20th January 2004, 08:26
But if the box doesn't register a hit, you don't know what ELSE might have occured in the meantime, e.g. an off target which would have prevented anything subsequent anyway. It is also impossible to tell whether the "hit" would have registered or not - sometimes what looks like a perfectly good hit doesn't register because it is flat, or indeed the blade bends so much that the point itself isn't in contact for long enough to register.

The rules are quite clear - no hit (other than a penalty hit) can be awarded if it has not been registered by the box.

Dave Hillier
-20th January 2004, 10:40
That does sounds particuarly harsh. I can understand that when the attacker's weapon is faulty they are penalised by not getting the hit. In the case where the defender's kit is faulty the attacker should not be robbed of the hit (IMHO).

The important thing is consistancy, as long as the rule is applied to all equally then in the long run it all balances out.

DrT
-20th January 2004, 11:44
Thanks for your help everyone - I'm much clearer on that now. Still, it would be nice if the president was left with some authority to decide whether a hit landed...

Boo Boo
-20th January 2004, 11:46
Originally posted by DrT
Thanks for your help everyone - I'm much clearer on that now. Still, it would be nice if the president was left with some authority to decide whether a hit landed...

Presidents normally have more than enough to deal with, with everything else going on...

Boo

Robert
-20th January 2004, 14:11
Originally posted by DrT
Thanks for your help everyone - I'm much clearer on that now. Still, it would be nice if the president was left with some authority to decide whether a hit landed...

This isn't a post-electric thing. Even in steam foil a president could not over-rule the two line judges, no matter how certain they were a hit had been scored. And from the steam presiding I have done it was considered very bad form to over-rule one line judge, unless you were very confident.

Robert

reposte
-20th January 2004, 15:05
You are expected to go on the piste with working equipmet, and not only are you to suffer the consequences of your own gear malfunctions, you are to be penalized for going up with faulty gear.

DrT
-20th January 2004, 15:09
As I said, I can understand being penalised for having faulty kit, but what about the case where a fencer benefits from having a faulty lame?

3 Card Trick
-20th January 2004, 15:16
Before an International competition lames should be checked by the weapons control team. If the lame does not pass the test it cannot be used.

At the beginning of each fight each fencer tests their opponent's lame, if a fault is found then the lame cannot be used and a penalty is uncurred.

If a fault is found in the lame during the fight then it must be changed, but no penalty is incurred as the problem could have arisenn during the fight.

All spelled out in the Rules, see the button at the top of this page.

The Little Un
-22nd January 2004, 19:22
Personally, I go onto the Piste. I do my best and listen nand accept what the referee says, only if I am sure that i am awarded a point that I know I should not have got, do I ever question a decision. There are a few bad referees out there, a minute percentage actually, if a bad referee is presiding at a tournament that I am fencing in I make my objection to the referee at control.
Abusing a refereee is never on and should be dealt with severely.

I would be a liar if I said that I have not sometimes believed that I had scored a good hit but the light has not come on, however that is life. You must take the good with the bad, except referees that is.

Best wishes,
Judy

randomsabreur
-23rd January 2004, 14:22
I tend to test the kit at any time I have any kind of doubt that my hit should have come up but didn't! Partly this is so I have no inkling of an excuse, but mostly because it reminds me that it was clearly me missing, or being too slow, possibly because I brought my hand back.

Equally, I will ask my opponent to test if I have felt a hit on target and it hasn't registered.

It is possible for high resistances in wires to cause hits not to come up at sabre, so a good way to test is to pull on the spool cable as you extend and hit, this can show up high resistances, either with a white light, or by the hit not coming up.

This is also a way of eliminating the reason for the mystery white light that appears.

Clearly you should never abuse the referee, but it is permissible to ask the referee to phrase the previous action, so long as you do it politely. This is a good idea, as even if the referee is (in your opinion at least) seeing things wrong, so long as he is consistant you can attempt to adapt and deal with the problem. The worst nightmare is a referee who is inconsistant, either because he is influenced by fencer's questioning, or through attempting to compensate for perceived wrong decisions.

So far as I am concerned, a referee should always make their decision confidently, and stick by their judgement. If you are confident and don't get flustered, you can get away with a lot more wrong decisions than someone who is correct but evidently scared. There seem to be a few parallels with how to deal with animals and children here, as fencers will only play games to the point they feel they can get away with it, in common with the above.

The Little Un
-23rd January 2004, 18:11
Dear Random,
I think that most of what you are saying is actualy illegal.

Best wishes,
Judy

rpryer
-23rd January 2004, 20:10
Judy

Which bit(s) are you objecting to?

If a fencer suspects that there is a fault with the apparatus, they can ask the referee to check (t.35) - which generally involves the sorts of tests that Randomsabreur mentioned.

The referee is required under the rules to reconstruct the phrase, so if the phrasing/signals are unclear, then a polite request to clarify usually wouldn't be a problem.

nahouw
-24th January 2004, 02:32
Originally posted by DrT
OK, another stupid question. A fight is in progress and both fencers' weapons seem to be fine. Then A clearly hits B, but no light comes up and it is then found that A's weapon is faulty. Can the president award the hit?

I had this situation happen to me in an épée bout -- I attacked and had obviously hit -- but no halt called -- I parried the counterattack and had obviously hit again -- but no halt called -- I immediately then stamped my foot and shook my hand to have the director call a halt. When we tested, it was found that the floor cord was disconnected from my reel. No touch for me was awarded -- it can't be, even though it was obvious, because that is the way the rules are -- the only touches that can be recorded are those in which are recorded by the scoring device. The only time a touch can be anulled is when there is a problem with the opponent's equipment.

My only protection in this instance was if my opponent HAD scored a touch -- in that event, her touch would have been anulled because of the equipment failure.

I then had someone come to stay by my side for the rest of the pool to watch the reel to make sure that this wouldn't happen again.

The Little Un
-24th January 2004, 12:18
Dear Random,
For a start you have to get the Referee to test equipment and you must ask the referee if you wish your opponents equipment to be tested.

What you are suggesting with the wires could be construed as abuse of equipment.

I shall let you judge the sportsmanship in your last paragraph.

Best wishes,
Judy

UglyBug
-24th January 2004, 21:39
Random always has strong opinions and in this instance I agree with her.

(1)
Originally posted by The Little Un
For a start you have to get the Referee to test equipment and you must ask the referee if you wish your opponents equipment to be tested..

You don't have to get the Referee to test your equipment, you have to ask the Ref's permission to test your equipment.

(2)
Originally posted by The Little Un
What you are suggesting with the wires could be construed as abuse of equipment.

No it's not - I saw it done at the Corble A-grade today with the full co-operation of the referee. One of the fencers hit his opponent rather soundly on the mask and it didn't come up, and this was the test they ran. As a result, the opponent's counter-attack was annulled by the referee.

(2)
Originally posted by The Little Un
I shall let you judge the sportsmanship in your last paragraph.

There is nothing unsporting about her last paragraph - just common sense. She is not suggesting that referees should be treated with anything less than the necessary respect. She makes a very good point on two counts. Firstly, fencers have enough to concentrate on, without the distraction of a nervous or shaky referee. Referees are there to control the fight and clearly state points of fact about whose attack was whose. They are not there to influence the fight and nervousness that distracts the confidence of the fencers does this. Secondly, every competitor in every sport has at some point tried their luck with influencing a referee. Random is not condoning this behaviour, but merely suggesting how a referee can avoid being caught up in it - referees again have more than enough to concentrate on without being distracted by fencers playing silly b****rs. If a referee is cool and authoratative, fencers will naturally treat them with more respect. My favourite quote that I picked up from someone or other is that "the referee may not be 100% accurate, but he is always 100% right". I would much rather have a referee in control of the situation and making the odd error than a more accurate referee who blundered through nerves. Similarly, I prefer referees who at sabre choose to abstain "I lost the phrasing" or "I'm sorry, I don't know" confidently than nervously calling together when the final action was not actually together. I don't have as much experience as random, but I have a fair bit and she is right

randomsabreur
-26th January 2004, 10:23
Cheers Uglybug, much appreciated.

I don't exactly condone how children act with nervous teachers, or the way a horse that senses that you are not confident either refuses to move or runs away any more than I condone fencers being difficult with the referee.

If I'm a referee, I will always try to eliminate all possible faults with the equipment. Often a problem with the resistance in the spool is ONLY discoverable when it is moving so you have to pull the spool to simulate a fast attack and lunge. Then again, you can still get mysterious hits where everyone from ref to both fencers are certain that there has been a hit and nothing comes up (happened to me in a pool fight at the corble.)

randomsabreur
-26th January 2004, 10:28
A classic example of a referee being in perfect control of a tough fight was the final of the Men's foil at the Millennium nationals, where at the first hit of dissent, early on in the fight, the referee got the yellow card out. From then on, both fencers concentrated on the fencing and the final was much better because of it. THe ref was american and had been taking no nonsense all day.

There was a particularly strong contrast with the Men's sabre, where James Williams was playing games throughout the fight and the referee let him get away with it.

randomsabreur
-26th January 2004, 14:14
I forgot to add in my discussion, that clearly I would ask the ref's permission to test. This is even suggested by refs, or opponents on certain occasions, when they have seen, felt (opponent only) or heard a noise that sounds like a hit (ie soft not hard).

Also, the pulling on the spool cable is not done during a hit, or phrase, this is touching or taking hold of electrical equipment and an offence (t.22)

Apols for not making myself sufficiently clear, I have the same problem in Business Law questions on the LPC, knowing what can be taken as read, and what has to be written down expressly.