PDA

View Full Version : do fencers want rules enforced?



ihunter
-5th May 2003, 10:31
If as agreed the standard of refereeing is 'variable', do fencers want most of the rules applied most of the time, or at what level? :o

haggis
-5th May 2003, 10:45
Ian

All the rules, some of the rules...so long as there is consistency at all levels. That goes for interpretation and application.

Cheers

Haggis

Boo Boo
-5th May 2003, 12:00
ditto :)

Boo

Gav
-5th May 2003, 12:04
Agree with Haggis too.

Hudson
-5th May 2003, 14:59
The rules i'd really like to be enfored are the bend in the blade, specily at foil and weight testing in Epee. The weight testing i know can be a right pain but i'd still like to see in enforced especily in the DE stages.

Gav
-5th May 2003, 15:32
I was standing at the side of a WE match recently. When one the president discovered that Epee of one of the fencers was faulty she turned to me and asked what she should do.

"What's up?" I asked.
"The travel is too short, what do we do?" she replied.
"Ok, take it off her and get her to pick up another one," I suggested.

While we were waiting for the other fencer to get an Epee. I casually asked if the Weapons had been tested prior to the bout. The answer was no. Although I doubt if there was any intentional cheating going on it did annoy me. This was the L8, there was a medal at stake and yet the president hadn't checked the legality of either weapon.

In reality this should have been picked up and a warning given before the bout started. What ended up happening is that the weapon was treated as one having gone faulty during the course of the bout thus no penalty was given [other than the change of weapon]. The fencer on the receiveing end of the faulty tip was the higher seed and was, at that point, a few touches behind. Once the Epee had been changed the seed won - comfortably.

This particular story was one of the reasons I've been on a bit of a rules crusade.

3 Card Trick
-5th May 2003, 16:07
I think what people are saying is that some rules stop people getting an unfair advantage and should be enforced. The problem is that most rules if not enforced tend to give someone an unfair advantage.

If you don't penalise corps a corps you penalise the victim - just an example;)

pinkelephant
-5th May 2003, 16:27
The rule which makes me really hot under the collar when not enforced is hard hitting, particularly when children are fencing. As 3-card says, by not penalising the offender, we are penalising the victim - indeed, we are exacerbating the victimisation. We should also not forget that, as recent court cases involving Rugby have shown, we have a duty of care to the participants to enforce all rules regarding their safety. That includes enforcing the wearing of plastrons (sabreurs take note), pulling up of socks, and penalising hard hitting with yellow, red or black cards depending on the severity of the offence - the rules allow for all three.

Gav
-5th May 2003, 16:50
The difficulty that you face with enforcing the hard hitting rule is that it is subject to interpretation. What is hard hitting? If a child is fencing an adult then how do you compare? What about those fencers who 'cry wolf'?(3 card how do you deal with this question?)

pinkelephant
-5th May 2003, 17:19
A hard hit is one which is made incorrectly and which hurts the opponent. It is often characterised by being delivered with a punching action, or with the flat of the blade (often an incompetent attempt at a flick). However, when the person getting hurt has been "hit hard" as a result of their own poor distance, e.g. stepping in to an attack, there should be no penalty.

As far as children fencing adults is concerned, this is covered by the age restriction to over 13 in any event where over 17's can participate. Anyone who fences in an Open or other adult competition needs to be big and strong enough to cope - adults should not be expected to "go easy" on anybody, as it can affect their indicators.

There are also problems with big or combined age groups in children's competitions; a big 13 year old can be far stronger than a small 10 year old, yet they sometimes have to fence each other if entries are small and U14 and U12 groups are combined. Even in a normal 2-year grouping there can be a huge disparity, particularly with U14 boys.

I must repeat, however, that we have a LEGAL duty of care to those we are refereeing, and if we allow a fencer to be hurt repeatedly without giving them the protection of the rules, we are laying ouselves open to legal action.

3 Card Trick
-5th May 2003, 17:29
Gav

A hard hit that should be penalised usually stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.

You usually get an exagerated arm movement and a horrible thwack when the thing lands.

The relative distance of the two fencers is important too.

Basically a good flick will land point first and cause no damage.

The trickiest one to spot is the "dead arm" thrust locking the whole arm from the shoulder and used by epeeists when crossed.

Again, at sabre the hard hit is usually spotted by the arm movement, heavy and bent.

We all know what a hard hit is, few take the trouble to provide the fencer with the protection they should have.

Barry Paul
-5th May 2003, 18:41
While you are talking about hard hitting, we should apply the rules about blades not being too stiff. Epee blades in particular should be tested at British Championships for stiffness.

Hudson
-5th May 2003, 18:46
I once had to red card someone at a major open a few years ago for heavy hitting. Pool round in the ME last fight between the 2 best in the pool, going into the extra min, Fencer A fleche from my right, hit to mask of fencer B, follows through and hits b under the chin with his guard ripping his mask off. Big argument, DT came out with rule book. result Red card to A, wins

doobarz
-5th May 2003, 23:45
I think this all relates back to a point made in an earlier thread - fencers need teaching the rules before they get on the piste!

As a saberuer, I do always wear a plastron (training and competition) but I don't like having my socks pulled up (unless the hall is cold). However, I would never fence epee without them pulled right up! I was also told by my club mates before my first open to make sure I took a spare sabre, bodywire and mask clip with me to the piste, just in case, and would feel cheated if my opponent were not carded for returning to their bag for a spare.

So to answer the main question, yes, all the rules should be consistantly applied (I'll even pull my socks up), then we can whinge about the ones we don't like.

randomsabreur
-6th May 2003, 13:13
Definitely rules enforced consistently!

I always pull my socks up at sabre, because that way i can complain to the referee if i get hit on the leg, not that a sock or even FIE breeches makes any difference to severity of bruise.

Hard hitting is a difficult one to enforce. I find it very hard not to riposte a bit heavily if I have just parried a heavy attack, I suppose that this is something to do with muscles reacting or something as it is definitely not conscious. Also, where both fencers are being a bit heavy, a friendly "calm it down will you please" seems to work rather than going straight to a card

One rule that really does need enforcing at sabre is hitting or following through with the guard which seems to be growing in prevalence. I have seen people (top 10 fencers included) in effect give up on a fight because they could not stand to be hit with that force any more (classic problem being 14-14 togethers) and with the guard. Have also seen guard to mask due to errors in distance from both fencers

Rhubarb
-6th May 2003, 15:13
Can any of the ref's out there point out exactly which rule. in the book , covers 'hard hitting'. I think you'll find its an 'interpretation' of another , unless you escalate to terms involving 'brutality':party: :party:

Hudson
-6th May 2003, 15:22
not got my rule book handy but i think it has something to do with wether the ref feels it was a violent hit.

ihunter
-6th May 2003, 16:26
can anyone venture to promote a 'hard' hit to a 'violent or brutal ' action. Obviously some of the time in cases which 3 card points out stick out like a sore thumb, but does this mean that fencers risk a red, 0r black card each time a flick lands "whack!!"

Tech
-7th May 2003, 13:22
Reading this thread really does reinforce someone's comment earlier - fencers and referees need to learn the rules. Take the discussion about hitting with the guard - the rule is very simple:

t87 - ..blow made with guard or pommel RED CARD

It does not need to be hard, just doing it is an automatic red card.

I know we are desperately short of referees, but Organisers and anyone who referees has a 'duty of care' allowing dangerous practices to go unchecked could - and should - cause real legal problems if there was ever an accident.

;)

Tech
-7th May 2003, 13:29
In answer to Rhubarb, its all in t87.

Hit scored with 'brutality' (hard-hitting) is a yellow card.

Dangerous, violent or vindictive actions ..... blow with gurard.. is a Red Card

In both cases any hit scored is annuled.

It is solely a matter of the referees judgement and some referees are loth to enforce the rules, occasionaly 'friendship' gets in the way; but until all fights have independant & competant referees it will be ever thus.

;)

ihunter
-8th May 2003, 20:04
I dont agree with 'tech'. and I repeat, can you promote 'hard hitting to 'brutality' just in order to hang it on some rule that might do to solve a problem.:cool:

I think its done that way but it doesn't make it correct.

Tech
-9th May 2003, 05:24
While I hate to disagree with Ian , I think one can distinguish. In my own mind I have always considered 'hard hitting' as bad technique and worthy of a yellow card.

When the hard hitting is deliberate and aimed at intimidating the opponent then we are in the realm of brutality and seriously thinking about a red. Fortunately I have never yet been in the position to red card anyone for that particular offence, but have seriously considered it a couple of times.

As I said before the referee has to decide if first of all can the action be described as 'hard hitting', then 'was it a deliberate act or one of those things'
;)

ihunter
-9th May 2003, 06:26
With the greatest respect, when is 'bad technique , worth a card, and where does it say so in the rules..........we are getting into philosophical realms here and the FIE rules are just not robust enough( or is it the people who make them. A direct analogy can be drawn here between the arguments re ROW and yet another type of interpretation of the rules. The rules DO NOT cover all eventualities and I think someone hit with a badly executed flick, which lands flat is relatively unprotected by the 'official' rules.

pinkelephant
-9th May 2003, 09:51
Originally posted by ihunter
With the greatest respect, when is 'bad technique , worth a card, and where does it say so in the rules..........we are getting into philosophical realms here and the FIE rules are just not robust enough( or is it the people who make them. A direct analogy can be drawn here between the arguments re ROW and yet another type of interpretation of the rules. The rules DO NOT cover all eventualities and I think someone hit with a badly executed flick, which lands flat is relatively unprotected by the 'official' rules.

This could always be called "uncontrolled fencing", which, in the case of U14s, it often is.:rambo:

ceprab
-15th May 2003, 14:58
How many cards are possible from one screw up?

At a sabre match a few years back a friend of mine managed to get two red cards from one event. What happened was he went for a long attack as the opponent (who is also a friend but not from my team) stepped forward.
My teammate landed on the opponents foot, unsurprisingly lost balance and then hit the opponent (not hard due to being already pulling the blow) in the mask with his guard, and not being able to halt his momentum crashed bodily into the opponent.
Although at a competition the match was friendly and it was felt that the president acted harshly by giving a red card for the guard to mask, and another for the body contact.

Neither hit was hard and certainly not 'brutal' in the linguistic rather than rules sense. No-one would argue against the one card (dangerous and/or uncontrolled) but the interpretation seemed unreasonable. Especially seeing as about 2 points later the victim of the aforementionned offence hit hard enough to make a huge whack on the chest and draw blood on my teammate's hand and the president didn't blink - exapmle of the consistency issue.

My friend lost. The opponent apologised for the injury. What we think of the president is unpublishable.

Sorry about the rambling.

randomsabreur
-15th May 2003, 15:29
At sabre, a hit with the guard is definitely a yellow card offence and the hit is annulled. I can't remember the number, I have better things to remember at the moment, ask me after or just before the next time I take an exam in refereeing rather than law.

I remember the rule for one reason only, it is different from the foil rule.

I personally hate giving cards but often find I have to (cross steps at sabre particularly). I also don't understand the corps a corps rule at foil in practice. What happens where the two fencers were stupid and run into each other, card both or neither, or is it one person's fault?

V. confused!

pinkelephant
-15th May 2003, 16:50
Originally posted by randomsabreur
At sabre, a hit with the guard is definitely a yellow card offence and the hit is annulled. I can't remember the number, I have better things to remember at the moment, ask me after or just before the next time I take an exam in refereeing rather than law.

I remember the rule for one reason only, it is different from the foil rule.

I personally hate giving cards but often find I have to (cross steps at sabre particularly). I also don't understand the corps a corps rule at foil in practice. What happens where the two fencers were stupid and run into each other, card both or neither, or is it one person's fault?

V. confused!

Card both. They'll have to be REALLY stupid to do it again (but then we are talking about foilists, aren't we.;)

mango
-20th May 2003, 05:26
Do fencers want the rules enforced? Yes, that way there're no complaints.

:party:

ceprab
-21st May 2003, 23:10
Do fencers want the rules enforced? Yes, that way there're no complaints.

Wrong.....

There are no Justified complaints (unless the ref gets it wrong):grin:

nahouw
-26th May 2003, 00:14
Originally posted by ihunter
With the greatest respect, when is 'bad technique , worth a card, and where does it say so in the rules..........

It is up to the referee to make the determination. Most referees will let alot of this "bad technique" slide, so then the fencers feel safe to push the envelope. If the coaches don't teach their kids probably, it is up to the referees to educate them by carding them.

After we had one kid taken to the hospital by ambulance with a concussion due to the "bad technique" of his opponent, we are much more vigilant; and I, as the person in our Division responsible for assigning referees, I have made it perfectly clear that it is acceptable for the referees to card such bad technique -- we don't want to have any more incidences.

In one competition, I was observing a referee, and both sabreurs were starting to hit each other hard; the one who was complaining about hard hits was the one who was perpertrating the hard hits. I stopped the bout and told both of them quite firmly that the next one who does such will get a red card -- I was staying to watch the bout to its conclusion, and if the referee didn't throw a card, I would. Both of them cleaned up their acts quite quickly.

3 Card Trick
-26th May 2003, 09:31
Good for you, but I take it you were on the Directoire Technique/ Bout Committee? at the time.

:grin:

gladiator
-27th May 2003, 21:59
As I understand it, it is the job of the referee to interpret the rules and apply them to the situation. Therefore different refs will always see events in a different light. This is why you can not appeal a refs decision on a point of fact (i.e. Right Of Way) but only on a point of order e.g. phrasing problems, wrong penalty etc..

Rdb811
-27th May 2003, 22:23
There's no metion of the word interpret in the rule book. The refereee's job is to apply the rules - any two refs should give the same phrasing on theory, although the practise may be different.

gladiator
-27th May 2003, 22:31
OK, prob a bit of both. -

Hard hitting - what is a hard hit? Not defined by rules and prob can't be. This is interpreted by the ref.

Stepping off piste - rule is simply applied once ref has stated fencer was off the piste.

nahouw
-31st May 2003, 21:17
Originally posted by gladiator
OK, prob a bit of both. -

Hard hitting - what is a hard hit? Not defined by rules and prob can't be. This is interpreted by the ref.


I'm sorry, but a hard hit is obvious and should be called. Of course, some referees for some reason can't see a hard hit. (I am American, and probably part of the problem is that Americans have a culture that is more acceptable to violence than Europeans).

Two of the worst hard hits in sabre that I ever had in which neither referee penalized my opponent:

1st: After a succession of hits by my opponent, and a night spent not sleeping and icing my arm, I wound up the next day with my whole arm from shoulder to wrist entirely bruised and twice the size as normal. As it was summer and we were in Florida, I wore a tank top the next day to the competition. I was told by the bout committee to put a long sleeved shirt on so that people couldn't see this. Results of this: I had incurred damage to my ulnar nerve that took 6 months for my ulnar to regenerate.

2nd: I had a young girl that rather than to take a head parry upon my attack, chose instead to slam down on my arm. Because my muscles were activitated in my attack, her downward impact was so great as to cause a hairline fracture in my arm; the fracture caused an avulsion, in which the muscles of my arm were torn away from the bone. I immediately shrunk down in pain and the referee awarded her a touch. This injury took 6 months for my muscle to grow back to the bone -- it required me to keep my arm tightly wrapped for 16 hours a day.

Neither of these referees penalized my opponent for hard-hitting -- if I spent 6 months in rehab for each, I would think that these were hard hits; how come the referee didn't see this and penalize this??

gladiator
-31st May 2003, 21:37
Yeah, these clearly do seem like they should have been called as hard hits by the ref. I have absolutely no explanation as to why these would not have been called as hard hits. Anything that does even close to that amount of damage is clearly wrong in fencing.

I was refering to the more common hard hits which you find during a bout. Particularly those closer to the borderline.

mango
-1st June 2003, 05:25
I also feel that the rules should be applied equally to each fencer.

Problems in application of the rules come about, I believe with regard to equipment, 'your foil is bent' too much; or some other such thing. It's very difficult to keep new fencers interested in the sport if all they do all day long is repair, replace and rescrew tips, grips and wires, then they bend and rebend foild, and epees, on the floor, on the wall, whatever, it's supposed to be 'against the rules' to bend a blade on the floor in epee, but everyone does it. They want a flexible blade, but conversely and perversely, they want a strong blade. What a fencer does then is get their blade really flexible which makes it feel 'less-strong' then they compensate with frequent work-outs. The blades when new, are fine, they really don't need a lot of bending here and there, just maybe once or twice, and then the blade is fine.

As far as the rules as they apply to the way a fencer fences, I feel is more important and should be applied equally to all fencers. It must be that way or fencing will become nothing more than like wrestling matches on t.v.

So in consideration of the discussion on the board; my first prirority is with rules of action for all; rules that apply to equipment a little less strict for beginners; with the exception of certain protective clothing such as jacket, pants, glove and mask.

:party:

gladiator
-1st June 2003, 08:34
Just to clarify, it's only illegal to straighten a blade on a metallic piste. You are allowed to straighten it on the floor off the piste. This is for the protection of the very expensive pistes.

Marcos
-14th February 2007, 15:12
if a sabreur hits with excessive force (and gets one light) what is the penalty?

does he get a yellow card and retain the point?

yellow + no hit given?

.....??

Australian
-14th February 2007, 15:25
http://www.britishfencing.com/Attachments/163_warningsheet.pdf


Hit made with violence. Group 1 Penalty, Hit is annulled if necessary.

Marcos
-14th February 2007, 15:46
ok, i think that tells me that it is a yellow card (which has been stated before in the thread) but is the hit that the hard-hitting fencer scored annuled?

kangeroo
-14th February 2007, 15:52
If you go to test and your opponent thumps your with their sword really hard can they get a yellow card?

Australian
-14th February 2007, 15:58
Marcos,



Hit made with violence. Group 1 Penalty, Hit is annulled if necessary.

...

Saxon
-14th February 2007, 15:59
ok, i think that tells me that it is a yellow card (which has been stated before in the thread) but is the hit that the hard-hitting fencer scored annuled?
On Australian's chart, the * is annulment of the hit scored by the fencer being penalised.

I'd say the distinction of the yellow (incompetent and painful), red (vindictive or incompetent and dangerous) and black (deliberate brutality, presumably actual fighting) is entirely down to the referee to classify. Difficult call, but certainly the red and black should be easy to separate from yellow.

Marcos
-14th February 2007, 16:05
cheers

i can see it being controversial!

letting the hit stand and giving a warning is one thing

annulling the hit on what is essentially a subjective reason won't go down well!!!!!

Baldric
-14th February 2007, 16:08
cheers

i can see it being controversial!

letting the hit stand and giving a warning is one thing

annulling the hit on what is essentially a subjective reason won't go down well!!!!!

I'm confused. I thought that if a fencer committed a cardable offence of the asterisk* type on the card, then they always had the point annulled, assuming that they scored.

I assumed that the only ocassion that the ref would not annul it would be if the offending action didn't get a light. (Therefore nothing to annul)

Am I missing something?

rpryer
-14th February 2007, 16:12
Baldric

I think that is what Australian is saying - the hit is annulled if necessary i.e. if it would otherwise have been scored.

Baldric
-14th February 2007, 16:19
Baldric

I think that is what Australian is saying - the hit is annulled if necessary i.e. if it would otherwise have been scored.

Sorry - what was Marcos's reference to a "subjective reason"?

If its clear enough to give a card for, then surely its clear enough to annul the point for?

pinkelephant
-14th February 2007, 16:40
Sorry - what was Marcos's reference to a "subjective reason"?

If its clear enough to give a card for, then surely its clear enough to annul the point for?

Correct. Marcos is either saying that he would give the ref a hard time (in which case I'd LOVE him to try it with 3CT ot IHunter around - sadly not me as I don't ref sabre) or that he would feel uncomfortable about applying the sanction himself - in which case he shouldn't be refereeing.

Saxon
-14th February 2007, 17:41
Correct. Marcos is either saying that he would give the ref a hard time (in which case I'd LOVE him to try it with 3CT ot IHunter around - sadly not me as I don't ref sabre) or that he would feel uncomfortable about applying the sanction himself - in which case he shouldn't be refereeing.
I was just about to go there... If a fencer is dissatisfied with his nice shiny yellow card, there are plenty (well, a couple) of others he is welcome to choose from.

Duncan Rowlands
-14th February 2007, 18:59
Correct. Marcos is either saying that he would give the ref a hard time (in which case I'd LOVE him to try it with 3CT ot IHunter around - sadly not me as I don't ref sabre) or that he would feel uncomfortable about applying the sanction himself - in which case he shouldn't be refereeing.

Bet you'd ref one sabre fight if you knew that this situation was going to arrive. :tongue:

pinkelephant
-14th February 2007, 19:34
Well I do ref it at the PSFC - a couple of years ago the first thing I did on the Thursday was award simultaneous yellow cards for hard hitting.

Duncan Rowlands
-14th February 2007, 20:43
The public schools are always fun. I remember giving mutual cards when 2 U16 boys missed each other completely with their sabres & head butted each other like a pair of mountain goats!:rolling:

Gav
-14th February 2007, 22:25
Bloomin' 'eck this thread has returned from beyond the grave! Begone I abjure thee!!!

No wait a minute - this is the sort of discussion I actually like! I should go around resurrecting threads myself.

Marcos
-15th February 2007, 08:10
Correct. Marcos is either saying that he would give the ref a hard time (in which case I'd LOVE him to try it with 3CT ot IHunter around - sadly not me as I don't ref sabre) or that he would feel uncomfortable about applying the sanction himself - in which case he shouldn't be refereeing.

I never said I would give a ref a hard time (me, sir?? not me, sir!)

Hard hitting is not a rule that is applied consistently, and it is subjective!

Hence you can see, if a ref gave a yellow card (fair enough) and annulled the hit (something fencers don't enjoy !!) the fencer who committed the crime might feel aggrieved (wrongly, but understandably)

Personally, I don't think this rule is applied nearly enough

(and sorry to Australian for my inability to not read posts in full)

(Gav - re resurecting the thread - the joy of the "search" function!!)

Meneldil
-17th February 2007, 14:34
First, I find it interesting that this topic, with its title, is in the Refereeing section of the forum...

On the actual subject, however, I have mixed views. In general, in competition, when there is anything at stake, I want to have the rules enforced pretty strictly, certainly more strictly than they generally are at the moment. Weight and gauge tests should certainly be made prior to every fight in all opens, with cards given out if there is a failure. I'd also like to see stricter enforcement of the edge of the piste: I often see a very liberal attitude to going off the side, which I think is rather deplorable. Furthermore, etiquette and dangerous fencing, while perhaps harder to enforce (being more subjective), I'd also like to be enforced better.

However, at local and youth competitions, I think it's necessary to scale it down a bit. For instance, the BYCs are many young fencers' first competition of any size, and often they don't have a coach with them when they go, nor any real base of support. When a young fencer and his/her family/parents go to something like the BYCs, to be met with unforgiving cards etc. from the word 'go' would be, well, pretty intimidating and certainly less-than-pleasant. The same goes for other local and junior competitions. I think I like the system that I seem to remember being at the BYCs last year: no cards for weapon failure in the poules, but they were checked. I think this encouraged an easier atmosphere for the newer and younger competitors.

Unfortunately, what I've been writing hasn't been leading anywhere, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents on the matter; to summarise, in ranking competitions: yes, I want rules to be enforced.

pinkelephant
-18th February 2007, 20:28
First, I find it interesting that this topic, with its title, is in the Refereeing section of the forum...

On the actual subject, however, I have mixed views. In general, in competition, when there is anything at stake, I want to have the rules enforced pretty strictly, certainly more strictly than they generally are at the moment. Weight and gauge tests should certainly be made prior to every fight in all opens, with cards given out if there is a failure. I'd also like to see stricter enforcement of the edge of the piste: I often see a very liberal attitude to going off the side, which I think is rather deplorable. Furthermore, etiquette and dangerous fencing, while perhaps harder to enforce (being more subjective), I'd also like to be enforced better.

However, at local and youth competitions, I think it's necessary to scale it down a bit. For instance, the BYCs are many young fencers' first competition of any size, and often they don't have a coach with them when they go, nor any real base of support. When a young fencer and his/her family/parents go to something like the BYCs, to be met with unforgiving cards etc. from the word 'go' would be, well, pretty intimidating and certainly less-than-pleasant. The same goes for other local and junior competitions. I think I like the system that I seem to remember being at the BYCs last year: no cards for weapon failure in the poules, but they were checked. I think this encouraged an easier atmosphere for the newer and younger competitors.

Unfortunately, what I've been writing hasn't been leading anywhere, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents on the matter; to summarise, in ranking competitions: yes, I want rules to be enforced.

You are wrong about the BYC - cards ARE enforced for weapon failure, and the competition information warns fencer that weapons will be checked on the piste. If fencers are not carded, their opponent is placed at a disadvantage.

Duncan Rowlands
-18th February 2007, 20:38
Having ref'd all 4 days of the BYCs this year I have to confirm in spades what PE has said about carding for equipment irregularities.

I have found it curious as to the spread of cards that I issued for such offenses.

In 2 days of foil I distributed close to 20 cards for irregular weapons / bodywires. In the epee yesterday I gave 2 cards, and in today's sabre I gave 1.

Does this imply anything regarding the attention to the equipment rules paid by the practitioners of the various weapons? It certainly isn't that I've gone soft in the last month!:)

husy
-18th February 2007, 22:12
I got a red card few years back in U11 competition because my opponent was acting like a baby. I was winning 14-0 and the opponent was red with anger and crying to the point he could hardly breathe. The referee kept expecting me to go up to him and ask him if he was ok, but I didnít because he was acting stupidly. He should have taken it in, and carried on fencing well. The referee started feeling sorry for him, and I had a feeling the referee thought I was harsh or evil. On the last hit I made sure I hit nicely and softly. As I hit my opponent clenched his chest and burst out crying. His coach and parents and friends gathered round and I got a carded. Later I saw him happily eating a burger in the cafe.

Meneldil
-1st March 2007, 15:55
You are wrong about the BYC - cards ARE enforced for weapon failure, and the competition information warns fencer that weapons will be checked on the piste. If fencers are not carded, their opponent is placed at a disadvantage.


I think I like the system that I seem to remember being at the BYCs last year: <snip>.

I may have been wrong on this, but I thought it was what had happened.

Regardless, if weapons are checked/disallowed but no cards are given, how does that place anyone at an advantage/disadvantage to the other fencer?

Gav
-1st March 2007, 16:17
First, I find it interesting that this topic, with its title, is in the Refereeing section of the forum...

Consider that the person who started this thread is well known for his ... refereeing.

pinkelephant
-1st March 2007, 17:08
I may have been wrong on this, but I thought it was what had happened.

Regardless, if weapons are checked/disallowed but no cards are given, how does that place anyone at an advantage/disadvantage to the other fencer?

Because while the fencer is grubbing around trying to find kit that works, his/her opponent is getting cold, getting bored, potentially losing focus - need I go on?

Saxon
-1st March 2007, 17:27
I may have been wrong on this, but I thought it was what had happened.

You probably are, as PE has run the last two (three?) years' BYCs.

TLove
-1st March 2007, 23:59
I got a red card few years back in U11 competition because my opponent was acting like a baby. I was winning 14-0 and the opponent was red with anger and crying to the point he could hardly breathe. The referee kept expecting me to go up to him and ask him if he was ok, but I didnít because he was acting stupidly. He should have taken it in, and carried on fencing well. The referee started feeling sorry for him, and I had a feeling the referee thought I was harsh or evil. On the last hit I made sure I hit nicely and softly. As I hit my opponent clenched his chest and burst out crying. His coach and parents and friends gathered round and I got a carded. Later I saw him happily eating a burger in the cafe.

Fair enough, but I have to point out that eating a burger does not mean he wasn't hurt ;)

Dirty_Parry
-2nd March 2007, 10:04
Because while the fencer is grubbing around trying to find kit that works, his/her opponent is getting cold, getting bored, potentially losing focus - need I go on?

There is also the issue of delaying progress of the competition. It can take long enough to find someone to ref, then if you have to stop whilst someone changes a wire, weapon...

scottishsabreur
-5th March 2007, 13:03
Reading this thread really does reinforce someone's comment earlier - fencers and referees need to learn the rules. Take the discussion about hitting with the guard - the rule is very simple:

t87 - ..blow made with guard or pommel RED CARD

It does not need to be hard, just doing it is an automatic red card.

I know we are desperately short of referees, but Organisers and anyone who referees has a 'duty of care' allowing dangerous practices to go unchecked could - and should - cause real legal problems if there was ever an accident.

;)

I agree. I had a problem at a recent student comp where the ref clearly had no idea what they were meant to be doing (they were just a student fencer). However my opponent lost the rag as I was 3-0 up on her in poule fight, and decided to take matters into her own hands, rattling me over the head with her guard after my attack had landed. The ref did nothing....so I had a brief word with my opponent and used some choice words....the ref didn't think that was inappropriate either :P

Twisted_Sabreur
-6th March 2007, 08:31
I've been reading through a lot of the comments and must confessed I laughed when I saw the comments re hard hitting when younglings are involved.

I was at Birmingham International in the 2nd round of DE. I had a competent ref and was up against a higher seed by some distance. My opponent was also roughly 14 and I thought to myself oh-oh I'm gonna be running up and down the piste on this one.

Imagine my surprise when this child started coming in with attacks combining shoulder, elbow and wrist to get maximum power into his attacks. His first came straight through and hurt very much (had to keep that clean). As I proceeded to stop cut my way to victory his hits started getting harder (had to beat out my guard after a slightly off parry) .

Looking to the president for a warning (card!) I got told that my opponent was just learning. I felt like stepping on him and teaching him not to hit hard but I figured that would be naughty.

Goes to show it's not just adults who need the knowledge of rules.

nickos
-6th March 2007, 12:21
Imagine my surprise when this child started coming in with attacks combining shoulder, elbow and wrist to get maximum power into his attacks. His first came straight through and hurt very much (had to keep that clean). As I proceeded to stop cut my way to victory his hits started getting harder (had to beat out my guard after a slightly off parry).

If it doesn't work first time, try again faster and harder until it does.


Looking to the president for a warning (card!) I got told that my opponent was just learning. I felt like stepping on him and teaching him not to hit hard but I figured that would be naughty.

Goes to show it's not just adults who need the knowledge of rules.

I agree. If they aren't shown the cards when they break the rules then they will not learn.

Marcos
-2nd May 2008, 13:51
There is also the issue of delaying progress of the competition. It can take long enough to find someone to ref, then if you have to stop whilst someone changes a wire, weapon...

and not just this competition, but subsequent competitions as well as fencers will not bother checking that their equipment works as there is no penalty handed out

John Rohde
-3rd May 2008, 12:32
If as agreed the standard of refereeing is 'variable', do fencers want most of the rules applied most of the time, or at what level? :o

IMHO The obvious, the easiest and the best way to achieve fairness and uniformity is to enforce all of the rules all of the time. There is then a common standard easily accessible to all - the rule book. Obviously, there will still be cases in need of interpretation but deliberately choosing not to enforce rules makes the problem much worse.

grs
-3rd May 2008, 14:23
So who's going to be the first referee to apply all of the rules at the Excalibur on a Sunday morning?

Adam
-3rd May 2008, 15:41
At the NI Open this year there was plastron check, weight and weapon testing before -every- poule and DE bout and no-nonsense refereeing. Was a bit of a culture shock at first and surprising for it occuring at a smaller open but by golly-gosh was it a professional affair.

Gav
-3rd May 2008, 17:45
I am actually quite glad to see this topic revisited; especially as Mavis appears to have stated that there are some cadets (a minority?) who plan for rules not being enforced. The problem remains that there are not enough [trained] referees about. Consequently UK fencing will always feel somewhat amateur as disinformation abounds with fencers struggling to deal with the resultant competitive environment.

TomA
-4th May 2008, 13:10
The problem remains that there are not enough [trained] referees about Agreed on that - you rarely ever see anyone except the fencers refereeing at epee opens in the poule rounds. As a result, in my opinion, a card is less likely to be given if the fencer/referee feels the decision is likely to be challenged - let's face it, how many fencers who are not qualified as referees actually know the rules inside out?

For example, at Birmingham this year I was 4-1 up against a Czech fencer who shall remain nameless. He tried to 'flick' me on the arm - now whether it was just bad timing or deliberate intent, I don't know, but while no light came up, my entire arm from the wrist to just below the shoulder went numb, and I later found I was bleeding into my nice clean (well, not tooo sweaty...) plastron. Result? No card given (not even to me for grabbing my arm with my non-sword hand), I'm stuck fighting in octave for the rest of the poule and later doctor says I probably should have withdrawn after that.

Now in fairness my opponent probably would have won anyway, but I did feel a bit miffed in this case that the cards stayed firmly pocketed. And that I wasn't allowed to go and get some ice.

rory
-4th May 2008, 16:18
... complains that at Birmingham, he was hit on the wrist, drawing blood, no light came up, and no cards were awarded ...

Out of interest, under which specific card would you have liked to see him penalised?

TomA
-4th May 2008, 18:15
Out of interest, under which specific card would you have liked to see him penalised? Obviously from my perspective, given the situation (4-1 up against a significantly better fencer) I would have liked to see a red. Realistically I would have expected a yellow (t87?). Would also have expected a yellow for myself aswell for use of non-sword hand, but there you go. :)

Saxon
-4th May 2008, 19:12
Obviously from my perspective, given the situation (4-1 up against a significantly better fencer) I would have liked to see a red. Realistically I would have expected a yellow (t87?). Would also have expected a yellow for myself aswell for use of non-sword hand, but there you go. :)

A first-offence red for what? As you describe it, it doesn't sound dangerous, violent or vindictive; you yourself say you don't know whether it was bad timing (on whose part - a mistimed flick is equally as likely to be your fault as his) or deliberate. Even a yellow is far-fetched as fault would still need to be decided.

It also seems you didn't manage to claim enough injury from the incident to call the doctor, in which case the refusal of a break to get it iced seems perfectly justified.

Just because your pride (and you found out later your arm) was hurt, you think your opponent deserves a red card (and therefore the fight awarded against him) for some offence which you can't even specify.

:confused:

Australian
-4th May 2008, 19:34
Realistically I would have expected a yellow (t87?). Would also have expected a yellow for myself aswell for use of non-sword hand, but there you go. :)

You're misinterpreting and misapplying the rule. Use of non-sword arm is basically the act of pushing the blade away, and these days is penalised with a red card.

pinkelephant
-4th May 2008, 19:46
You're misinterpreting and misapplying the rule. Use of non-sword arm is basically the act of pushing the blade away, and these days is penalised with a red card.


Or indeed ATTEMPTING to push the blade away. The rule says "offensive or defensive action" - it doesn't say that action has to be successful.

TomA
-4th May 2008, 20:01
Ah, ok. I knew about the 'back-hand' parry, but thought other uses were included under use of the non-sword arm.

For future reference then, what would be the penalty (if any, and I would assume there is, perhaps wrongly) for using the non-sword hand to a) support the sword hand/arm or b) actually hold onto the same person's sword, a la medieval brawler? :confused:

TomA
-4th May 2008, 20:25
you don't know whether it was bad timing (on whose part - a mistimed flick is equally as likely to be your fault as his I think, and thought at the time, that he over-reached, as I was stepping backwards.


Even a yellow is far-fetched as fault would still need to be decided. Right, time for a bit of rules-newbie. I'm not aware whether or not there's an official FIE definition of violence, so going with what the dictionary tells me, violence is 'rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment' (obviously if there is an FIE definition, and it differs, then disregard this next bit as rubbish); Quoting the offences sheet, 'Jostling, disorderly fencing. irregular movements on the piste, hits made with violence or while falling* t.86 & 87' merit a yellow card. In this case, I would say there was a hit made with violence as there was injurious physical force. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in any part of this.


you think your opponent deserves a red card (and therefore the fight awarded against him)No, I don't. As said previously, from a purely selfish point of view, a red would have been... handy, to say the least. Not deserved.



Just because your pride was hurt Not really my pride - he was good, so I had no expectations of that fight. So just my arm. :p

pinkelephant
-4th May 2008, 21:12
Ah, ok. I knew about the 'back-hand' parry, but thought other uses were included under use of the non-sword arm.

For future reference then, what would be the penalty (if any, and I would assume there is, perhaps wrongly) for using the non-sword hand to a) support the sword hand/arm or b) actually hold onto the same person's sword, a la medieval brawler? :confused:

The first one depends on the weapon. At foil it would be covering, so yellow. At epee it's not technically an offence, but if I were refereeing I'd stop the fight and check on the injury, calling the "doctor" (where there is one) if necessary.

The second instance is t22.3 - touching/taking hold of the electrical equipment n- again yellow.

TomA
-4th May 2008, 21:20
Ok - thanks very much :)

Saxon
-4th May 2008, 21:56
...going with what the dictionary tells me, violence is 'rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment' (obviously if there is an FIE definition, and it differs, then disregard this next bit as rubbish);I don't know that there's an official FIE definition, but if you have an objection to rough or (potentially) injurious physical force, I would recommend you give up epee.


Quoting the offences sheet, 'Jostling, disorderly fencing. irregular movements on the piste, hits made with violence or while falling*
What you describe could only possibly come under the "violence" section of this rule, but that (as has been stated several times in the pages of this thread) is a subjective judgement made by the referee, in the context of what is essentially a sport where people are required to hit each other with pieces of metal, with force enough to draw blood. Often (again as stated above) the referee's judgement bears no relation to the subjective opinions of the fencers.

This doesn't mean the rule wasn't applied, just that the referee did not decide that the actions warranted a sanction.

Duncan Rowlands
-4th May 2008, 22:30
TomA; from what you describe it isn't anything that I would call 'hit with violence' or any other cardable action. Injuries do happen in fencing.

If you don't ask for the doctor & seek to continue a fight while impeded that's your call, not your opponant's issue.

Sorry, but it sounds a little like sour grapes & that you are seeking to in part blame the ref for your own errors.

TomA
-4th May 2008, 22:37
if you have an objection to rough or (potentially) injurious physical force, I would recommend you give up epee. I think everyone would have an objection to rough or potentially injurious force, that's why we don't fight naked from the waist up :whistle:


What you describe could only possibly come under the "violence" section of this rule, but that (as has been stated several times in the pages of this thread) is a subjective judgement made by the referee, I appreciate that it is a subjective judgement, but I would have thought that being able to break the skin to the point of bleeding through a CEN 1 padded glove and a CEN 2 jacket would probably constitute excessive injurious physical force with most referees. Which goes back to the point I was trying to make (which I now feel would probably have been more easily made without an example :p), that it's sometimes problematic if fencers have to referee themselves. As illustrated by all the griping I'm doing now :endworld:

pinkelephant
-4th May 2008, 22:56
I've carded a couple of fencers for hard hitting in the last 12 months. You know it when you see it.

MrPhil
-5th May 2008, 10:02
I'm sorry, but a hard hit is obvious and should be called.

Yes, black is always easy to call black when it's pitch black. It's harder when it's dull grey. Is it grey enough to be called black?

As for answering the initial question: all rules should be applied consequently and not be subject for individual "levels" and should leave as little as possible to "interpretations".
If we donš't like the rulse, we should work to change the rules, not bend them or twist them to our own personal liking.

Twisted_Sabreur
-6th May 2008, 13:41
Slight change from the hard hitting debate, taking it back to rules which should be enforced.

I was at a comp a while back where poules were called and everyone started gathering kit etc. First fight took place.

Second fight was called and one fencer (experienced top 10 fencer) didn't show up on piste. Rather than anything being done by the ref, the fencer took about 10 mins to get ready and then saunter over to the piste with a few jokes of "about time". Given he was up against a young lad who looked quite new (and was thumped in all of 1 minute) I was quite appalled.

Surely the president should have been doing something a little more active?

(No first call / time was kept)

cesh_fencing
-6th May 2008, 14:06
Surely the president should have been doing something a little more active?

Short answer - Yes.

Twisted_Sabreur
-6th May 2008, 14:08
I suppose I asked for that!

cesh_fencing
-6th May 2008, 14:51
I suppose I asked for that!

I feel that fencers can often miss announcements due to venues not having speaker systems that get to all the venue (toilets etc) and some leeway needs to be given as lower level events for people who are not intentionally being slow as to enforce the rules strictly requires the information of where a fencer should be to be communicated correctly.

On many occassions I have had to search every piste to find where I am meant to be fencing due to announcements in the well known language of Ugg for what it sounded like.

If however someone is late, then chats to their mates whilst I am waiting for them to get ready I would ensure the watch was going and card the accordingly. They usually get a move on once the first card is shown in their direction.

Foilling Around
-6th May 2008, 18:41
And then at the opposite end of the extreme a few years ago I gather that a fencer was called for a L32 quarter and he was 4th fight on. When he got to the piste he discovered that the refereee had scatched him as he was not present when called at the beginning of the 1st fight.

Now I gather that the referee was correct by the letter of the law, and the decision was upheld. The other referees were not enforcing the rules to the same and the consistency was a problem.

randomsabreur
-7th May 2008, 10:21
When competitions have poules/DE piste numbers posted more than 10 minutes before the poule is due to start, fencers may manage to get as per the rules. At present, for non FIE competitions arriving at a poule/DE fight as per the rules requires a degree of psychic knowledge of what the organisers are about to announce.

As for the referee who scratched the fencers for a L32 fight - the rules state that you have to be there 10 minutes before your fight. As each fight is deemed to take 15 minutes (FIE time between matches, he needed to be there during the 3rd fight, not before the first!

Twisted_Sabreur
-7th May 2008, 11:10
I appreciate communication of poules is not always brilliant and I do think flexibility is allowed if you can see a fencer has been looking for his/her piste (normally doesn't take 10 minutes).

But in the example I used, the fencer was sitting well within sight of all the fights happening and should have known he should have his kit on.

Everyone knows when lots of people are gathering kit etc it's either fight time or home time!

Swords Crossed
-7th May 2008, 13:33
the application of common sense when it comes to enforcing rules like this in particular (and in general) is definitely a must. At a medium sized open, where halls are cramped and noisy and announcements made on the 20 year old PA are made in the language of Ugg, a certain amount of leeway is of course necessary (like fencers being late for the first fight in a poule because they had to run around trying to find piste *&%6-teen). Further on in the round, when you'd have expected everyone to have located their piste/poule, it should be enforced more stingently.

John Rohde
-8th May 2008, 07:33
Inter alia, tannoy announcements can be clear - who, what, when, where, why, said twice, loud and clear -or they can be discreet and brief. The former tends to irritate all those not directly concerned with that announcement; the latter those who miss or hear wrongly what should concern them. At least, that's been my - limited - experience of being on either end of the process.

randomsabreur
-8th May 2008, 07:56
All the tannoy needs to say is "poules and piste for X event have been posted, would all fencers please check the list and go to their pistes, the competition (next round) will be starting in 10 minutes". No point reading entire lists of names, someone will always miss one, particularly if mispronounced, or there are 4 Brendas and 3 Hutchisons to identify...

pinkelephant
-8th May 2008, 12:21
All the tannoy needs to say is "poules and piste for X event have been posted, would all fencers please check the list and go to their pistes, the competition (next round) will be starting in 10 minutes". No point reading entire lists of names, someone will always miss one, particularly if mispronounced, or there are 4 Brendas and 3 Hutchisons to identify...

All we need now is a Brenda Hutchison...

Red
-8th May 2008, 12:33
....4 Brendas....
Sometimes all five come out to play...

John Rohde
-8th May 2008, 13:07
It helps if competitors in, say round x of Men's Epee know that the announcement is for them. That's all the "who" there needs to be but it means that others aren't panicking wondering if it was for them - and saying each element twice helps because people aren't paying attention the first time.

love2hate
-16th May 2010, 16:44
not 2 keen on hard hitting etc. bad experiences i have had. and also at bycs 2010 1 of my friends was badly injured in pools(was ran into i think) other fencer wasn't even carded! needless 2 say coach was very annoyed bout that.

Calvin
-17th May 2010, 21:32
The BYCs are many young fencers' first competition of any size, and often they don't have a coach with them when they go, nor any real base of support. When a young fencer and his/her family/parents go to something like the BYCs, to be met with unforgiving cards etc. from the word 'go' would be, well, pretty intimidating and certainly less-than-pleasant. The same goes for other local and junior competitions. I think I like the system that I seem to remember being at the BYCs last year: no cards for weapon failure in the poules, but they were checked. I think this encouraged an easier atmosphere for the newer and younger competitors.

The BYCs this year provided a weapons self-checking table with test boxes, wires and epee gauges. There was an armourer who was more than pleased to repair weapons for just the cost of parts (after gently taking the piss because you'd turned up to a major competition without checking your kit beforehand) and there was a large, well stocked LP shop. It takes either complete unawareness of the rules and procedures (in which case how have you got to the BYCs?) or a certain arrogance to turn up on piste with faulty kit.

IMO the best refs are those who modify the way in which they apply the rules depending on the level of competition. Eg. I've seen turning dealt with at a novice event by explaining why it matters but not applying a card in the first instance, on the other hand at an LPJS it simply gets carded.

pinkelephant
-17th May 2010, 22:36
For things like turning and covering, if you don't card, you are penalising the other fencer. It HAS to be done in the interests of fair play.

Suzie
-18th May 2010, 09:54
I think it's better to teach the younger ones to follow the rules to the letter, as long as there's also help provided to ensure they don't get caught out, like having a self-check table and a helpful armourer available. Granted, a lot of the little things are relatively harmless and won't make much of a difference to let slide, but if you let one off on something and pull the other up for something else, then how do you justify random judgement calls on what rules will and won't count today? Especially with younger or newer fencers, if they feel that they lost out because their opponent was given leeway with the rules, they're not going to be encouraged to keep up when unintentional cheating is allowed, and those who get away with it because "they're only young" or "it's only a minor tournament" or whatever will think they're doing right and try it another time, and be annoyed that they do get carded. Consistency is key, anything else just frustrated people.

Only times I could understand bending the rules is for the times to be at your poule when it's a smaller tournament that's requiring participants to ref: if someone's late to their piste because there was literally no one else to ref another match, then that's forgiveable. Granted, it's a problem with organisation, and hopefully shouldn't happen all that often, but I've seen it a few times, and in every case it was completely unavoidable and the fencer in question was putting the needs of the overall tournament ahead of his own, which, while mildly annoying for the fencer left waiting on him for a few minutes, is good for pretty much everyone else. In cases where there's a problem like a lack of refs or as mentioned crummy (or missing!) PA systems, then there has to be some allowances made, and efforts made to work around them (such as trying to track down missing fencers who might not have heard the announcement, or gotten lost in a sea of unmarked pistes, or who might be desperate to hand over reffing duties but can't exactly walk off to find a replacement).

JHC
-20th May 2010, 15:32
The BYCs this year provided a weapons self-checking table with test boxes, wires and epee gauges. There was an armourer who was more than pleased to repair weapons for just the cost of parts (after gently taking the piss because you'd turned up to a major competition without checking your kit beforehand) and there was a large, well stocked LP shop. It takes either complete unawareness of the rules and procedures (in which case how have you got to the BYCs?) or a certain arrogance to turn up on piste with faulty kit.

IMO the best refs are those who modify the way in which they apply the rules depending on the level of competition. Eg. I've seen turning dealt with at a novice event by explaining why it matters but not applying a card in the first instance, on the other hand at an LPJS it simply gets carded.

In the poule that my son fenced at the BYCs this year and in his poule at the Warwick LPJS where they did weapon testing, virtually each match was held up because of a weapon or wire failure to the extent that it probably took a third as long to complete as it should have done. Needless to say most didn't have a spare weapon to hand either.

Whilst he was in the youngest age group and the children at that age can't really be expected to know how to set the weapons I would have thought that the coaches should be starting to teach them things like this and making sure that the weapons and wires are working before competitions as it is all part of fencing.

In one match he actually started 2-0 up because of the number of times that his opponent's weapon failed and that boy had his coach with him!

Also it makes you wonder what the state of the weapons are like in competitions where they don't test them.

Perhaps it should be compulsory to test the weapons in all competitions?

Duncan Rowlands
-20th May 2010, 16:47
Perhaps it should be compulsory to test the weapons in all competitions?

Technically it is, unless the organisers decide not to.

cesh_fencing
-20th May 2010, 17:48
Technically it is, unless the organisers decide not to.

At the Elite Epee Serior Events we test from first round and card straight away if there is kit failure.

For the Junior Series we have a system where (as I do not personally have enough weapons for all fencers borrowing kit to have 2 epees so some are shared), though we do weight and travel test from first round (and I test all before the event), we state in the event particulars that testing will occur (to ensure noone benefits from light points), however cards will not be given for this particular offence. As such everyone in the series is dealt with consistantly.

Other cards are given as per normal rules, but referees are asked to explain clearly why they are being given so the kids understand.

It is very important that event organisers state exactly how the event is going to be treated in this regard.

3 Card Trick
-20th May 2010, 20:31
I agree with Cesh. A fencer who commits a fault should be penalised, but we must ensure that young fencers have things explained to them calmly and clearly.

Having material available to fencers and parents helps to ensure that everyone knows where they stand and don't feel put up

RiledRifler
-10th June 2010, 09:22
Perhaps I haven't been at pistes where there are referees that enforce it but I haven't really seen hard hitting enforced.

Even the best of fencers occasionally gives out a scorcher of a hit and some experienced fencers seem to hit as hard as some of the newest fencers albiet in a more directed way.

I'm just going to make an explanation together as to why cards may not be given due to it being somewhat redundant for the higher levels of fencing and somewhat ignored for the lower levels for the sake of encouragement.

Let me draw out four examples of some obvious and less obvious cases of hard hitting.

1)
For instance, one fencer charges forward and at the last moment, flunges bodily through the air at the defender who throws their torso backwards so they are unbalanced (though not to the point of falling) so that they can gain as much time and distance as possible. They manage to parry and reposte but due to the combination of intercept speed and shortness of distance, gives an almighty thwack.

I can't imagine penalising the defender for such a blow as the attacker was, I think, mostly to blame for their mistimed action. In such circumstances the defender did what they could to adjust the distance and to parry-reposte (since they had no option to do anything else) and after all is done, despite their rapid movement backwards, they are still nose to nose with their opponent so there wasn't much of a way to avoid the clunk as they moved their arm from a parrying position to a reposting position.

If there were actual corps-a-corps, the attacker could be carded although with hard-hitting, the president only has the option of carding the person who made the hit.

2)
In more controlled conditions where the attacker made a textbook attack with correct timing and distance but the defender took a wild parry and raised their hand above their head for the reposte, then I would think the defender should be carded.

3)
As previously mentioned in the thread, an attacker who attempts to bash through a parry with force should, by the rulebook, also be carded.

4)
And then of course what sometimes develops where a fencer who has been continually hit too hard (and the opponent not been carded) decides to teach their opponent what it like to receive a painful hit.

The first two examples are group 1 offences as there was no conscious decision by a fencer to hit hard. The first situtation was circumstantial and could arguably be ignored. The second was due to bad technique and should be carded.

The third example, the fencer made a possibly conscious decision to hit hard; I say possibly because it is not possible for a referee to know their thoughts. Perhaps the hard hitting could be due to bad technique - the fencer becoming too stressed and this tension leading to the improper technique. So in this case, it could be a group one or group two offence.

Regarding the forth example where a fencer seeks revenge, then this is quite obviously a group four (black cardable) offence. Although if the referee has been reluctant to card for the previous violent actions, they would not be likely to card this one either.

So the fourth situation it would seem to be also the fault of the referee for allowing a situation to develop by not carding earlier.

The third situation is a tricky one that could be interpreted as a group one or a group two.

The second situation is the clearest and is a yellow card for bad technique.

The first situation is technically a yellow card also but there wasn't much that could be done to avoid it.

Now, as I said at the beginning, I haven't seen referees carding for any of these situations. It might be argued that this is due to lack of trainng or co-ordination between referees or perhaps due to the fact that most referees tend to be fencing in the same competition and don't wish to upset their fellows lest their fellows upset them when it is their turn to referee.

From the examples I've given, it does seem a better argument to say that it is the nature of fencing that causes hard hits.

Newcomers to the sport do tend to hit hard as they are still developing their technique. It has been said elsewhere on this thread that such fencers are rarely carded because it would discourage them. The second, third and fourth examples are all caused by bad technique.

In the first example where a fencer flunged with little timing and distance, they did so, not from poor technique but from excellent technique.

In order to win a point, it is natural to create a situation where the opponent is given the least warning, to have the least distance to give the least reaction time, the greatest acceleration and as much misdirection as possible so that the opponent reacts in a manner that will be to their disadvantage.

In such situations, the risk of something going wrong increases which is recognised by the fact that increased protection must be worn at high levels of competition where people are much better at creating stressful situations for their opponents.

So the conclusion would seem to be that cards should be given to newer fencers for poor technique, deliberate or otherwise and they are not because people don't wish to discourage them.

Deliberately good technique by the best of fencers that results in a hard hit, should be carded and isn't because it is an unavoidable consequence of higher competition.

Could this be why I see no cards being given? I'm sure people can point out several cases where they have seen cards for hard hitting, and individuals may maintain that they themselves hand out cards each time but generally, it would seem that cards for hard hitting are rarely given.

Would my little conclusion above be a good explanation or have I over simplified the matter? I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts.

cesh_fencing
-10th June 2010, 09:48
Started reading the above post and fell asleep, then could not work out where I got to and gave up.

General rule, if it is deliberate attempt to hurt someone or reckless so hurting someone, hard hitting should be carded (even if due to bad technique).

If it is due to your opponent charging straight onto you point, it is their own fault and should not.

funkygibbon
-10th June 2010, 10:59
Fencing is a combat sport. Sometimes it hurts. Sometimes people yell and shout and get agitated. But at the end we shake hands and life goes on with a few extra bruises.

It would be terrible if every time a "hard hit" resulted in a card. I don't know about other weapons, but at sabre most fencers will acknowledge a hard riposte with a hand up and a "sorry mate". Deliberate brutality is different, and I've never seen anyone win through brutality - it is dificult to fence well and be "brutal" as you are slower, make bigger movements etc.

As Tigger put it the last time hard hitting came up - if you don't like it, take up tiddlywinks.

RiledRifler
-10th June 2010, 12:34
Started reading the above post and fell asleep, then could not work out where I got to and gave up.


Yes, it did seem to be a bit longer than I thought it was. It's difficult to get an idea across without some justification behind it though. :)

SAD
-10th June 2010, 16:57
There is a difference between getting hit good and proper and somebody slapping the ~~~~ out of you and Iam sorry to say there are a couple of fencers out there that are encouraged by their coach to fence that way. I would imagine it is this type of fencer that is really being talked about.

I would love to know what the procedure is if I feel that I have been hit harder than neccessary and the ref has done nothing about it?

please somebody

John Rohde
-10th June 2010, 17:06
Hits made late/out of time, hits made with the forte, hits made with the arm rather than the forte. Only the first is likely to get you if you are any good.
A good hit can sting but at sabre at least, that's always been the case and is part of the game. Toughness and courage are virtues.

Duncan Rowlands
-10th June 2010, 18:21
I would love to know what the procedure is if I feel that I have been hit harder than neccessary and the ref has done nothing about it?

please somebody

If the referee doesn't think that you've been hit hard then you haven't been. Your opinion is immaterial.

If it was anything else then some fencers would deliberately act up & make out that a hit was heavier than it really was to try to get their opponent carded (this happens a bit now, but would be much worse if a fencer could contest the referee's opinion).

In the situation you describe the only option is to man up and take it or use your technical ability to parry or to hit your opponent and get out of the way.

In sabre at least most fencers consider the vast majority of potentially heavy hits they receive as merely being 'robust'. They rotate their shoulders a bit, accept their opponent's raised hand and get on with the next hit.

miraberis
-10th June 2010, 21:01
If the referee doesn't think that you've been hit hard then you haven't been. Your opinion is immaterial.

If it was anything else then some fencers would deliberately act up & make out that a hit was heavier than it really was to try to get their opponent carded (this happens a bit now, but would be much worse if a fencer could contest the referee's opinion).

In the situation you describe the only option is to man up and take it or use your technical ability to parry or to hit your opponent and get out of the way.

In sabre at least most fencers consider the vast majority of potentially heavy hits they receive as merely being 'robust'. They rotate their shoulders a bit, accept their opponent's raised hand and get on with the next hit.

Why would you word it as "If the referee doesn't think that you've been hit hard then you haven't been."? That's obviously complete rubbish. It's fair to say it doesn't matter what the fencers think and only the referee's opinion matters when it comes to issuing cards. It's also fair to say that just because the referee doesn't see fit to issue a card doesn't mean the throbbing pain in your arm is a delusion.

I thoroughly agree with the rest of the post, though. Unless you really feel like your opponent is out to get you (and you'd better be pretty certain if you're going to make something of it), just shut up and get on with the fight. If you don't like being hit hard, practise not being hit at all... or join a junior session where they use foam weapons.

pinkelephant
-10th June 2010, 21:10
Why would you word it as "If the referee doesn't think that you've been hit hard then you haven't been."?

Because it's a question of fact, not interpretation of a rule. You cannot appeal a referee's decision which is a question of fact (well, you can, but your appeal will get turned down and you'll get a yellow card for unjustified appeal.

miraberis
-10th June 2010, 22:19
The "fact" is that the referee has decided the action does not warrant a card and this is not debatable, agreed. It is a matter of opinion, however, whether the hit was hard or not, and you're perfectly within your rights to disagree with the referee about it. You cannot argue with them (or at least your arguments will be futile and possibly penalised), but you can disagree.

The wording makes it sound as if you should pretend your arm isn't stinging and the next day you should be wondering how you got that nasty bruise because it couldn't possibly have been from that hit because the referee said it wasn't hard and didn't issue a card. This isn't 1984 - there are no fencing thought police! Can we not exaggerate things? It doesn't help your point, the substance of which I agree with.

RX
-10th June 2010, 22:46
I find the hard hitting debate esoteric when my gripe seems much more basic. I refuse to question referee decisions with my offspring on the simple premise that if the fencer did not make the action clear to the referee then do it better next time (sabre obviously).

Inconsistent refereeing is a part of the development of both referee and fencer in many ways which on balance are all good in the medium term or long term........BUT

What do u do wen the refereeing is blatently unfair. By which I mean an action consistently not awarded in your favour is awarded against u. I watched offspring fence very we'll only to lose 15 14 as she only got 14 one lights! Same ref same oponant last time she won 15 14 because she got 15 one lights. Yep in last two fights of very high standard ref awarded every double hit absolutely consistently against offspring.

Yes she did challenge final point on last fight but I am very reluctant to encourage any escalation but serious points and relative positions have been at stake. My instinct is to let fencer deal with it but again the issue is not easy for kids.

Advice?

J_D
-10th June 2010, 23:28
My reading of the rules indicates that offences occur when a hit is made with the guard (Sabre only); with violence; a D
dangerous, violent or vindictive action, blow with the guard or pommel.

There is no actual mention in the rules of "hard hitting" and this cannot therefore be an offence.

I have be on the receiving end of very fast ripostes at sabre, and yes, these can be painful. They are, however, perfectly valid hits and are not violent actions.

There is a real difference, and I think this is most apparent in Sabre. The key element that I see is that most "hard hits" tend to break the attack and that referees can more reasonably penalise the offender be correctly difining their attack as having been broken. Rather than a yellow card, this will see the defender gaining priority, and hence the point, rather than giving an attack incorrectly; annulling the point; and ssuing a yellow card. The result ought to be that the malfeasant corrects their attack and hits start to be delivered correctly...even if painfully: so learn to parry better!

RiledRifler
-11th June 2010, 08:03
What do u do wen the refereeing is blatently unfair. By which I mean an action consistently not awarded in your favour is awarded against u.

Yep in last two fights of very high standard ref awarded every double hit absolutely consistently against offspring.


This is a common frustration leading from a misconception that many people have. From a logical point of view, if there are 10 double hits caused by, say, a step step lunge, you might assume that five are points for the left and five for the right.

Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. The two fencers although executing an indentical attack, are not moving in perfect unison. One fencer will be moving their feet or their arm slightly before the other.

The best referees can spot the tiniest differences and make a judgement on whose attack was first and whether the attack was executed correctly. In fact, if they couldn't do this, they wouldn't be the good referees that they are.

They are most likely to award a double hit always in the same direction because it is the same two fencers executing their technique in the same way. If one fencer has better technique than the other, they will always get the point.




Yes she did challenge final point on last fight but I am very reluctant to encourage any escalation but serious points and relative positions have been at stake.

Advice?

If your offspring doesn't understand why a point is against them, they should not remain silent. As a fencer you have the right to (politely) ask the referee to describe the action. At that point, your referee will then describe what factor (late feet/arm, incorrect attack) made their decision in favour of the opponent. This isn't arguing or challenging the referee - you are merely requesting clarification.

The second piece of advice would be for your offspring to stop whatever action is being awarded against them and do something else!

John Rohde
-11th June 2010, 08:06
Yes she did challenge final point on last fight but I am very reluctant to encourage any escalation but serious points and relative positions have been at stake. My instinct is to let fencer deal with it but again the issue is not easy for kids.

Advice?

The fencer could ask the referee to phrase the point - so they have to be explicit about why they supposedly awarded it; after the match you could ask the referee, very, very politely to help you by telling you why they awarded priority against; The fencer could ask for the DT and ask for the referee to be observed.
Now and then refereeing is ill-informed, arbitrary, careless or biassed. More often it is less than perfect or just doesn't correspond with our own take on the rules or how we see or imagine what we are doing. It's in the nature of a sport in which an human arbiter plays such a large part. The cure is normally to stick at it until you get some credit for being a good fencer, you become a better fencer, your face fits and you get onto stages where you have better referees. Short of fencing epee, there's not much else to be done.

Gin Lover
-11th June 2010, 10:50
The comment above about getting a referee observed by DT is not correct. The only thing a fencer can do is appeal to DT against the incorrect application of the rules as Pink Elephant says earlier. They cannot question what the referee says is a point of fact, except where there is video refereeing.

In terms of phrasing the action you can ask the referee to do so, but they are only obliged to so in terms of indicating who made the attack, whether there was a parry etc. They do not have to the tell fencer exactly what they were doing wrong as this is tantamount to coaching and could be seen as the referee giving an unfair advantage to one of the fencers.

John Rohde
-11th June 2010, 11:05
The comment above about getting a referee observed by DT is not correct. The only thing a fencer can do is appeal to DT against the incorrect application of the rules as Pink Elephant says earlier. They cannot question what the referee says is a point of fact, except where there is video refereeing.

In terms of phrasing the action you can ask the referee to do so, but they are only obliged to so in terms of indicating who made the attack, whether there was a parry etc. They do not have to the tell fencer exactly what they were doing wrong as this is tantamount to coaching and could be seen as the referee giving an unfair advantage to one of the fencers.

Calling DT over offers reassurance that the rules are being applied correctly in a situation where aggrieved parties might not be sure of the rules themselves.
Referees shouldn't be asked to coach but can be asked to phrase it so you know if your action is incorrect, short, a remise, etc.. That all helps correction and also means the referee has to think about their phrasing - which not every single referee one has met has done.
Asking the referee for advice *afterwards* is what I suggested and I repeat that it should be done very, very politely and if the conversation proves to be unwelcome, should desist immediately.
Common sense, really.

RX
-11th June 2010, 11:44
Thank you for all your comments. The referee was gently spoken to on the first occasion by one of our national sabre coaches. On the second a well respected and completely independent sabreur felt that seven of the double calls were clearly wrong. I accept it is the nature of our sport to have inconsistencies and would not bleat about that. I think the difficulty with this example was that it did not matter how the attacks were varied as every double hit was awarded against. Requesting clarification of the point is generally avoided precisely because it could irritate the referee at a point where the match is not yet lost and as stated the intelligent solution is to do something different! Ultimately of course you run out of time.

I think that offspring has reached the point where if serious points were at stake she would ask for an alternative referee. However I just feel that this is really quite a big fuss to make. As has been pointed out to me, I am not the fencer...and they aint my points!

RX
-11th June 2010, 11:49
As has been said. Its a case of get over it and get on with it ....but ....at least I feel better for having expressed my frustration (as a generally well behaved parent forced by daugher to observe without interfering!)

Cloudy
-11th June 2010, 12:31
2)
In more controlled conditions where the attacker made a textbook attack with correct timing and distance but the defender took a wild parry and raised their hand above their head for the reposte, then I would think the defender should be carded.


I think it depends on your definition of a wild parry. If I'm fencing epee and have some giant bearing down on me (I'm 5 foot 3, everyone over 5" 10' is a giant to me), and I'm forced into taking an overhead parry, it's not going to look pretty, but it could very easily be a perfectly correct action with no more force than necessary.

pinkelephant
-11th June 2010, 17:00
I think that offspring has reached the point where if serious points were at stake she would ask for an alternative referee. However I just feel that this is really quite a big fuss to make. As has been pointed out to me, I am not the fencer...and they aint my points!

You can't ask for an alternative referee.

pinkelephant
-11th June 2010, 17:06
My reading of the rules indicates that offences occur when a hit is made with the guard (Sabre only); with violence; a D
dangerous, violent or vindictive action, blow with the guard or pommel.

There is no actual mention in the rules of "hard hitting" and this cannot therefore be an offence.



A hit made with violence IS hard hitting - Group 1 yellow. Dangerous, violent or vindictive action is Group 2 red.

TomA
-11th June 2010, 17:48
The comment above about getting a referee observed by DT is not correct. The only thing a fencer can do is appeal to DT against the incorrect application of the rules as Pink Elephant says earlier.Just as a note to those who are unaware, an unsuccessful appeal against a decision results in a card (Group 2 off the top of my head). It's not like video where you can use an appeal you know will be unsuccessful to gain a quick break!

pinkelephant
-11th June 2010, 17:57
Just as a note to those who are unaware, an unsuccessful appeal against a decision results in a card (Group 2 off the top of my head). It's not like video where you can use an appeal you know will be unsuccessful to gain a quick break!

It's Group 1 - yellow.

TomA
-11th June 2010, 18:17
It's Group 1 - yellow. Fair enough.

RX
-11th June 2010, 20:51
You can't ask for an alternative referee.

I didn't know that. I thought you could make that request to DT prior to the start of a bout.

Foilling Around
-11th June 2010, 21:24
You can't ask for an alternative referee.

Mavis, of course you can ask for an alternative referee, you just can't insist on it!! You can ask for a brand new Ferrari, but your not going to get one!!

Unfortunately your chances of getting a referee changed depends on who you are. However your chances of getting a new Ferrari are zero no matter who you are.

miraberis
-12th June 2010, 10:46
an unsuccessful appeal against a decision results in a card

I thought it was an "unjustified appeal" that was cardable. Is this synonymous with "unsuccessful"?
All this business about "point of fact" and whatever the one that isn't "point of fact" is called really confuses me, actually. Can someone refer me to a bit of the rules that will clarify this?
Also, what's an appeal? If you just say "Oh, I thought such and such was the rule - am I wrong?" or "Did I really do that? Are you sure?" should you expect to be carded? Or do you have to use a more charged phrase like "That should have been my point!"?

TomA
-12th June 2010, 11:37
I thought it was an "unjustified appeal" that was cardable. Is this synonymous with "unsuccessful"?If you make an unsuccessful appeal to DT it is considered unjustified.


All this business about "point of fact" and whatever the one that isn't "point of fact" is called really confuses me, actually.Basically if you disagree with what the referee saw you have no grounds for appeal - this is a matter of 'fact'. If you disagree with how the referee applied the rules or indeed their knowledge of the rules (have they made something up or forgotten a rule) then, providing you are right, DT should overturn the decision.

For example, if you step off the back of the piste with one foot (not a problem) and the referee calls halt for going off the back, you may or may not be able to appeal. If he says you stepped off the back with both feet then you are scuppered - this is what the referee says he saw and therefore it is a point of fact unless there is video replay. If however he says you stepped off the back with one foot and therefore take a penalty hit he is wrong on a point of rules and therefore you can and should appeal.

Basically if it's your word against the referee's as to what happened, DT will support the referee. If you accept the referee's description of the facts but disagree with how he has applied the rules to them, then there's a chance of getting a decision overturned.


Also, what's an appeal? If you just say "Oh, I thought such and such was the rule - am I wrong?" or "Did I really do that? Are you sure?" should you expect to be carded? Or do you have to use a more charged phrase like "That should have been my point!"?An appeal means calling DT. Otherwise it's arguing.

miraberis
-12th June 2010, 12:47
If you make an unsuccessful appeal to DT it is considered unjustified.
...
Basically if it's your word against the referee's as to what happened, DT will support the referee. If you accept the referee's description of the facts but disagree with how he has applied the rules to them, then there's a chance of getting a decision overturned.

An appeal means calling DT. Otherwise it's arguing.

Aha, thank-you, that seems nice and clear cut. Examples also help! Feel much more in the know now.

mendacious dog
-12th June 2010, 22:09
If your offspring doesn't understand why a point is against them, they should not remain silent. As a fencer you have the right to (politely) ask the referee to describe the action. At that point, your referee will then describe what factor (late feet/arm, incorrect attack) made their decision in favour of the opponent. This isn't arguing or challenging the referee - you are merely requesting clarification.

Hmmmm. Just to be clear, as a fencer you have the right to (politely) ask the referee to phrase the action. If a referee then tells you that you that it is 'attack from the left' for example, you shouldn't really ask him why the other guy got the hit and you didnt.

Lets say, for instance, that you have a habit of starting your attack, then suddenly bringing your sword hand up to your right ear before you make the final hit. Obviously an incorrect action, and the referee should say something along the lines of 'non-correct, attack from the left' or whatnot. But, if he then tells you exactly what you did wrong, you will probably stop doing it and it may change the outcome of the bout. That's somewhat unfair on your opponent, who has spotted a gap in your technique and has the chance to exploit it.

So, my advice (as others have alluded to above) is that you can ask the referee what happened in the hit as often as you like. S/he will reply using the phrases approved by the FIE. That's it. Anything else is generosity on the referee's part, and a bonus - not an inalienable right!

:dogs:

Woof

Cheetara
-13th June 2010, 13:08
As far as hard hitting goes. Some fencers - generally beginners/young ones - consistently hit too hard because they think bigger actions are quicker. Sometimes being warned/carded/told off by someone external to their own club helps them. Plus it might possibly give some relief to their clubmates who are generally on the receiving end at training... I know this is the coach's job, but having something pointed out by someone who doesn't know you can sometimes get through a bit more.

RiledRifler
-14th June 2010, 08:57
But, if [the referee] then tells you exactly what you did wrong, you will probably stop doing it and it may change the outcome of the bout. That's somewhat unfair on your opponent, who has spotted a gap in your technique and has the chance to exploit it.


I wouldn't think fairness to your opponent has nothing to do with it.

If my opponent discovers that my flank parries are weak, they will exploit it. Knowing this, I will adjust in some way to perhaps lay a trap. You can't say either of us are being unfair to each other for the knowledge we have gained!

With asking the referee to phrase the action; this is the right of a fencer to ask what factors the referee is considering when making a decision. It is nothing to do with fairness to know the parameters to which you must fence to.

Duncan Rowlands
-14th June 2010, 09:17
With asking the referee to phrase the action; this is the right of a fencer to ask what factors the referee is considering when making a decision.

No such right exists. All the referee is obliged to do is phrase the action using the official phrases (attack, parry, reposte, remise, hit, point etc).

The referee does not have to, and generally should not, explain the detail of the actions performed as this is (as MD said) tantermount to coaching.

If you believe that a fencer does have a right to ask for such information please dig out your rule book and quote what rule gives a fencer this right. I don't know of any such rule.

RiledRifler
-14th June 2010, 10:05
No such right exists. All the referee is obliged to do is phrase the action using the official phrases (attack, parry, reposte, remise, hit, point etc).

The referee does not have to, and generally should not, explain the detail of the actions performed as this is (as MD said) tantermount to coaching.

If you believe that a fencer does have a right to ask for such information please dig out your rule book and quote what rule gives a fencer this right. I don't know of any such rule.

Looking through the BFA pdf rulebook (An excellent suggestion. Thank you Duncan.), I could not find the rule. I was about to post a correction to my previous posts saying that the only right a fencer had was to ask how much time was left.

I noticed that the rulebook said that there was no right even to ask for a repeat of the official phrasing. This I felt was a little odd.

Either I had somehow skipped the section about asking a referee for a phrasing, my memory was at fault or perhaps the rules had changed and I had failed to notice this particular change.

Looking at previous year's versions of the rules, trying to identify the change, I discovered the section.

"3. The fencers may politely ask the Referee for a more complete analysis of the fencing phrase."

right at the bottom of, "Figure 3. Referee signals and commands"

Looking again at the most recent version of the rules, I noticed the same rule but instead of being written into the rulebook via a keyboard, it had been scanned in from a photocopy so the words were tiny and almost illegible.

They were however exactly the same as the rule from previous years.

So, I'm sorry to point this out; it would seem that a fencer does have the right to ask for a phrasing and as the rulebook says, this is a "more complete analysis of the fencing phrase". So, more complete than the official fencing phrases (attack, parry, reposte, remise, hit, point etc).

I would imagine a more complete analysis to be something on the lines of "when you both began your step lunges, you did not extend your arm till the lunge and your opponent began extension on the step.".

Not coaching (I would think) but a description of the facts that contributed to the call that was made. Would this be a fair comment?

Duncan Rowlands
-14th June 2010, 10:37
So, I'm sorry to point this out; it would seem that a fencer does have the right to ask for a phrasing and as the rulebook says, this is a "more complete analysis of the fencing phrase". So, more complete than the official fencing phrases (attack, parry, reposte, remise, hit, point etc).

I would imagine a more complete analysis to be something on the lines of "when you both began your step lunges, you did not extend your arm till the lunge and your opponent began extension on the step."

Sorry, your imagination runs slightly too far.

A more complete analysis still only uses the official phrases. An example is:

Situation: Fencer A attacks, there are several blade contacts and eventually two lights.

Referee's initial call: "Attack, parry, riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B)

Fencer A, believing that he paried B's riposte, asks politely for a full phrasing.

Referee's final call: "Attack, parry, riposte, parry, counter-riposte, parry, counter riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B)

or possibly: "Attack, parry, riposte, parry, counter-riposte, no, remise of riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B) [subsequent remise of the counter-riposte is out of time and not mentioned]

This is a more complete analysis of the phrase, but doesn't go into the fine detail of who did what to whom.

RiledRifler
-14th June 2010, 11:13
Thank you. I see the difference of interpretation of the rule through your clear example.

First question would be to ask where the best place to seek official interpretations of the rules? I don't think the forum is the best place for this. Is there a refereeing document that expands upon the rulebook that could be used to ensure all referees use the same interpretations?

The interpretation I described, far from being something I conjured up in my own imagination appears to be applied incredibly commonly in every competition I have seen in British fencing tournaments, from county competitions, right up to the National Championship finals.

I'm not arguing with the interpretation you have given. I'm not arguing that you are wrong. It is perfectly sensible and logically equal to the one that I gave.

Where do you receive confirmation of legitimate interpretations and how are (how should) these be passed onto the multitude of referees that may not be currently adhering to such a standard?

Obviously having a rulebook to hand is not enough.

UglyBug
-14th June 2010, 12:47
Riled,

You hit the nail on the head - how do we get consistent application of all these things?

Referee education is an obvious response - not only how do we get those messages out, but how are people encouraged to be receptive to them? Not a whole lot of people want to be referees and those doing it are often pressganged into it, maybe as an extension of self-refereeing.

It is something that we know needs to be addressed... how do we do it, without increasing obligations on an already overworked, undersubscribed refereeing cadre?

AND... how do we encourage more people to become referees? There seem to be a lot more people who think they know how it should be done than there are people who will actually do it! Why the gap?

ALL ideas welcome

Anarch
-14th June 2010, 14:00
Riled,
It is something that we know needs to be addressed... how do we do it, without increasing obligations on an already overworked, undersubscribed refereeing cadre?

AND... how do we encourage more people to become referees? There seem to be a lot more people who think they know how it should be done than there are people who will actually do it! Why the gap?

ALL ideas welcome

Since you asked... And I'm throwing ideas out without thought for the consequences so this could all be rubbish and have nasty side effects. (and yes I know I'm using outdated terms for the reffing levels).

- Make it easy to become a qualified ref. I.e. qualified at what is currently county or regional level.

- Make it obvious as to how to become a national level ref.

- Depending on budget subsidise a ref at competitions provided they offer training. I.e. take the training to the fencers rather than expect them to come to the training. (I'm really taking about update training here rather than ab initio)

- Have an expiry period on reffing qualifications; to stop people failing to keep up with rules changes.

- Encourage comps to offer discounts to people reffing, and get them to tell the refs committee about who took up the offer.

- A blog by the refs committee on rules changes, contentious issues or particular bit of observed refereeing (e.g. "Saw some good/bad refereeing the other day...").

- Better tracking of who refs and when (I'm managing to avoid being on the refs register even though I'll always ref at the comps I attend - NB this is partially intentional as I don't have the time to ref much).

kalivor
-14th June 2010, 14:25
Referee education is an obvious response - not only how do we get those messages out, but how are people encouraged to be receptive to them? Not a whole lot of people want to be referees and those doing it are often pressganged into it, maybe as an extension of self-refereeing.

It is something that we know needs to be addressed... how do we do it, without increasing obligations on an already overworked, undersubscribed refereeing cadre?

AND... how do we encourage more people to become referees? There seem to be a lot more people who think they know how it should be done than there are people who will actually do it! Why the gap?

ALL ideas welcome

Pressganged? Outside of self-refereed events, the pressgang to get people involved seems rather light.

My ideas, for what they're worth:

#1: Have a program in place to bring referees along. At present, the BF website does not have a referee page that I can find. There should be one, and it should be easily found from the home page.

That page should outline the BF program for referee development. That program should not just be a series of courses and tests, but should include mentoring and clear domestic indicators of a referee's progress.

Mentoring:
Are senior referees encouraged to act as mentors to newer referees?
Are they encouraged to speak to those fencers who seem to referee well in "self-refereed" scenarios, and try to bring them into the refereeing ranks?
Do senior referees talk to junior referees after they have reffed bouts that have stretched their ability, to reinforce the positive and explore better ways of managing the piste/positioning themselves/et cetera?

Progress:
There is a huge stress on the "FIE referee" in the UK, which does not reflect the average fencer. Most people on this board are not concerned with their FIE ranking, for example, but with their domestic ranking.

Non-FIE referees should have domestic rankings as well, and they should mean something -- perhaps be indicative of the NIF of a tournament at which they would be considered competent to referee the final.

This gives those referees who only care about a limited remit targets to which to develop themselves. They want to be able to referee the final of an event with a 50 NIF, or something along those lines.

Most members of British Fencing do not have international goals; local referees should be given goals to aim for that they care about. Once they are in the system, they can be pushed towards other goals once they are ready -- if it is even necessary to do so at all.


#2: Reward referees.

I like my job, but I wouldn't do it for free.

I just read this:

Some accommodation costs will be available to those travelling a considerable distance but we ask that some costs be absorbed if you are accompanying competitive fencers.

This is not asking me to do it for free, it's asking me to PAY to referee ... assuming that I happen to accompany a competitive fencer or two. Not that fencing is a small community where that would be the default.

This is backwards to what we should be wanting in terms of referee compensation -- the easiest way to turn fencers into referees is to let them cover their fencing costs via refereeing.

Essentially, organisers should say this:
"Dear fencers, we are scheduling Men's and Women's events on separate days. If you are willing to referee your weapon on the day you are not fencing, we will cover your transportation costs, your entry fee, and one night's accommodation. If more fencers take up this offer than we have spaces for referees, selections will be made on the basis of refereeing qualifications. We will let you know if you have been chosen as a referee by X DATE"

I've seen the point made on this board that referees should be refereeing for the love of it. That's great, but it does not get people involved. If you want people to be involved, bribe them. Or, at the very least compensate them.

Or just cover their expenses.

Additionally, I feel that British Fencing -- as the organisation looking to develop referees -- should be setting the standard for referee compensation. When the governing body expresses a view that officials should not be paid it sets the tone for how much we're worth to everybody else.

Compensation also helps to make the concept of sub-FIE refereeing goals work. If there is a shortage of referees, and no compensation (ie, benefit) for going through the process of qualifying to be a referee -- assuming you have no desire to referee internationally -- why would you bother?

John Rohde
-14th June 2010, 14:27
In the original or the more complete phrasing there might be such stuff as, Attack short!, or, Attack incorrect!, for which there are calls signals in the rulebook IIRC. That by itself should tell the fencer, to a considerable extent, what he/she is doing wrong in the referee's eyes.

miraberis
-14th June 2010, 16:51
Sorry, your imagination runs slightly too far.

A more complete analysis still only uses the official phrases. An example is:

Situation: Fencer A attacks, there are several blade contacts and eventually two lights.

Referee's initial call: "Attack, parry, riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B)

Fencer A, believing that he paried B's riposte, asks politely for a full phrasing.

Referee's final call: "Attack, parry, riposte, parry, counter-riposte, parry, counter riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B)

or possibly: "Attack, parry, riposte, parry, counter-riposte, no, remise of riposte, hit, point" (to fencer B) [subsequent remise of the counter-riposte is out of time and not mentioned]

This is a more complete analysis of the phrase, but doesn't go into the fine detail of who did what to whom.

So the accepted procedure is:
-Phrase the first action and last action
-Request made for more complete analysis
-Completely phrase the whole point
-If they don't get it from that then tough
?

I would have thought that a ref who went to an FIE event and couldn't be bothered to include counter-ripostes or remises in their phrasing without being prompted would end up being black-listed from future events. I'm quite shocked if that's really what they do!

I can sympathise with the view that a description of what happened in normal language could effectively be coaching, but if asked why, for example, they didn't have priority when they thought they attacked could you at least define an attack without making yourself unpopular with the opponent?

Perhaps if refs completely phrase the point from beginning to end the "request for more complete analysis" part could be removed, thereby removing any confusion on this point?

Anarch
-14th June 2010, 17:06
Perhaps if refs completely phrase the point from beginning to end the "request for more complete analysis" part could be removed, thereby removing any confusion on this point?

But that would normally be timeconsuming and unnecessary. Consider, a fencer performs an action badly at the end of a complex phrase; they know it they did it wrong and why they were hit (for instance they remised into a riposte). They don't need the full phrase, they just want to get on with the next point. Alternatively they tried a compound riposte and didn't get the hit. They want to know whether the ref didn't see the compound riposte, the remise was in time or whether they broke their attack. So they ask for the full phrase.

I suggest that the former case is more common than the latter so in the interests of time and refs' sanity they normally only phrase the last action or two.

kalivor
-14th June 2010, 17:10
So the accepted procedure is:
-Phrase the first action and last action
-Request made for more complete analysis
-Completely phrase the whole point
-If they don't get it from that then tough
?

I would have thought that a ref who went to an FIE event and couldn't be bothered to include counter-ripostes or remises in their phrasing without being prompted would end up being black-listed from future events. I'm quite shocked if that's really what they do!

I can sympathise with the view that a description of what happened in normal language could effectively be coaching, but if asked why, for example, they didn't have priority when they thought they attacked could you at least define an attack without making yourself unpopular with the opponent?

Perhaps if refs completely phrase the point from beginning to end the "request for more complete analysis" part could be removed, thereby removing any confusion on this point?

Referees will often say things like "Attack, left" when the fencer on the left has made an attack with a preparation, on which the fencer on the right attempted an attack in preparation -- which missed.

So it can be important tactical information. Either fencer may be interested in learning whether the fencer on the right's action would have been considered an attack in preparation or a counterattack by the referee, had it arrived. An expanded analysis of the phrase would provide that.

The referee should not be advising the fencers on what they need to do to take priority, however, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

miraberis
-14th June 2010, 18:07
But that would normally be timeconsuming and unnecessary. Consider, a fencer performs an action badly at the end of a complex phrase; they know it they did it wrong and why they were hit (for instance they remised into a riposte). They don't need the full phrase, they just want to get on with the next point.


Sure, that's not so bad, it's missing one action off the end. Once the ref has said the words "riposte, touche" everyone knows who the point is going to.

What Duncan seemed to be suggesting was missing out a substantial part of the middle of the phrase (think it was two parries and counter-ripostes).


Referees will often say things like "Attack, left" when the fencer on the left has made an attack with a preparation, on which the fencer on the right attempted an attack in preparation -- which missed.

So it can be important tactical information. Either fencer may be interested in learning whether the fencer on the right's action would have been considered an attack in preparation or a counterattack by the referee, had it arrived. An expanded analysis of the phrase would provide that.

The referee should not be advising the fencers on what they need to do to take priority, however, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

Look, I don't have a problem with referees going "the final action was a parry riposte", but it's confusing to sound like you're trying to phrase the whole thing if you're not.

Also just trying to suggest a possible solution to this "more complete analysis" thing which seems to be a bit ambiguous. It's so ambiguous that Kalivor seems to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I agree that it would be unfair to coach fencers whilst reffing! I don't think defining an attack by quoting from the rules falls into this category. It's like carding for non-combativity then when argued with saying "non-cobativity is two of..." You're not saying which two you carded for. Just like saying an attack is arm straightening, point threatening the target is specifically not saying "your point was aiming at the ceiling as you came forward" or "you pulled your arm back half-way through".
I also think fencers need to be allowed to ask for the ref to define an attack or whatever for another reason. How else are you going to know if your ref is completely ignorant? If someone is mistaken in the definition of an attack and you get knocked out because there is no provision in the rules for finding out whether your ref has ever picked up a copy it's a sorry situation.

Anarch
-14th June 2010, 19:54
Sure, that's not so bad, it's missing one action off the end. Once the ref has said the words "riposte, touche" everyone knows who the point is going to.

What Duncan seemed to be suggesting was missing out a substantial part of the middle of the phrase (think it was two parries and counter-ripostes).

I didn't read Duncan's post as such. In that I thought he was just describing how a ref would show the end of the phrase rather than the start. But you could be right, and that would be less clear.



Look, I don't have a problem with referees going "the final action was a parry riposte", but it's confusing to sound like you're trying to phrase the whole thing if you're not.

Also just trying to suggest a possible solution to this "more complete analysis" thing which seems to be a bit ambiguous. It's so ambiguous that Kalivor seems to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I agree that it would be unfair to coach fencers whilst reffing! I don't think defining an attack by quoting from the rules falls into this category. It's like carding for non-combativity then when argued with saying "non-cobativity is two of..." You're not saying which two you carded for. Just like saying an attack is arm straightening, point threatening the target is specifically not saying "your point was aiming at the ceiling as you came forward" or "you pulled your arm back half-way through".
I also think fencers need to be allowed to ask for the ref to define an attack or whatever for another reason. How else are you going to know if your ref is completely ignorant? If someone is mistaken in the definition of an attack and you get knocked out because there is no provision in the rules for finding out whether your ref has ever picked up a copy it's a sorry situation.

I agree that always giving the full phrase will help sometimes. However those are the times you should ask for it. If you can't work out whether it was a summary then ask for the full thing, it can't hurt.

Challenging a ref's competence by asking them to justify everything is a good way to get them less inclined to see what you want them to see. (I won't say that the ref might become biased ;), they just might be more careful about applying rules to you). I think that whether it was an attack is a point of fact rather than interpretation so you can't challenge the ref on why it was an attack, it just was (or wasn't). I think the best you'll get is by asking "Wasn't it my attack?" and hoping to get a response indicating whether it was not seen as an attack or your opponent started first.

The problem with trying to assess a ref's competence is that by the time you are in the fight it is too late, they can't be replaced. So better to spend energies working out what the ref sees and fencing to that, than trying to get them replaced. Of course avoiding them next time might be good, but if you have lost a fight because of bad reffing you wouldn't want them anyway.

RiledRifler
-15th June 2010, 06:39
I agree that always giving the full phrase will help sometimes.

Duncan is entirely correct by only phrasing the last part of the whole fencing phrase.


t.42. 1. As soon as the bout has stopped, the Referee briefly analyses the movements which composed the last fencing phrase.

As priority dictates whose attack is counted, you only need to go as far back as the last action where priority changed.


better to spend energies working out what the ref sees and fencing to that

This would be going back to my original point.

When a referee justifies their call by saying "I did not judge you to be threatening your opponent's target area", "the contact of the blades was not sufficient to warrant a beat" or else some bizarre logic such as "their light came on first", "Yes, you did parry and reposte but they hit you afterwards" or one of the strangest yet, "They had momentum..." (Hmmm. So the weight of the fencer is counted too?!), then at least you know what you are up against and can work with it. :-)

RX
-17th June 2010, 01:47
I take a deep breath before posting this and I attempt to phrase myself carefully. I agree that reffing is a nightmare and I respect all those who support our sport by participating in this essential element of. It.

Clearly the only element of the phrasing that is relevent to a fencer is the last bit. Excuse my basic form of expression.

I make a political observation
that I hope that pressure for GB FIE refs for 2012 does not in anyway reduce the rigor required to pass these qualifications and I am sure that any high pass rates reflect deserved preparation and traIning.

I can live with technical quibbles about rules and actions. These preoccupy those that no best and the fencer adapts on the piste or loses. Good experience. It is a shame if less experienced referees damage newbie enthusiasm through poor calls but good coaches working with kids and families should be able to take the sting out of this.

What gets right under my skin is cheating. When referees who know the correct decision apply a different rule. Not a genuine mistake but a deliberate intention. I consider this a poison which hurts kids and damages the sport. I watched over the last season or so coaches referee and blatently clear the Pathway for THEIR fencers by eliminating key challengers. I have also witnessed absolute unremitting bias for or against individual fencers sometimes for reasons which are obvious and sometimes less so. It may be a fact of life and I may be an idealist but I think this is a problem for. Development of sabre talent. Twice now I felt strongly enough to consider formal action viA BF but each time I felt well my kids ok so why rock the boat. I feel I have no mechanism to deal with this except via an extremely formal and disproportionate BF process

Apologies if I am very child focussed

funkygibbon
-17th June 2010, 08:31
I watched over the last season or so coaches referee and blatently clear the Pathway for THEIR fencers by eliminating key challengers. I have also witnessed absolute unremitting bias for or against individual fencers sometimes for reasons which are obvious and sometimes less so.

Twice now I felt strongly enough to consider formal action viA BF but each time I felt well my kids ok so why rock the boat. I feel I have no mechanism to deal with this except via an extremely formal and disproportionate BF process

Pretty serious allegations there. If you don't feel strong enough to raise it with the BFA, why bother raising it on the forum? It just feels like s**t stirring otherwise.

Fencing is a small world, sabre even more so. I have never seen a coach give their pupil an advantage when refereeing, mainly because I've never seen a coach referee their pupil (with the exception of James Williams - and he knows how to ref better than many). In my experience coaches will ask someone else to ref if their fencer is up.

What gets me mad about your post is that you are doing nothing to deal with what you perceive as a problem by bringing it up here. If you have evidence (pretty important), take it to the governing body and name names. What alternative mechanism would you suggest? You can always go to DT at a competition if you feel an appeal is warranted.

Chris Gibbons

cesh_fencing
-17th June 2010, 09:07
Fencing is a small world, sabre even more so. I have never seen a coach give their pupil an advantage when refereeing, mainly because I've never seen a coach referee their pupil

Whether it is a coach or 'an interested party' this type of biased refereeing has gone on at every level of fencing since I started fencing. It is not a single weapon issue, it covers all weapons & sports where any form of interpretation occurs.

Obviously in Foil and Sabre it is much easier than Epee and can effect more points, however in epee as the points margin is generally closer even between very differing quality of fencers, the effect can be as great.

Internationally the 'video' replay has come in to counter this, however at kids level, the only option is to video fights that you feel this is happening and sending it to BF, what they could do I suspect is limited, especially if it is not a qualified ref.
.

cesh_fencing
-17th June 2010, 09:16
Just to continue above post.

By videoing a match, there is the chance the referee will act fairly as there would be proof if they are biased.

Problem is many times it is simply getting it wrong as many referees, especially ones non-qualified (even those that are) are able to repeatedly interpret an action incorrectly.

This is why I switched to Epee as it is slightly harder to get 'done' by a ref, however it is not unheard of.

kalivor
-17th June 2010, 10:14
what they could do I suspect is limited, especially if it is not a qualified ref.
.

Even more limited by the fact that majority of rounds at the majority of domestic competitions are entirely self-refereed. Even if it were a qualified ref, and BF should revoke their qualification, there is no reason why we should think it would end their participation as a referee at domestic tournaments.

Perhaps introducing minimum standards for the number and qualifications of neutral (whether paid or volunteer) referees at tournaments? Capping the maximum NIF of tournaments that do not meet these standards (rather than de-sanctioning them)?

Anarch
-17th June 2010, 12:54
Perhaps introducing minimum standards for the number and qualifications of neutral (whether paid or volunteer) referees at tournaments? Capping the maximum NIF of tournaments that do not meet these standards (rather than de-sanctioning them)?

I like that idea, but I suspect it is impractical. How do you police it, without a BFA observer there?

You either need the organisers to provide details of the refs they hired. But if you restrict it to non-fencing refs then that means that refs can't fence at their local comps even if they expect to get knocked out early. Or we need to be better about recording the refs for all bouts, which in turn would make it harder to just grab someone.

Possibly you mean ensuring that there is a BFA reffing observer there if you want to have a NIF of over 80 (for instance). At that level it would only affect a limited number of competitions and the cost of that observer would be shared over a large, or possibly captive (i.e. ranking point seeking) fencers.

cesh_fencing
-17th June 2010, 14:17
Regarding decent refs at events, participants can vote with their feet.

If you feel the organisers do not attract/pay enough good refs to attend, do not attend the event the following year, especially with the choice of senior events being run nowadays.

Agreed in age-group selection events these should be suitably catered for in terms of good referees, and if you find they are not, complain to the BF as they do have a certain amount of control on the 'nomination' of these.

In normal (non-ranking) age-group events, do not attend events you know are badly run or have insufficient kit or referees. If you are unsure, contact the organisers in advance and see what they have in place.

Fencers often do seem to have a sheep mentality, remember if you do not like what is on offer, get support from others and either boycot events or start other events which are run to a good level.

I think Pro-Sabre started this trend and it did create waves.

kalivor
-17th June 2010, 14:44
I like that idea, but I suspect it is impractical. How do you police it, without a BFA observer there?

You either need the organisers to provide details of the refs they hired. But if you restrict it to non-fencing refs then that means that refs can't fence at their local comps even if they expect to get knocked out early. Or we need to be better about recording the refs for all bouts, which in turn would make it harder to just grab someone.

Possibly you mean ensuring that there is a BFA reffing observer there if you want to have a NIF of over 80 (for instance). At that level it would only affect a limited number of competitions and the cost of that observer would be shared over a large, or possibly captive (i.e. ranking point seeking) fencers.

I have not put a lot of thought into the actual qualifications and levels that would be required. X% of the pools with a ref? All fights from the 16 on (which could help with the fence & ref after being knocked out issue)? I'm sure that there are a variety of combinations, and standards can be set for NIFs over 25, 50 and 80 (for instance).

Self-reporting + observation (for sufficiently large competitions and/or those where word of mouth suggests organizers might have fudged the paperwork) could serve as the policing mechanism.

kalivor
-17th June 2010, 15:52
Regarding decent refs at events, participants can vote with their feet.

If you feel the organisers do not attract/pay enough good refs to attend, do not attend the event the following year, especially with the choice of senior events being run nowadays.


We can? How many MF events had a NIF over 25 this year?
Bristol
Leon Paul
Welsh
Essex
Birmingham

If one wants to build up a decent set of domestic results (presumably as a precursor to attempting to have international results), but does not like the standard of refereeing at a couple of these events, nor the overall organisation at a third ... can they afford to simply "vote with their feet"?

I have not looked at the other disciplines, but the fewest number of points one can earn with an L8 in one of the top six MF events (the five above + Nationals) is 566.72. The most you can get in any of the other competitions (by winning) is 460.

With six results counting, if you want to prove you should be chosen for internationals based on domestic results -- and are not at the level where you can win both the LP and the Nationals to put yourself in that group -- you do not have that choice.

I have not looked at the picture for the other weapons, but I would be surprised if there were not a few big competitions in each weapon that cannot be ignored by those who are trying to reach the international level.


Fencers often do seem to have a sheep mentality, remember if you do not like what is on offer, get support from others and either boycot events or start other events which are run to a good level.

I think Pro-Sabre started this trend and it did create waves.

Pro-Sabre was an excellent idea, I like the waves it generates, and hope that more competitions continue to take its lead.

However, I reject the conclusion that this sort of action is the only type that can help to improve the level of refereeing available.

cesh_fencing
-17th June 2010, 19:24
We can? How many MF events had a NIF over 25 this year?
Bristol
Leon Paul
Welsh
Essex
Birmingham


And this is why Mens epee fencers have taken the new elite epee mens events (2 each year now) so well.

It means that they have a wider choice of events so they can plan their season to their requirements, whether by date, location or how events are run.

I am surprised that noone in the foil world has twigged that they are a bit behind the times on this (following Pro-Sabre and Elite Epee) as I am sure an event run specifically for foil, by foilists would get a huge amount of support.

TomA
-17th June 2010, 21:12
With the ready availability of cheap flights you do also have the option of overseas opens and satellites which anyone can enter. French national circuit competitions are a good example - these get at least 150 entries per competition, giving a minimum nif of 50. The biggest this season had over 200 entries. They also provide an excellent standard of venue, organisation, refereeing and fencing. You can IIRC up to three of them towards your GB ranking as international results.

Foilling Around
-17th June 2010, 22:29
The men's foil NIF problem is quite specific to MF. very few of the top 10 in MF do domestic events either through choice or compulsion. This means that virtually all MF events have their NIF decided by the 25% rules

I have made a suggestion to the IC about how to redress this balance in a way which could be applied to all weapons but only have any major effect on MF whilst they are the weapon with the majority of fencers on pathway.

On the other question, epee and sabre have always been tighter knit communities, with the sabre club and the epee club, than the foil community.

I have to say that I do think the future of elite events is single weapon events with the 6 weapon open being consigned to the second tier of events. I am tired of the massive waits at the large opens caused by having to wait for other weapons to vacate the pistes.

RX
-17th June 2010, 22:58
Pretty serious allegations there. If you don't feel strong enough to raise it with the BFA, why bother raising it on the forum? It just feels like s**t stirring otherwise.

Fencing is a small world, sabre even more so. I have never seen a coach give their pupil an advantage when refereeing, mainly because I've never seen a coach referee their pupil (with the exception of James Williams - and he knows how to ref better than many). In my experience coaches will ask someone else to ref if their fencer is up.

What gets me mad about your post is that you are doing nothing to deal with what you perceive as a problem by bringing it up here. If you have evidence (pretty important), take it to the governing body and name names. What alternative mechanism would you suggest? You can always go to DT at a competition if you feel an appeal is warranted.

Chris Gibbons

Now there I was thinking that an open thread to share concerns and ideas was precisely the right place to raise awareness. Perhaps the odd uncomfortable thought about the consequences of rash actions might just help encourage a culture where experienced fencers and referees might feel able to talk more openly about mistakes and judgements they have made.

On the first occasion a complaint was made through appropriate channels through to DT. The problem when u look at the BF disciplinary process is it is a massive step and a robust process appropriately designed for amajor sport. It is also utterly inappropriate for kids, new parents to the sport, or for the level of concern which I described. It also would be wrong to deploy such a mechanism against yng inexperienced ref or fencers who make a poor judgement and in the mix of it all u get an odd match where someone who should no better helps a friend or club member out..
At youth competitions it is precisely this kind of concern that alienates yng fencers and families.

Perhaps I am simply being unrealistic but enough Of our top coaches shrug their shoulders and never question what tHey see direct with the ref in question. To me that seems a cop out and it feels like a middle process is missing. Perhaps a mechanism where some concern can be raised
By a fencer and some skilled and helpful support provided to improve understanding or congratulate as appropriate a ref on tHeir calls. Clearly a pattern of poor decisions would identify a problem. I. Feel it is in part a coach and ref education problem and part a cultural problem that is, its always been this way so get over it.

If we want to engage a grass roots movement fairness and transparency are key. Of course another tier of volunteers for this may be utterly unrealistic. A better solution might be a more robust culture where we all decide to question unfairness where we see it. Peer pressure and all that.

Of course we can all pretend it doesn't happen and not worry about it and if all else fails stifle a legitimate concern by labelling the parent a s*** stirrer.


Michael Ruaux

cesh_fencing
-18th June 2010, 09:07
Of course we can all pretend it doesn't happen and not worry about it and if all else fails stifle a legitimate concern by labelling the parent a s*** stirrer.

I only think a very small minority on the forum have their heads in the sand in this way and ignore the issue. It is more of a problem (at grass-roots) in some areas of the UK than others, especially if there is a real lack of referees around so coaches need to be roped in to ref their own pupils, the smaller the event often the more blatent the 'bias'.

It is a real problem and if there is a specific referee that you are do feel referees this way and they are at a competition your fencer is at, video the matches. At least then you have some 'evidence' if you then wish to take the issue further. And chances are that on film they will ref correctly.

Just going to BF and saying 'he reffed my child out of a fight', even with 10 'witnesses' is nothing compared to a video of the fight/s.

Interesting to see how this thread has changed from 'do fencers want rules enforced' to 'why are some referees so biased'

funkygibbon
-18th June 2010, 10:50
It also would be wrong to deploy such a mechanism against yng inexperienced ref or fencers who make a poor judgement and in the mix of it all u get an odd match where someone who should no better helps a friend or club member out..
At youth competitions it is precisely this kind of concern that alienates yng fencers and families.

Perhaps I am simply being unrealistic but enough Of our top coaches shrug their shoulders and never question what tHey see direct with the ref in question.

Of course we can all pretend it doesn't happen and not worry about it and if all else fails stifle a legitimate concern by labelling the parent a s*** stirrer.


Michael Ruaux

I actually agre with much of what you said in this post, but it was the reference to deliberate cheating by coaches and clubmates in competitions in your first post that I took umption with (especially given the vague nature of the allegations). In my experience, it is a poor standard of reffing which is the problem, rather than systematic biases or cheating. Admittedly I am not competing at junior/cadet level so I accept it may be different there.

As for top coaches shrugging shoulders, what can they do? The referee is god in fencing. Having lots of coaches giving refs aggro is only going to serve to push people away from reffing even more.

JulianRose
-18th June 2010, 11:14
Now there I was thinking that an open thread to share concerns and ideas was precisely the right place to raise awareness. Perhaps the odd uncomfortable thought about the consequences of rash actions might just help encourage a culture where experienced fencers and referees might feel able to talk more openly about mistakes and judgements they have made.

On the first occasion a complaint was made through appropriate channels through to DT. The problem when u look at the BF disciplinary process is it is a massive step and a robust process appropriately designed for amajor sport. It is also utterly inappropriate for kids, new parents to the sport, or for the level of concern which I described. It also would be wrong to deploy such a mechanism against yng inexperienced ref or fencers who make a poor judgement and in the mix of it all u get an odd match where someone who should no better helps a friend or club member out..
At youth competitions it is precisely this kind of concern that alienates yng fencers and families.

Perhaps I am simply being unrealistic but enough Of our top coaches shrug their shoulders and never question what tHey see direct with the ref in question. To me that seems a cop out and it feels like a middle process is missing. Perhaps a mechanism where some concern can be raised
By a fencer and some skilled and helpful support provided to improve understanding or congratulate as appropriate a ref on tHeir calls. Clearly a pattern of poor decisions would identify a problem. I. Feel it is in part a coach and ref education problem and part a cultural problem that is, its always been this way so get over it.

If we want to engage a grass roots movement fairness and transparency are key. Of course another tier of volunteers for this may be utterly unrealistic. A better solution might be a more robust culture where we all decide to question unfairness where we see it. Peer pressure and all that.

Of course we can all pretend it doesn't happen and not worry about it and if all else fails stifle a legitimate concern by labelling the parent a s*** stirrer.


Michael Ruaux


Can i suggest you take a ref's course and get out there to try and improve the situation?

cesh_fencing
-18th June 2010, 11:29
[QUOTE=funkygibbon;235915] but it was the reference to deliberate cheating by coaches and clubmates in competitions in your first post that I took umption with [QUOTE]

It does happen, though less than it used to.

RX
-18th June 2010, 14:45
The ref course is on the 'to do' list, which will no doubt give everyone a chance to quote some of my comments back at me with wry amusement (or pointed sarcasm) for some considerable time to come..........................

funkygibbon
-21st June 2010, 12:00
I hate anonymous rep.

Andy
-3rd July 2010, 18:09
Interesting 'chat' between RX and funkygibbon.

I would say first of all that I do referee sabre, I don't think I'm the best, nor do I think I'm the worst...

I know that there are a few of the better fencers who obviously don't know the rules (I won't embarrass them here by naming them) but generally it's the application of the LINE which is a stumbling block in sabre... However there are many of the top fencers who fence in a style where for example the use the attack on preparation a lot, and so in their refereeing they see this more than someone else who allows more attacks to have priority - I don't actually see a problem with this, as you basically know who gives what and fence accordingly. Coaches also coach to what they see is correct in their eyes, and so may appear to favour their fencers in comps where they referee them (Which although is undesirable, is sometimes unavoidable, especially at sabre...) When there is anyone I train with that I have to referee, I ALWAYS ask the other fencer if they see it as a problem, if they have any hesitation, I'm happy for them to get another referee if available... I don't think I've ever been accused of bias - PM me if you know different ;)

I don't think that this is what RX is saying, HOWEVER...

I would say that I have seen surprising decisions from people who should know better...
One case springs immediately to mind, as a fight at an open comp I was at in the WS hadn't a referee, I didn't put myself forwards as I was good friends with one of the fencers, a good male fencer took the match, and then made so many 'surprising decisions' that it couldn't have been anything but bias... at the end he then high five'd the winner, who turned out to be someone from his club.

Like RX I didn't see that there was an effective route to delivering a suitable measure of sanction for this act, as in sabre, referees interpretation is a matter of fact and so the referee is always correct... and what could the DT do to rectify the situation, especially in Sabre, there is no time to get the DT to observe without causing a major scene (i.e. going Stop, Stop, Stop, I'm going to get an observer, and then the referee then doesn't make the same 'choices' and so nothing untoward is seen) - in this case there was liberal use of the 'abstain' to keep one fencer in the game.

I'm sad to say that this does happen... Also, I would say that far more often you hear non fencing parents making a lot of things that just aren't the case... I've been asked to watch perfectly good referees referee, and parents making claims that I have seen just aren't true... i.e. foot crossing in sabre, I have been called to a piste to watch one fencers feet, and the referee's lack of observance of this rule, I then only watched the feet of the fencer, for the whole of the remainder of the match, and had the parent shout out 3 or 4 times that feet crossed, and on no occasion did they cross... Fortunately, the referee in question was a good one, and sufficiently thick skinned to ignore the shouts of the parent. However it looks bad for the sport, and makes people less likely to want to start refereeing in the first place.

If you are reading this, and it sounds familiar - YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!! (If not, well it's obviously nothing to worry about, is it?)

I have myself been refereed out of matches, I think by incompetence, rather than by malice, and it's difficult to take, and with all the pressures of selection and rankings etc, It can be a tough pill to swallow, but unless you have enough good referees to referee every match, mistakes are going to be a problem, even the top referees make mistakes, but hopefully few enough not to make a difference to the matches.

It would be good to have some sort of continuing education programme for referees, and perhaps that will happen with the new swordmark schemes... But things like this are seldom free, and would be just another barrier to entry for referees... I'm not sure that there is a real world solution to this, unless there are flawless referees (which are like the tooth-fairy...) with video refereeing...?



Handy

Andy
-5th July 2010, 22:22
I'm obviously a thread killer!

Handy

funkygibbon
-6th July 2010, 08:31
Put the entry price of opens up, pay referees appropriately, incentivise people to go on reffing courses. Make the sport more professional. Oh and magic up a money tree or three.

All "bad" referees to be shot by angry parents. Those suspected of cheating to be shot. Those actually caught cheating will be forced to shoot themselves. Fencers disgruntled with bad refs to be given the option of fencing epee instead or falling on their sword in protest.

Cloudy
-6th July 2010, 11:41
Fencers disgruntled with bad refs to be given the option of fencing epee instead

Doing epee has never stopped people complaining about referees. ;)

Andy
-12th July 2010, 00:24
...If you feel the organisers do not attract/pay enough good refs to attend, do not attend the event the following year, especially with the choice of senior events being run nowadays...

I'm not so sure that there is the choice in some of the weapons...

Look at WF* for one... there are VERY few of the senior opens that have NIFs that would make a difference to the top of the rankings. If you miss out on them, you aren't gonna get picked for the internationals.

Only if the top 10 / 20 agree to boycott an open, and all do another instead will you be able to vote with your feet - and is it these large opens that have the bad refereeing???

I don't know, I'm just asking the question?

*I picked WF as sabre generally looks after itself to a greater or lesser degree, and epee isn't conventional, and the women are less happy to self referee...
Also at a glance they do seem to have a more polarized NIF it's either large or small, not much in the middle.


Handy

AELLA
-15th July 2010, 10:45
Surely the coaches of the top athletes could get together (at the nationals maybe) with BF and discuss when they need the big comps to be.

When I say need, I mean for selection & preparation for internationals.

Then send their athletes to the competitions with suitable dates, venues & referees. If there are non that match this profile - maybe BF should do something about it. If the top 10 all go - everyone will follow.

If you are wondering if you are a top athlete - you are not.
If you are worried about your national ranking and national comps and NIF's then you are also not an international athlete, as you will get many more points from one decent result in an international, than from all your domestic results.

I don't mean to be insulting, but there are many 'athletes' in fencing who don't train as an athlete should, and they just don't get that going to a fencing club twice a week and going to the gym a couple of times is still RECREATIONAL to be a performance athlete there is MUCH MORE involved than 'attendance' and unreasonable expectation.

I think I may be guilty of thread drift but I do just get so annoyed sometimes. (Fencing is not my main sport, for me, it's recreation, but I know this)


Aella :)

John Rohde
-16th July 2010, 08:47
Surely the coaches of the top athletes could get together (at the nationals maybe) with BF and discuss when they need the big comps to be.
Aella :)

It might be worth bearing in mind that the sport as presently constituted requires the effort and support of large numbers those who have no pretention to be anything other than recreationally interested in it. Open competitions need, therefore, to look to the needs of the bulk of their attendees who form the mass as well as the elite who add the performance and not leat of all, the organisers and officials who give their time and expertise to allow the rest of to recreate or perform.
To address your point directly, Performance or Recreational seems a far less useful dichotomy than the traditional Amateur or Professional: Performance is as performance does; amateurs my do as they list, while prrofessionals do as they are paid to do. As long as this sport is overwhelmingly amateur, the degree of telling others what they must do had better be limited.
That there should be more competitions and more local ones that fit the needs of the greater of fencers is IMvHO a more pressing requirement than that a elite athletes should not drop a few points in early rounds due to bad reffing.
The answer to the problem of reffereeing is to automate it.

d_f_a
-16th July 2010, 10:01
"The answer to the problem of reffereeing is to automate it."?

John Rohde
-16th July 2010, 10:39
"The answer to the problem of reffereeing is to automate it."?

In the long term that ought to be what we aim for IMHO. Written rules are after all software for wetware. If we can have a combination of software and hardware that achieves the same intent, that would, again IMvHO opinion be a major advantage, especially at the lower levels of the sport - but also at the top if it proved good enough. A sabre system could be fairly simple.
It wouldn't be as subtle as a good referee but it would be consistent.
Some like refereeing and I can see their point of view. I'd like to see the imperative priority represents built into the kit; others see that as pandering to philistinism.
It's not going to happen any time soon, so it's very much a digression from the present thread.
FWIW re this thread, a clear, very short guide to phrasing and what a referee should be looking for, with an illustrated and interactive web version, issued and sanctioned by the FIE would be the best place to start.

Duncan Rowlands
-16th July 2010, 10:59
I'm interested in reading your suggestions as to how the following decisions could be automated:

covering
illegal use of the non-sword arm
hit made while leaving the piste or after leaving the piste
hit made with first or subsequent attempt after being passed
deliberate hit not on opponent (as opposed to being accidental)
leaving the piste to avoid a hit (as opposed to just leaving)
is a contact corps a corps, jostling or violent
Just a few common(ish) situations for you to consider.

John Rohde
-16th July 2010, 11:28
I'm interested in reading your suggestions as to how the following decisions could be automated:
<snip>
Just a few common(ish) situations for you to consider.

They couldn't be, as far as I can see. What could be done IMvHO is to automate priority.

Gav
-16th July 2010, 11:57
They couldn't be, as far as I can see. What could be done IMvHO is to automate priority.

Pray tell... what would your mechanism for this be?

Baldric
-16th July 2010, 12:34
I'm interested in reading your suggestions as to how the following decisions could be automated:

covering
illegal use of the non-sword arm
hit made while leaving the piste or after leaving the piste
hit made with first or subsequent attempt after being passed
deliberate hit not on opponent (as opposed to being accidental)
leaving the piste to avoid a hit (as opposed to just leaving)
is a contact corps a corps, jostling or violent

Just a few common(ish) situations for you to consider.

Isn't there an app for all that? :whistle:

John Rohde
-16th July 2010, 13:04
Pray tell... what would your mechanism for this be?

Ok. A tilt switch on the upper arm is activated: first activation has priority for, say, a second. After that, there's a priority lockout on that fencer. A clash of blades transfers an existing priority to the other fencer for the duration of the present riposte time.
PIL doesn't work but the one second attack does much the same tactical job.
It isn't a representation of the present rules but could IMHO do the same job.

d_f_a
-16th July 2010, 13:35
IMHO John this is a joke, right?

Gav
-16th July 2010, 13:55
IMHO John this is a joke, right?

If you have to ask then clearly it isn't.

Red
-17th July 2010, 15:31
... with the sabre club...

The what?

Red
-17th July 2010, 15:46
Ok. A tilt switch on the upper arm is activated: first activation has priority for, say, a second. After that, there's a priority lockout on that fencer. A clash of blades transfers an existing priority to the other fencer for the duration of the present riposte time.
PIL doesn't work but the one second attack does much the same tactical job.
It isn't a representation of the present rules but could IMHO do the same job.

How would this determine whether or not a meeting of blades was a beat or parry?
There are clear attack/counterattack situations that may have the counterattacker beginning the extension of the arm at the same time as (or even fractionally before) the attacker. How would it deal with this?
How would it deal with a defender/counterattack sweeping for the blade? Your automaton would probably treat this as a valid attack.
What about compound attacks? How would it distinguish these from renewals?
What about the end of an attack? Parrying is not the only way to transfer right of way.
Line?

Why 1s? A hell of a lot can happen in that length of time.

John Rohde
-17th July 2010, 16:09
How would this determine whether or not a meeting of blades was a beat or parry?
There are clear attack/counterattack situations that may have the counterattacker beginning the extension of the arm at the same time as (or even fractionally before) the attacker. How would it deal with this?
How would it deal with a defender/counterattack sweeping for the blade? Your automaton would probably treat this as a valid attack.
What about compound attacks? How would it distinguish these from renewals?
What about the end of an attack? Parrying is not the only way to transfer right of way.
Line?

Why 1s? A hell of a lot can happen in that length of time.

1) Any meeting of blades would transfer an existing priority, whether that was by beat counter or by parry. It would be the same process for the apparatus.
2) If you tell me what those situations are I'll try to give an answer.
3) If it doesn't find the blade it won't transfer priority from the attack.
4) It wouldn't. Fencing time would be determined by real time not by actions.
5) The attack would end at the end of the attack period, say one second. That would replace other determinants than parris or beats.
6) It's a guess. Testing would be needed to establish a reasonable period for an attack. How long should a step-lunge take? We have a period for ripostes now and the attack would work similarly.

riposteinprime
-17th July 2010, 16:16
1) Any meeting of blades would transfer an existing priority, whether that was by beat counter or by parry. It would be the same process for the apparatus.
2) If you tell me what those situations are I'll try to give an answer.
3) If it doesn't find the blade it won't transfer priority from the attack.
4) It wouldn't. Fencing time would be determined by real time not by actions.
5) The attack would end at the end of the attack period, say one second. That would replace other determinants than parris or beats.
6) It's a guess. Testing would be needed to establish a reasonable period for an attack. How long should a step-lunge take? We have a period for ripostes now and the attack would work similarly.

I am so glad your ideas are crazy enough no one will ever pay attention to them.

Red
-17th July 2010, 16:38
1) Any meeting of blades would transfer an existing priority, whether that was by beat counter or by parry. It would be the same process for the apparatus.
2) If you tell me what those situations are I'll try to give an answer.
3) If it doesn't find the blade it won't transfer priority from the attack.
4) It wouldn't. Fencing time would be determined by real time not by actions.
5) The attack would end at the end of the attack period, say one second. That would replace other determinants than parris or beats.
6) It's a guess. Testing would be needed to establish a reasonable period for an attack. How long should a step-lunge take? We have a period for ripostes now and the attack would work similarly.

1 - So your effectively ruling out the beat attack (as opposed to beat counterattack)
2 - Never mind...
3 - I'll explain better. I'm going backwards looking for a beat (for example), I fail to find your blade and then we hit at the same time. To a reasonable referee this should be clear. How will your automaton distinguish this failed beat from a genuine attack?
4 - We already have a discipline where this principle applies. It's epee. Besides, with your 'attack period' you ARE saying that actions are important. This leads to rubbish attacks requiring very little in the way of ability other than starting first and simply hitting the other guy without touching his blade - nothing more. Think very hard about foil and sabre fencing and you'll see why this is A Really Bad Thing(TM).
5 - This penalises long flowing compound attacks in foil and rewards poor technique in sabre. What about missing? Front foot landing first in sabre?
6 - This varies. Hugely.

In an attempt to make the sport more consistent at all levels, you're suggesting we brutally murder the character of the convention weapons. Surely it's easier and simpler to train more and better referees?

John Rohde
-17th July 2010, 16:59
1 - So your effectively ruling out the beat attack (as opposed to beat counterattack)
2 - Never mind...
3 - I'll explain better. I'm going backwards looking for a beat (for example), I fail to find your blade and then we hit at the same time. To a reasonable referee this should be clear. How will your automaton distinguish this failed beat from a genuine attack?
4 - We already have a discipline where this principle applies. It's epee. Besides, with your 'attack period' you ARE saying that actions are important. This leads to rubbish attacks requiring very little in the way of ability other than starting first and simply hitting the other guy without touching his blade - nothing more. Think very hard about foil and sabre fencing and you'll see why this is A Really Bad Thing(TM).
5 - This penalises long flowing compound attacks in foil and rewards poor technique in sabre. What about missing? Front foot landing first in sabre?
6 - This varies. Hugely.

In an attempt to make the sport more consistent at all levels, you're suggesting we brutally murder the character of the convention weapons. Surely it's easier and simpler to train more and better referees?

1) No. Beating _before_ an extension would still be a good idea for the same reason beats are a good idea in epee.
3) It won't. If your opponent is coming forward, without having extended his arm, your failed beat wouldn't lose you priority or give it to him.
4) It differs from epee in prioritising the attack. Starting first and hitting without touching your opponent's blade sounds ok to me but there would be more. There would be retreating out of distance, beating and parrying. I agree that the last elements of the technical figures aspect of the sport would be lost. As I said, the automation wouldn't reproduce the rules but would serve a similar purpose. Take another example: I'm thinking of automating the human judges' function of determining the validity and materiality of hits at sabre. I have to find a way of determining if the hit is made with the right part of the blade and with sufficient force so as to correspond to the written rules - or I can put up with a system that does neither but produces a reasonable outcome.
5) How hugely?

And my suggestion for improving refereeing throughout the sport, at all levels, would be to have a free, interactive FIE refereeing website, with the rules; how to referee - what to look for, when to card, etc.; and examples where the curious are asked to attribute points based on criteria chosen from a constant menu and then can see where they were right or wrong.

Red
-17th July 2010, 17:38
1) No. Beating _before_ an extension would still be a good idea for the same reason beats are a good idea in epee.
3) It won't. If your opponent is coming forward, without having extended his arm, your failed beat wouldn't lose you priority or give it to him.
4) It differs from epee in prioritising the attack. Starting first and hitting without touching your opponent's blade sounds ok to me but there would be more. There would be retreating out of distance, beating and parrying. I agree that the last elements of the technical figures aspect of the sport would be lost. As I said, the automation wouldn't reproduce the rules but would serve a similar purpose. Take another example: I'm thinking of automating the human judges' function of determining the validity and materiality of hits at sabre. I have to find a way of determining if the hit is made with the right part of the blade and with sufficient force so as to correspond to the written rules - or I can put up with a system that does neither but produces a reasonable outcome.
5) How hugely?

And my suggestion for improving refereeing throughout the sport, at all levels, would be to have a free, interactive FIE refereeing website, with the rules; how to referee - what to look for, when to card, etc.; and examples where the curious are asked to attribute points based on criteria chosen from a constant menu and then can see where they were right or wrong.

1 - Are you suggesting that all beats are done with no extension of the arm? Often there is small amount of extension done to reach the other fencer's blade.
What about a beat counterattack that lands straight on the forte?
Also, what about filos or other actions involving blade contact from the attacker?
What happens when there is blade contact with no extension from either fencer?
2 - (Ignored last time) Example of a clear attack/counterattack situation with both fencers extending at the same time. I chase my opponent down the piste. Close to the rear line he realises he has to stop - panicked, he sticks his arm out at about the same time I finish. Who would win this hit?
3 - Me and my opponent both start our hands moving at the same time. During this, I attempt to make a beat but fail. We hit at the same time. Are you seriously suggesting that this should be a simultaneous attack? I have attempted to do something and failed. My opponent has performed his action successfully. Why should he be penalised?
4 - You're missing the point. This method of awarding hits at sabre would utterly destroy the character of the weapon. Parries and beats are relatively unimportant compared to the attack finishing with the foot or by simply missing with the first cutting action. That makes sabre fencing sabre fencing. As things are, attacking properly is incredibly difficult and skilful.
5 -...
6 - Try. I can do a very fast step lunge, a very slow step lunge and a thousand variations on the theme in between. Equally well I can deliver an attack with a lunge, step or standing still. We have this concept of fencing time rather than a physical measure of time for this reason - it catches all of this rather conveniently.

The character and skill level of sabre fencing can be preserved with an automatic scoring system, but in my mind that would involve a powerful 3D imaging and image processing system working with a reasonably simple algorithm that processes the actions to give the hit.
Oh... Wait... This system exists and we don't have to spend millions of pounds developing and implementing it. This existing system is currently not quite as reliable as it could be but is a perfectly reasonable compromise between absolute fairness and preserving the character of the weapon. In my opinion this system works adequately and will do until computing and imaging technology gets sufficiently advanced for the perfect version to be done rather cheaply.
The system is... a human.

What you want from the FIE - they're getting there. They freely supply the rules and thousands of hits can be watched from FIE competitions via their youtube channel. Granted the refereeing isn't always perfect, but generally it is.

John Rohde
-17th July 2010, 19:57
1 - Are you suggesting that all beats are done with no extension of the arm? Often there is small amount of extension done to reach the other fencer's blade.
What about a beat counterattack that lands straight on the forte?
Also, what about filos or other actions involving blade contact from the attacker?
What happens when there is blade contact with no extension from either fencer?
2 - (Ignored last time) Example of a clear attack/counterattack situation with both fencers extending at the same time. I chase my opponent down the piste. Close to the rear line he realises he has to stop - panicked, he sticks his arm out at about the same time I finish. Who would win this hit?
3 - Me and my opponent both start our hands moving at the same time. During this, I attempt to make a beat but fail. We hit at the same time. Are you seriously suggesting that this should be a simultaneous attack? I have attempted to do something and failed. My opponent has performed his action successfully. Why should he be penalised?
4 - You're missing the point. This method of awarding hits at sabre would utterly destroy the character of the weapon. Parries and beats are relatively unimportant compared to the attack finishing with the foot or by simply missing with the first cutting action. That makes sabre fencing sabre fencing. As things are, attacking properly is incredibly difficult and skilful.
5 -...
6 - Try. I can do a very fast step lunge, a very slow step lunge and a thousand variations on the theme in between. Equally well I can deliver an attack with a lunge, step or standing still. We have this concept of fencing time rather than a physical measure of time for this reason - it catches all of this rather conveniently.

The character and skill level of sabre fencing can be preserved with an automatic scoring system, but in my mind that would involve a powerful 3D imaging and image processing system working with a reasonably simple algorithm that processes the actions to give the hit.
Oh... Wait... This system exists and we don't have to spend millions of pounds developing and implementing it. This existing system is currently not quite as reliable as it could be but is a perfectly reasonable compromise between absolute fairness and preserving the character of the weapon. In my opinion this system works adequately and will do until computing and imaging technology gets sufficiently advanced for the perfect version to be done rather cheaply.
The system is... a human.

What you want from the FIE - they're getting there. They freely supply the rules and thousands of hits can be watched from FIE competitions via their youtube channel. Granted the refereeing isn't always perfect, but generally it is.

1) Extension would be fine if it was less than that required to initiate priority.
2) I ignored it because you ignored it.
3) If he still gets his light on, then yes. Was he disengaging from your blade? Was he trying to beat it? Is the referee always sure?
4) Have you thought why the rules have that bit about your foot landing? It's there to ensure the attack is made quickly - which made good sense to people who were basing their sport on swordsmanship. You would still be able to make an attack fail by distance du to the timer. You wouldn't be able to laugh in the face of your opponent who had just notionally cleft your head in twain because his foot had hit the floor an instant before he did so. You also wouldn't have to explain that to the non-fencing world at large as anything other than an absurdity: A vulgar consideration I know but I work the vulgar end of the market where most of the people are. The rules were designed to reward sensible swordsmanship - in this case, promptly delivered attacks. Any other mechanism that did the same would be as good.
5 & 6) I would suggest that slow attacks with minimal extention are precisely what the FIE has been to trying to root out: Hence the fast attack beats slow advice of a while ago; hence the new lockout time.
I wouldn't suggest that the method I described would be as subtle as a good referee; I would suggest that it would be easier to get hold of on a regular basis. As to that perfect computer, if it comes, it would make better sense to use it's capabilities to achieve the desired effect rather than simply translating a written code of rules. As to my suggestion, I never cease to be amazed how the FIE can rely on chinese whispers and trickle-down wisdom to govern the core aspect of the sport. It should have been done years ago. The best guess I have as to the reason is thatthere is no clear consensus as to what the clarification should be.

Rob.Leicester
-17th July 2010, 20:12
4) Have you thought why the rules have that bit about your foot landing? It's there to ensure the attack is made quickly

Are you sure?

John Rohde
-17th July 2010, 20:17
Are you sure?

Always happy to be enlightened: Why do you think it was put in the rules in the first place?

Rob.Leicester
-17th July 2010, 20:27
Always happy to be enlightened: Why do you think it was put in the rules in the first place?

To clearly define the end of the attack.

Its the same reason its been considered being implemented into Foil. In foil in particular an attack can continue for a long time with a fencer able to extend it through leaning or very slow extension that continues long after the front foot landed.

Likewise with Sabre if attacks didn't end with the foot you'd probably see either huge through-cuts or point attacks similar to foil. Its an arbitrary way of saying "the attack has ended now and you will be punished for not having made the hit" and makes it much easier to then judge those fast in the middle calls where one person falls short and the other takes over giving two lights.

John Rohde
-17th July 2010, 21:07
To clearly define the end of the attack.

Its the same reason its been considered being implemented into Foil. In foil in particular an attack can continue for a long time with a fencer able to extend it through leaning or very slow extension that continues long after the front foot landed.

Likewise with Sabre if attacks didn't end with the foot you'd probably see either huge through-cuts or point attacks similar to foil. Its an arbitrary way of saying "the attack has ended now and you will be punished for not having made the hit" and makes it much easier to then judge those fast in the middle calls where one person falls short and the other takes over giving two lights.

To prevent the attack continuing for a long time or to ensure the attack is made quickly ...?
I appreciate that for some my aside on automation is anathema. We can agree to disagree. I think a clear online source of guidance on refereeing is a more germane point and I think it could be done pretty promptly if the BFA or whoever else is in charge, took it in hand. Aside from educating club referees, it might educate fencers and parents so that they could accept or query refereeing on a sounder footing.

Rob.Leicester
-17th July 2010, 21:23
To prevent the attack continuing for a long time or to ensure the attack is made quickly ...?

In my opinion no. Its to ensure the attack is delivered properly, properly doesn't not necessarily mean quickly, it means with correct timing: hand starts, foot follows hand to carry attack forward, blade makes contact, foot lands to ensure balance is maintained.

Also, I've never heard anything from the FIE saying that they are trying to eradicate the slow attack and replace it with the quicker one. Watching fencers like Pillet, Decsi ,Dumitrescu, Apithy really quite a lot of the top sabre fencers, they use predominantly slow and big lunges that end exactly as their foot lands. Looking at how these are refereed, they get punished on them not when their lunges take a long time to develop, but when the foot lands and the blade hasn't made contact, at the END of the attack.

Red
-18th July 2010, 00:16
John,

I'll just take a couple of points from what's been said since I last said something.

'Extension would be fine if it was less than that required to initiate priority'

Utterly absurd - either you gain right of way with the start of the extension of the arm or you don't with any extension. Equally, the same should apply when it's slow.

Simultaneous 'attack' - one fencer looks for the blade and fails to find it.

To any halfway competent referee this is obvious. A disengage attack looks very different to an attempt to beat the blade.

Hit before foot lands.

Rewards correct technique and a good sense of distance and timing. Punishes faulty technique and rubbish distance and timing. I seriously doubt it was there to increase the speed of attack.
8 year olds understand the logic of this - the attack was faulty so it doesn't deserve to win. All you need to do is explain what a good attack is to the unwashed. It really isn't hard for them to understand - look at how many people suddenly understand tennis after a day or so with nobody explaining it to them (and that's a sport that is insanely complicated next to sabre fencing).
Rather than change the sport so drastically in a desperate attempt at popularity, I'd change its presentation.

Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, would it not be more sensible to go out into the world and get proper training as a referee or encourage others at your club to do the same? (I think the referees committee will be rolling out their brand new super-duper scheme to generate world class referees very soon)

Duncan Rowlands
-18th July 2010, 04:39
(I think the referees committee will be rolling out their brand new super-duper scheme to generate world class referees very soon)

No pressure then! :whistle:

John Rohde
-18th July 2010, 09:41
John,
<snip>
8 year olds understand the logic of this - the attack was faulty so it doesn't deserve to win. All you need to do is explain what a good attack is to the unwashed. It really isn't hard for them to understand - look at how many people suddenly understand tennis after a day or so with nobody explaining it to them (and that's a sport that is insanely complicated next to sabre fencing).
Rather than change the sport so drastically in a desperate attempt at popularity, I'd change its presentation.

Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, would it not be more sensible to go out into the world and get proper training as a referee or encourage others at your club to do the same? (I think the referees committee will be rolling out their brand new super-duper scheme to generate world class referees very soon)

The stuff I snipped pretty much demonstrates why we're likely to have a dialogue of the deaf: For you the rules are directly punishing and rewarding technique as judged by the referee. I think you are right and the conventional weapons share that with other Olympic sports such as ski jumping, figure skating, diving, butterfly, breaststroke or backstroke swimming. I don't particularly like it and think that could change with little loss and much profit. My personal preference is for sports that do not have that judged technical aspect. IMHO judging of technique is an ossification of good practice and good practice comes from the imperatives of the combat. Priority serves the purpose of representing the respect that a sharp edge or point commands. I'm sure that's not how everyone sees it; that for some the game is an assemblage of conventions and a thing in itself unrelated to swordsmanship bar it's distant antecedence.
Your reference to tennis is, surely a joke? Bar the archaic scoring, there's nothing complicated one needs to know to follow a game of tennis. The ball is over the net or in it; the ball is in the court or out; the server has to stay behind the service line. There are other rules but their not needed to follow a game and know who's scored and why. The umpire isn't explaining what someone in 1908 thought were the technical requirements of a backhand as the basis of who got the point.
As for going into the world, I suggest that is precisely where we separate: I'm long tired of hearing every debate on reform ending with an insider telling outsiders they should work harder to fit into the sport. I make my living teaching this stuff and I'd quite like to see some effort made in the opposite direction.

John Rohde
-18th July 2010, 09:51
In my opinion no. Its to ensure the attack is delivered properly, properly doesn't not necessarily mean quickly, it means with correct timing: hand starts, foot follows hand to carry attack forward, blade makes contact, foot lands to ensure balance is maintained.

Also, I've never heard anything from the FIE saying that they are trying to eradicate the slow attack and replace it with the quicker one. Watching fencers like Pillet, Decsi ,Dumitrescu, Apithy really quite a lot of the top sabre fencers, they use predominantly slow and big lunges that end exactly as their foot lands. Looking at how these are refereed, they get punished on them not when their lunges take a long time to develop, but when the foot lands and the blade hasn't made contact, at the END of the attack.

On the first point, I would suggest that you are describing good technique while I am trying in my own small way to describe the reason that technique was ever deemed good in the first place.
On the second, a directive to give preference to fast over slow attacks made the rounds a year or two ago and the changed lockout, as I said, had the same purpose. One didn't take, while the other is still resented by some very eminent figures in the sport. There is no monolithic orthodoxy in the sport and I'm simply advancing a personal point of view.

riposteinprime
-18th July 2010, 10:26
I make my living teaching this stuff

Jesus you're actually a fencing coach?



You're a nutcase. Case in point: in all the attempts to 'modernise' and 'save' test cricket how many people are suggesting reforming the LBW law. None. It's a complicated rule that is understood because it's well explained on the commentary.

The solution to helping members of the general public understand 'right of way' is not to dumb it down so a machine decides it, it's to have quality coverage and commentary with appropriate graphics and examples to explain it.

Unfortunantly as an amateur sport even the best referees in the world presumably have real world jobs and lives and simply don't have time to create the kind of resources needed.

Red
-18th July 2010, 10:42
I make my living teaching this stuff and I'd quite like to see some effort made in the opposite direction.

So do I and I've worked bloody hard to become an effective coach (and referee).

Rob.Leicester
-18th July 2010, 11:20
On the second, a directive to give preference to fast over slow attacks made the rounds a year or two ago and the changed lockout, as I said, had the same purpose. One didn't take, while the other is still resented by some very eminent figures in the sport. There is no monolithic orthodoxy in the sport and I'm simply advancing a personal point of view.

Just because it did the rounds doesn't mean that the FIE are actively trying to remove slow attacks. I think the fact that it didn't stick shows the exact opposite in fact. Don't you remember when the directive went round for a little while that high-line had priority over low-line attacks? That was another short lived attempt to streamline right of way.

I agree with Riposteinprime on this, people need to stop trying to dumb down fencing. ROW really isn't hard if its explained properly, put the effort into training referees PROPERLY and getting good commentary into the press-release videos that are released.

John Rohde
-18th July 2010, 18:16
Jesus you're actually a fencing coach?



You're a nutcase. Case in point: in all the attempts to 'modernise' and 'save' test cricket how many people are suggesting reforming the LBW law. None. It's a complicated rule that is understood because it's well explained on the commentary.

The solution to helping members of the general public understand 'right of way' is not to dumb it down so a machine decides it, it's to have quality coverage and commentary with appropriate graphics and examples to explain it.

Unfortunantly as an amateur sport even the best referees in the world presumably have real world jobs and lives and simply don't have time to create the kind of resources needed.

Excellent! A yard dog insult and two false arguments in one post:
Forget about cricket, sabre itself simplified its rules of materiality and validity to allow their automation.
If the FIE doesn't have time to sort out a decent online tutorial, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that recreational fencers may not have the time to become good referees and that's the main argument for its automation. However, the idea that an Olympic sport can muster the resources for a website is improbable.

John Rohde
-18th July 2010, 18:17
So do I and I've worked bloody hard to become an effective coach (and referee).

Bravo but beside the point.

John Rohde
-18th July 2010, 18:20
Just because it did the rounds doesn't mean that the FIE are actively trying to remove slow attacks. I think the fact that it didn't stick shows the exact opposite in fact. Don't you remember when the directive went round for a little while that high-line had priority over low-line attacks? That was another short lived attempt to streamline right of way.

I agree with Riposteinprime on this, people need to stop trying to dumb down fencing. ROW really isn't hard if its explained properly, put the effort into training referees PROPERLY and getting good commentary into the press-release videos that are released.

Repeated attempts to speed up or streamline looks like trying but not succeeding, to me.
Everyone trying harder is certainly one approach.

Rob.Leicester
-18th July 2010, 20:38
Repeated attempts to speed up or streamline looks like trying but not succeeding, to me.
Everyone trying harder is certainly one approach.

Yeah but WHY are they not succeeding? They're not succeeding because when they're implemented Fencers, referees, coaches or some combination of the three react so loudly against the ideas that the FIE are forced to withdraw them.


If the FIE doesn't have time to sort out a decent online tutorial, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that recreational fencers may not have the time to become good referees and that's the main argument for its automation. However, the idea that an Olympic sport can muster the resources for a website is improbable.


A recreational fencer maybe, but I don't think its too much to ask that anyone who's looking to get beyond the L64 of big to medium sized competitions competitions (say Bristol, Essex, Birmingham, Sheffield) SHOULD be competent referees otherwise what the hell are they doing there? If someone can't referee they're essentially saying they don't know the rules, so why on earth are they expecting to get into the further rounds of a tournament? So really, that should mean at a worst case scenario there should be like, 16 "competent" refs, but realistically more like 20+.

Refereeing is NOT hard, it takes a bit of work and that is IT. I learned to referee from videos on Youtube, that's like half an hour of watching Youtube videos every few days. I think you'll find a lot of people watch that or more then that as it is.

D'Artignan
-18th July 2010, 23:06
I make my living teaching this stuff
Jesus you're actually a fencing coach?Am I the only one thinking that RIP may have a point here? :eek:

Red
-18th July 2010, 23:44
Bravo but beside the point.

If it's beside the point, why did you bring it up in the first place? My point is that opportunities to learn are out there - Seize them! Wasting such opportunities is unforgivable.


Repeated attempts to speed up or streamline looks like trying but not succeeding, to me.
Everyone trying harder is certainly one approach.

Why has FIFA resisted goal line technology and video review systems for so long? Apparently it changes the game and changing the game is A Bad Thing (TM).
You want to fundamentally change our game. The game we play now is a game that we have a burning passion for - why do you want to change it so badly? If you hate the game as it is currently played so badly, then why the hell do you try to make a living out of it?
The FIE is making refereeing more consistent at senior level by only allowing the elite referees to referee at senior events (and I think video refereeing). Similarly, they're only allowing FIE qualified referees to referee juniors (rather than allowing candidates as well). This looks like a massive step in the right direction.


Excellent! A yard dog insult and two false arguments in one post:
Forget about cricket, sabre itself simplified its rules of materiality and validity to allow their automation.
If the FIE doesn't have time to sort out a decent online tutorial, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that recreational fencers may not have the time to become good referees and that's the main argument for its automation. However, the idea that an Olympic sport can muster the resources for a website is improbable.

I find myself agreeing with RIP on this :eek:
Sabre rules were simplified a little to bring it into line with foil and epee. The rules also became more restrictive with respect to footwork and box timings with the result being that it is generally more technically demanding. No attempt has ever been made to automate the process of awarding hits in the convention weapons (except with the peculiar phase in the 80s designed to stop endless simultaneous actions in the middle).
Further simplification is unnecessary.
More effective presentation of the sport is necessary.

Sabre fencing is very simple. To follow right of way all you need to do is follow a very simple algorithm such as...

How many lights on the box? 1/2
If 1, award hit.
If 2, was there line? Y/N
If Y, go to 'Did it hit?'
If N, who attacked first? L/R/Neither
If neither, Simultaneous, award no hit.
If L/R, did it hit? Y/N
If Y, award hit.
If N, did the other guy then try to hit (either during the action or immediately after it failed)? Y/N
If Y, go back to 'Did it hit?'
If N, did first guy try to hit again?
If Y, return to 'Did it hit?'
If N, reset and return to 'Who attacked first?'

Easy ;)
The crucial question is always 'did it hit?'. It can fail to do so in 3 ways - blade, foot or opponent (parry).
The unwashed can cope with LBW, caught, run out, bowled out, stumped, hit wicket and more that nobody really knows about in cricket. They cope with apparently arbitrary (and certainly inconsistent) decisions from football referees in all aspects of that game.

Who attacked first is often very clear. If either (or both) of the questions 'Did it hit?' or 'Who attacked first?' are unclear to you, get out there and learn why it is, watch lots of video from the FIE or both. If we ever meet, I'll show you.

Andy
-19th July 2010, 09:25
Sabre fencing is very simple. To follow right of way all you need to do is follow a very simple algorithm such as...

How many lights on the box? 1/2
If 1, award hit.
If 2, was there line? Y/N
If Y, go to 'Did it hit?'
If N, who attacked first? L/R/Neither
If neither, Simultaneous, award no hit.
If L/R, did it hit? Y/N
If Y, award hit.
If N, did the other guy then try to hit (either during the action or immediately after it failed)? Y/N
If Y, go back to 'Did it hit?'
If N, did first guy try to hit again?
If Y, return to 'Did it hit?'
If N, reset and return to 'Who attacked first?'

Easy ;)

I assume that you are using Guy to mean Guy or Gall.
In legal parlance (I think) The male is presumed to also include female, and the singular to include the plural.

I would say that the 'Did it hit?' bit is where there is the confusion lies.

I'm following this thread with a mixture of interest, astonishment, horror and schadenfreude.


Am I the only one thinking that RIP may have a point here? :eek: - I think you are safe, but for the record, I'm not sure that there is any biblical evidence that Jesus was a fencing coach, BUT I'm sure he could have done it, had he had time (What will all that healing of the sick and stuff)

H.

d_f_a
-19th July 2010, 09:49
I'd like to nominate this thread (since John Rohde started posting on it) the most entertaining thread of the year.

Saxon
-19th July 2010, 09:57
Am I the only one thinking that RIP may have a point here? :eek:

I really cannot believe I'm writing this, but yes.

I agree with RiposteInPrime.

Every so often John crawls out from under his rock, dragging with him a sackload of deliberate misunderstanding, poor logic and misdirection, all dolled up in pompous self-important language.

The fact that he actually teaches this garbage to others for payment is truly worrying.

Gav
-19th July 2010, 10:33
Whilst I may agree with RIP's sentiments I don't agree with cluttering the board with pointless posts.

riposteinprime
-19th July 2010, 10:37
Whilst I may agree with RIP's sentiments I don't agree with cluttering the board with pointless posts.

Are you talking to me or John Rohde?

*boom tish*

Gav
-19th July 2010, 10:43
I think you are safe, but for the record, I'm not sure that there is any biblical evidence that Jesus was a fencing coach, BUT I'm sure he could have done it, had he had time (What will all that healing of the sick and stuff)

H.

Jesus is certainly good at coaching other sports - including martial arts (http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html).*

Judging by some of the comments I am wondering whether JR has a hotline to the FIE. Some of his suggestions might not be so outlandish amongst certain of our sport's grandees. ;)

* I am pretty sure there was a fencing one but I can't find it.

John Rohde
-19th July 2010, 12:00
I really cannot believe I'm writing this, but yes.

I agree with RiposteInPrime.

Every so often John crawls out from under his rock, dragging with him a sackload of deliberate misunderstanding, poor logic and misdirection, all dolled up in pompous self-important language.

The fact that he actually teaches this garbage to others for payment is truly worrying.

If you weren't too smug to learn to read you'd know that I'm suggesting a way sabre *might* be automated. I teach to the rules as they are and as they're implemented. It will never cease to amaze me that an hypothetical discussion can reduce what I presume are grown men to a squawking gaggle of frightened geese.
If anyone would like to continue this conversation, I'll be at the Bristol Open and curious to see your faces.
I still think an online tutorial is a good idea.

Saxon
-19th July 2010, 12:37
I have to admit I long since gave up reading any of your guff.

John Rohde
-19th July 2010, 12:51
I have to admit I long since gave up reading any of your guff.

So kind of you, then, to comment on it. Hang on a minute, how did you know to reply to ... ? Amazing.
Do you think an official online tutorial would be a good idea?

Saxon
-19th July 2010, 13:13
Okay, I'm bored, I'll bite...


So kind of you, then, to comment on it. Hang on a minute, how did you know to reply to ... ? Amazing.

Had seen the thread going on (and on) and caught the end of it.
Saw you had started expounding your "theories".
Skipped back a few pages to see how long you had been banging on.

If you had bothered to read my post before replying you would note that the only reference I made to the thread itself was to the surprise I had (and still have) that you manage to get anyone to pay you. Well done you.


Do you think an official online tutorial would be a good idea?
Not in general, no. I'd rather not have some half-assed attempt at refereeing from someone who read a few FAQs, guessed at the bits the "tutorial" didn't show.

I'd suggest refereeing is best done by experience, backed up with live demonstrations and training.

If there's something that is set in stone as valid, but is difficult to explain or regularly incorrect, as short video with examples would be a good idea. It must be ensured that it is the correct, official, sanctioned line - an example of the opposite being the video which went around a couple of years ago regarding low-line attacks in sabre.

John Rohde
-19th July 2010, 13:23
Okay, I'm bored, I'll bite...
If you had bothered to read my post before replying you would note that the only reference I made to the thread itself was to the surprise I had (and still have) that you manage to get anyone to pay you. Well done you.


Classy as ever.

AELLA
-19th July 2010, 14:29
Jesus is certainly good at coaching other sports - including martial arts.

I was thinking of two gems of advice for fencing

'If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also' - NIV
Nowadays biblical scholars see this as 'looking towards the blow' - obviously this is only effective with a visor mask.
He goes on to say, else Parry Tierce and reposte head (or head-flank).*

He also says
'If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.' - NIV
This is obviously a note about self control, and arguing with the referee, once you've made your point (that it was YOUR parry and not THEIR beat) get on with it, don't try to make good your point buy doing the same action to the audience 11 times, you will just upset your referee and not get any more of the 50:50 hits.

* This is from the original text as found in Khirbet Qumran in 1954 (one of the latter scrolls to be found there)


Hope that helps PROVE the existence of Jesus's prowess of coaching Fencing to the 12, and later the 72 disciples. (the also called him 'teacher' and 'master' - So we can safely assume he wasn't a 3 weapon coach - else he'd have been a professor)

wide eagle
-19th July 2010, 20:02
In an attempted to bring this subject away from John Rhode bashing and whether Jesus was a fencing coach.

From what I gather this thread is on refereeing and the quality of it (I have nether the time nor attention span to read all the pages) . I donít think that refereeing needs to be technology based but as others have said we just need to improve the standard of it. A way I think this might be possible is this , at opens thereís normally 1 or 2 high ranked fencers who do all of the refereeing. what I think would be good is if they let the lower ranked and less experienced fencers referee while the higher ranked and more experienced supervise and correct them. That way people were not confident at refereeing can improve there ability with out the need to do courses.

On a different note John Rohde is one of the greatest men i have ever had the pleasure of knowing. i fence at johns club and he is a great coach doing his best with a group of fencers who on the main want to be just recreational fencers . I not know what any of you know about Bristol but as a club are main catchment area is Easton which is a very poor crime ridden suburb, john gets children interested in fencing by charging minimal fees and turning the blind eye when poorer members of the club cant afford to pay (me included) seeing as it better to keep them interested in fencing than turn them away. this club is funded completely out of johns own pocket and with all the money he puts in to it i donít think he makes any profit at all, he does it in my opinion out of love for the sport and a feeling of care for all his club mates. Personally he got back into fencing and made me enjoy it again after bad experiences with other clubs.

This is a forum a place for discussion and I donít think he should be insulted for voicing his onions and his radical ideas. I donít agree with his idea but I donít think it deserved the hostile and aggressive response you all have given it

wide eagle
-19th July 2010, 21:03
. I donít agree with his idea but I donít think it deserved the hostile and aggressive response you all have given it

that was a bit harsh not all of you. said in the heat of the moment and i was quite angry at the way my freind seemed to be treated. i stand by it but it was not aimed at all of you

Spider5
-19th July 2010, 22:50
voicing his onions and his radical ideas.

Priceless....

On a more serious note though, no-one should get too upset about internet posts, particularly when all the participants seem to be willing.

Gav
-20th July 2010, 08:30
This is a forum a place for discussion and I donít think he should be insulted for voicing his onions and his radical ideas.

That's shallot of typing wide eagle. ;)


I donít agree with his idea but I donít think it deserved the hostile and aggressive response you all have given it

A bit of give and take is to be expected. John's idea, as someone else has pointed out, isn't workable. I get where he's coming from but you'd really be looking at some sort of mo-cap system that would give you tennis style check-ability. This would be extraordinarily expensive [currently] and you have to ask yourself. "Is it worth it?" The answer is no. The rules as they stand seem, broadly, to work.
There is a problem with expectation and communication [down the pyramid] so deal with that, don't introduce something else.
Or maybe John needs to prove the naysayers wrong and demonstrate a working solution?

wide eagle
-20th July 2010, 12:30
Priceless....

On a more serious note though, no-one should get too upset about internet posts, particularly when all the participants seem to be willing.




This is a forum a place for discussion and I donít think he should be insulted for voicing his onions it

it was quite funny. notced it just before i went to bed and could not be bothered to change it

wide eagle
-20th July 2010, 12:33
double post my bad and the computer wouldnt let me delete one

Esgrimista
-23rd July 2010, 20:52
That's shallot of typing wide eagle. ;)

Is that a touch of the Connerys, Mr. Moderator?! :D

Seriously though, that is both quick-witted and awful! All in all, an entertaining thread...