PDA

View Full Version : Controversy at Nationals?



Gav
-12th July 2004, 09:34
I'll not name names but I was disapointed to see at least one extremely dodgy decision.

Epee L8 fight between 2 good fencers. It's been close since the start and is now sitting at 14-14. The 2 fencers are sitting at fencing distance. One extends and attemts to gather the others blade. He misses and his point hits the floor. The light comes up as he misses the earthed piste. His point doesn't even make it over his opponents guard...

Ref' raises his hand, "Point left."

Losing fencer whips off his mask and looks incredulously at the ref'. The entire audience looks on stunned. Some even point out to the ref that he is wrong. But he stands his ground and refuses to admit he is wrong.

I doubt favouritism was involved but it was still a bad way to take a medal away from someone. It had a bearing on the final and left a bad taste in my mouth - including ruining the end of some thrilling fencing. I was disapointed to see the winning fencer looking innocent. Although I understand that he is not responsible for the poor decision I think that in the circumstances that he should have held his arm up and admitted what happened.

But then I wasn't in his position...

avatar
-12th July 2004, 10:24
its a shame when things like that happen but to a certain extend there is a win at all costs view in fencing (and why not),
I personaly caused much confusion in a poule fight, by spending 5 mins argueing with my oponnent and the presedent over the deciding hit, it had got caught between my finger and the guard during my lunge so there was no way the other guy could have done a stop hit or parry, I hit (winning the bout) but asked for it to be disallowed, nether the presednet or my oponent would do so and in the end, my oponent just conceded the fight (AARRRGGG),

But there are groups who behave very honestly, the sussex house epee team behaved fabously all the way through, and when we fourght them, were simply a pleasure to fence ( even correcting us on rules without penalising us - we made a few boo boo's, just so we fould know for the future ), so for every naasty person there are good ones.

Robert
-12th July 2004, 10:29
Originally posted by Gav
I'll not name names but I was disapointed to see at least one extremely dodgy decision.


From your description it sounds hard to criticise it. The president called what he could see, and stuck to his guns. That seems admirable, rather than a negative thing. If I am presiding the only occasion I will overturn my own decision is if the fencer who benefits from it concedes the point (and to some extent even that isn't really a good idea).

Pity the other fencer didn't say, but at 14 all in the nationals semi-final I can't really blame him.

Robert

Gav
-12th July 2004, 10:36
I wouldn't have posted this if wasn't so patently obvious that the hit was off-piste. It was a staggeringly bad judgement call.

gbm
-12th July 2004, 12:31
Just be glad it wasn't foil, where if you want to win you sometimes have to make sure you are well ahead of your opponent, as if it is close the ref can push it either way... or so I am told, since I rarely win anything, let alone push it close!

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 12:45
I saw very little that was controversial in the men's foil and everybody seemed to accept the decisions amicably. Perhaps this belies all the discussions on this board.

Or it just suggests that we are all gettting things wrong together.

Gav, what would you do if refereeing you gave the hit (on the assumption that sometimes you make a mistake) and everyone around the piste (possibly team mates of one or the other fencer, possibly just supporting one or another fencer, or interested) tells you, you have got it wrong?

I don't see how you can change your opinion.

That said, if it was that obvious, you would have to say the ref should have done better.

gbm
-12th July 2004, 12:48
Shouldn't there have been line judges at that stage anyway?

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 12:54
GBM, next you will be suggesting we should have weight-tested tips at foil. :)

uk_45
-12th July 2004, 12:55
I'm wondering why the other fencer didn't call a jury on that one.

randomsabreur
-12th July 2004, 12:57
They might even start controlling lames for those weapons that have them.

randomsabreur
-12th July 2004, 12:58
Can't call a jury, as it was a question of fact - whether or not the point hit the floor or the fencer, not a question of rules - ie that hitting the floor is not a valid hit

gbm
-12th July 2004, 13:00
Nobody can contest a decision of the referee based on a point of fact. The line judges, if there had been any, could have informed the referee. He would then likely have changed his decision, but he is not required to. If the referee simply says that the hit was valid and not off-piste, this cannot be contested. Only a decision of the referee based on a misapplication of a rule can be contested. For example a referee giving a yellow card to your opponent for a deliberate hit not on the fencer. The referee has said that the hit was deliberately not on the fencer (if he had said it was accidental, or had been off-target on the fencer, then this could not be contested). However, the correct penalty for this is a red card, not a yellow one, so he has misapplied the rules.
PS any similarity between my example and the subject of this thread is entirely coincidental.

wingnutLP
-12th July 2004, 13:32
The fencer who hit the floor was clearly aware that he had not made a valid hit and should have come clean.

Gav
-12th July 2004, 14:02
Originally posted by Insipiens
I saw very little that was controversial in the men's foil and everybody seemed to accept the decisions amicably. Perhaps this belies all the discussions on this board.

Or it just suggests that we are all gettting things wrong together.

Gav, what would you do if refereeing you gave the hit (on the assumption that sometimes you make a mistake) and everyone around the piste (possibly team mates of one or the other fencer, possibly just supporting one or another fencer, or interested) tells you, you have got it wrong?

I don't see how you can change your opinion.

That said, if it was that obvious, you would have to say the ref should have done better.

Actually he can't change his mind once he has made is mind up - that is strictly by the rules he can't. However there was an element of doubt in any case. He did ask the two fencers to test the piste despite the fact that one of them was protesting that the hit did not land anywhere near the piste.

What would I do? I suppose we all make mistakes but I would like to think that in a similair set of circumstances I wouldn't have said that an off-piste hit this obvious was good. Personally, I would have at least considered not giving the hit if the doubt was as great as it was.

It's a tricky one, I don't dispute that. I'd like to think that I would have spotted the off piste and it wouldn't have gotten to this stage.

I'ev posted this here, not out of outrage, more out of increduility.

Threestain
-12th July 2004, 14:46
Gav, do you always know where you hit? I know I don't, and quite often where I think I've hit is nowhere near where something actually came up. Its not the fencers job to decide whether or not a hit is on the floor or not - that what the earthed piste and the president is for - sometimes you know, sometimes you don't - the same way that sometimes foilists and sabreurs acknowledge hits, and yet at others are disgusted by a decision that seems completely correct.

Bear in mind the person who lost because of the decision was not angry at the other fencer, just incredulous with the decision by the referee. Besides at the end of the day, with refereeing decisions you win some and you lose some - it all balances out in the end.

Also the referee was actually looking and watching for a hit off the piste because of their positioning, but decided there hadn't been one (this is not from watching but from speaking to all parties involved afterwards).

Gav
-12th July 2004, 15:15
Gav, do you always know where you hit? I know I don't, and quite often where I think I've hit is nowhere near where something actually came up. Its not the fencers job to decide whether or not a hit is on the floor or not - that what the earthed piste and the president is for - sometimes you know, sometimes you don't - the same way that sometimes foilists and sabreurs acknowledge hits, and yet at others are disgusted by a decision that seems completely correct.


Do I always know where I hit? No, I would never be so crass as to suggest that.

Also, if you read my initial starting post I believe you will find me acknowledging how thorny this issue is. I don't really blame the fencer who got the hit at all. Have a read you'll see what I am getting at. It's the ref's decision I was interested in discussing.



Bear in mind the person who lost because of the decision was not angry at the other fencer, just incredulous with the decision by the referee. Besides at the end of the day, with refereeing decisions you win some and you lose some - it all balances out in the end.

I don't think I suggested, ever, that that ws the case. The fencer involved eventually accepted the decision but not exactly with good grace. You are correct, you win some you lose some but you don't often lose a medal because your opponent hit the ground.



Also the referee was actually looking and watching for a hit off the piste because of their positioning, but decided there hadn't been one (this is not from watching but from speaking to all parties involved afterwards).


I find it strange that everone around the piste plainly saw an off piste hit yet an experienced ref', who was watching for it, didn't. Especially as it was obviously quite far from the piste. I'm not kidding. I've also seen the ref in question disallow hits that are a lot less dubious.

Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to chat to the parties following it. I wish I did - i'll catch up with them next time I see them and ask them then.

I'll try and restate myself. I am incredulous at the decision. Incredulous enough to put finger to keyboard and start a discussion about it.

Nothng like a bit of controversy to spice things up a bit is there?

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 15:21
Was the ref also fencing that day? I am beginning to think that the extra mental effort required for reffing is not something that I want to put in while I am still competing. I still end up doing it though.

I expect that many of the poorer decisions many of us make are partly due to fatigue. Given the general lack of non-fencing refs that probably goes for them too (by the last eight I think that all the refs were at least no longer fencing.)

Gav
-12th July 2004, 15:26
Originally posted by Insipiens
Was the ref also fencing that day? I am beginning to think that the extra mental effort required for reffing is not something that I want to put in while I am still competing. I still end up doing it though.

I expect that many of the poorer decisions many of us make are partly due to fatigue. Given the general lack of non-fencing refs that probably goes for them too (by the last eight I think that all the refs were at least no longer fencing.)

In this case, no, the referee was definitely not fencing.

gbm
-12th July 2004, 15:30
Even if the hit had been annulled, there was a 50/50 chance that it would have come out the same in the end though...

Prometheus
-12th July 2004, 15:33
Assuming there was no reason for biasness then one can only assume an honest mistake. Been there myself - tired and not paying as much attention as one ought.

Trouble is you're still a better president and doing a better job at it than many others often, I speak from a foil presiding point of view only. Admittedly not all of that the case here still you hate it if you get it wrong - you know you've blurted out a decision before it occurs to you exactly what happened but must stick with it. Anyone for sleepless nights? Then take up presiding.

Sounds like Gav is more incredulous than others though.....how sweet......

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 15:35
perhaps being an epéeist he is not inured to the concept of refereeing controversy, or wearied by the long discussions on right of way on the foil board? ;)

gbm
-12th July 2004, 15:36
Originally posted by Insipiens
or wearied by the long discussions on right of way on the foil board? ;)

Do you know I don't think we've had one of those for a while. And they certainly don't spiral off into the lengths they do on fencing.net...

Gav
-12th July 2004, 15:37
Originally posted by Prometheus


Sounds like Gav is more incredulous than others though.....how sweet......

That's me, the concerned of basildon of the fencing world!

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 15:40
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Do you know I don't think we've had one of those for a while. And they certainly don't spiral off into the lengths they do on fencing.net...

I find the americanisms on fencing.net too much for me personally.

And I thought they spent all their time arguing about Zionism.

Sorry that was far too off topic.

Gav, at least you are not irate of Tonbridge Wells . :)

Marcos
-12th July 2004, 16:12
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Even if the hit had been annulled, there was a 50/50 chance that it would have come out the same in the end though...

haven't quite grasped the sport have we...?:tongue:

if the score had been 1-1 in a L64 I'm sure the fencer involved could well have acknowledged the error

but at 14-14 in a semi-final? it would take a better man than I to correct a mistake, especially when I think of all the decisions that (I think) have gone against me

gbm
-12th July 2004, 16:14
I'm not an epeeist. I'm too pedantic. Why not?

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 16:17
Originally posted by goodbadandme
I'm not an epeeist. I'm too pedantic. Why not?
ability?

Threestain
-12th July 2004, 16:22
Fair point, I did read your initial post, but got the wrong end of the stick slightly. Sorry about that. Anyway, reffing isn't easy, especially in epee, as we all know - how many times have you gently drifted off whilst reffing a poule fight only for something completely random to happen and then be expected to say something remotely like what happened! :) Generally the ref is a good one, and I'm sure had it happened at any other point in the fight it would have been forgotten, but unfortunately it was 'the defining moment'. Ah well, there's always next year!

Gav
-12th July 2004, 16:38
Yes, there's always next year...

Barry Paul
-12th July 2004, 16:43
Is it possible that the winning fencers was, in his view, robbed of a hit earlier on in the fight and decided this last hit equalled things out?

Gav
-12th July 2004, 16:44
Originally posted by Barry Paul
Is it possible that the winning fencers was, in his view, robbed of a hit earlier on in the fight and decided this last hit equalled things out?

Now that's what I call stirring things up...

gbm
-12th July 2004, 16:47
Originally posted by Marcos
haven't quite grasped the sport have we...?:tongue:

if the score had been 1-1 in a L64 I'm sure the fencer involved could well have acknowledged the error

but at 14-14 in a semi-final? it would take a better man than I to correct a mistake, especially when I think of all the decisions that (I think) have gone against me

Surely if the hit had been annulled, i.e. the referee had been informed by line judges and had decided according, then fencing would have continued, and given that it was 14-14, there would have been a 50/50 chance of either of them winning?

Insipiens
-12th July 2004, 16:48
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Surely if the hit had been annulled, i.e. the referee had been informed by line judges and had decided according, then fencing would have continued, and given that it was 14-14, there would have been a 50/50 chance of either of them winning?

I think there was equal opportunity of each winning, but that is not the same as equal chance.

Rdb811
-12th July 2004, 16:49
Originally posted by Insipiens


Gav, at least you are not irate of Tonbridge Wells . :)

Mrs Trellis of North Wales, perhaps ?

I've reffed in similar circumsantances (thankfully an L256) and saw a floor hit which the fencer concerned (who is a friend) though had hit the far side of his opponenets thigh. At the end of the day, you can only give what you see

Threestain
-12th July 2004, 16:51
Besides, I've never actually heard of line judges. But then again I've not got too much international experience...

of course I have heard of assistants, but equally they would not have been solely watching the floor as floor spotters do without metallic pistes.

on a tangent - Barry, what's the deal with your rubber pistes - I think they're great, but hear they're not FIE or something (something to do with the grounding points? and difficulty in fixing them?)

Barry Paul
-12th July 2004, 17:04
Me Stir, just trying to put forward a possibility that could put the winning fencers in a better light in Gavs mind. (I have no idea what fight it was who the fencers or refere was.) Robbed was an incorrect word I should have said 'a previous hit not given which the fencers thought incorrect'

cesh_fencing
-12th July 2004, 19:46
My general view is that you have to fence to the president and accept the decisions given, as I am sure the fencer who ended up on the wrong end of this has done (that is if it was a floor hit). All the fencers who made the last 8 of the mens epee, I feel are honest fencers.

Over the weekend I am sure there were hundreds of dodgy decisions (in foil alone) and that is part of the spectical of fencing. Do we want video replays, doubt this will be practical.

Most of us move to Epee due to the inconsistancies in presiding at the other weapons, so as we have to put up with only 1% of the problems the other weapons have, we are lucky.

Presidents have a crap job generally, and as long organisers try to manage the biased ones away from their favorite fencers we can only trust what they say.

I feel that where possible a london ref should not preside a london fencer against a northern fencer lets say. And a Northern President should not preside a northern fencer against a london one in what is expected to be a interesting match whatever weapon. This is the case especially if a president actually requests particular fights at later stages of competitions to massage their egos.

pinkelephant
-12th July 2004, 20:27
Where does that leave the rest of the country? And as someone who has strong links with London, the South West and the North West, just whom am I to be trusted to referee?

pinkelephant
-12th July 2004, 20:29
Oh, by the way, 3CT also has all these links. Is he only to be allowed to referee abroad?

He'd probably enjoy that much more.

Robert
-12th July 2004, 20:32
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Where does that leave the rest of the country? And as someone who has strong links with London, the South West and the North West, just whom am I to be trusted to referee?

Pinkelephant is right. Most of the fencers come from a small area, and fairly obviously most of the presidents come from the same areas.

Robert

Australian
-13th July 2004, 07:26
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Oh, by the way, 3CT also has all these links. Is he only to be allowed to referee abroad?

He'd probably enjoy that much more.

i've got the same problem - guess i can't referee then :tongue:

tigger
-13th July 2004, 09:40
I used to acknowledge hits and correct wrong decisions that had been given in my favour. But over time you learn the reality of life is that that the favour is very rarely returned, and that fortune evens out in the end.

Robert
-13th July 2004, 09:53
Originally posted by tigger
I used to acknowledge hits and correct wrong decisions that had been given in my favour. But over time you learn the reality of life is that that the favour is very rarely returned, and that fortune evens out in the end.

Your moral philosophy is based upon a principle of fairness. When in fact it should be based on a desire to achieve a feeling of smug superiority.

Robert

tigger
-13th July 2004, 10:09
Superiority certainly...:grin: my omniscience is often confused for smugness. Big mistake - as I'm omnisicient I know where you live :tongue:

I recall one fight in the L16 of a major open where I acknowledged 4 hits against me that were originally awarded to me. When 1 hit was awarded wrongly the other way the fencer took the point and scored the next hit to win the fight 15-14.

I still do it if it's a minor event, or if I'm WAY ahead in the fight. But the favour is still very rarely returned.

Cheetara
-13th July 2004, 10:10
Sometimes I think it's worth acknowledging hits to avoid the unpleasantness that goes with a dodgy decision. Plus it's a good feeling when you beat someone even after you've acknowledged hits.

But I think in this case who can really say that they would acknowledge it?

(started before tigger's last post)

Insipiens
-13th July 2004, 10:27
then there is the tactic of acknowledging hits that are clearly going the other way, but not the doubtful ones, thus giving the ref the idea that if it were on you, you would acknowledge it.:grin:

Actually I acknowledge fewer hits these days, because sometimes I have seen people acknowledge hits that were not actually against them.

NLSC Sabreur
-13th July 2004, 13:14
Originally posted by tigger
Superiority certainly...:grin: my omniscience is often confused for smugness. Big mistake - as I'm omnisicient I know where you live :tongue:

I recall one fight in the L16 of a major open where I acknowledged 4 hits against me that were originally awarded to me. When 1 hit was awarded wrongly the other way the fencer took the point and scored the next hit to win the fight 15-14.

I still do it if it's a minor event, or if I'm WAY ahead in the fight. But the favour is still very rarely returned.

In an important fight I'm going to be fired up and I can start seeing every hit as mine even if clearly to the rest of the universe they weren't. You can only expect a fencer to acknowledge hits when fully rational but when the pressure is fully on that rationally can go.

Priapus
-13th July 2004, 14:38
Let me just say Gav's comment leaves me full of vivid resentment. I personally know the epeeist you are referring to and I trust him blindly, he is one of the most loyal fencers I have ever come across during my long and fruitful athletic career. Incompentence outrages me more than anything else, especially when people display it with such a blase' attitude.
Thanks Hadrian Augustus, the wisest of all the roman emperors!

Robert
-13th July 2004, 14:50
Originally posted by Priapus
Let me just say Gav's comment leaves me full of vivid resentment. I personally know the epeeist you are referring to and I trust him blindly, he is one of the most loyal fencers I have ever come across during my long and fruitful athletic career. Incompentence outrages me more than anything else, especially when people display it with such a blase' attitude.
Thanks Hadrian Augustus, the wisest of all the roman emperors!

Sorry not very clear. Do you mean the person presiding, and you think he was right, or do you mean the fencer who benefited and you are defending his integrity?

Robert

P.S And presumably that should be Marcus Aurelius, or are you suggesting brick-layers are more developed intellectuals than philosophers?

dunastor
-13th July 2004, 15:01
Originally posted by Priapus

BTW I hope you have considered what Priapus was the Roman God of... and also what medical condition is associated with him?...

:grin:

Priapus
-13th July 2004, 15:21
I am referring to the fencer who won the fight.
You may be right about Marcus Aurelius but you must admit brick-layers have a more pragmatic approach to problems.

Priapus
-13th July 2004, 15:22
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dunastor
[B]BTW I hope you have considered what Priapus was the Roman God of... and also what medical condition is associated with him?...

Priapus myth is, in fact, originally Greek. He is mostly known for the size of his virile attribute but he was actually a God of fertility and a good warrior. I was referring to him and not to the medical definition of priapism.

aao
-13th July 2004, 15:32
personally i will always try to acknowledge not hitting my opponent if i have reasonable doubt in my mind that I didn't score the hit, and to be honest what the score is and what stage its at at the time won't affect my decision, however this is an issue which I've talked to a number of fencers and coaches about and peoples views tend to differ significantly.

At the Turkish nationals this year in the team event final I acknowledged hitting the floor when I was fairly certain i hadn't hit my opponent but the ref was going to award the hit, my coach out there (former 3 time world champion and olympic team gold meddalist for Romania) went absolutely balistic, telling me that I had no right to do such a thing during a team match and further that as far as he was concerned it was a hit and it was my judgememnt which was wrong. |If the same thing was to happen again I would make the same choice, but my point is is that I might have been wrong in my judgement (some people said it was a hit other thought it wasnt) and my decision could have cost the team the final (it didn;t).
Most of the top fencers I've talked to both current and in the past have said that in such a case the onus is entirely on the ref to make the decision not on the fencer and in circumstances like that they would claim the hit unless they were absolutely convinced they hadn't scored it (and even then some would say nothing!). Their belief is that such things even out over time anyway. Who am I to argue that might well be something which made them as successful as they are/were.

In the case this weekend, I know the fencer concerned very well and i really don't believe that he would claim a hit which he knew for certain wasn't his. If he wasn't sure (which i believe was the case) then he is well within his rights to leave the decision to the ref, after all thats why the ref is there. The reation of his opponent towards him also showed that he believed the same thing and any anger or fustration he felt was directed soley towards the ref. We all have decisions go for us and against us thats just the way fencing is

Robert
-13th July 2004, 16:09
It is sometimes weird how easily your judgement can become faulty. I would acknowledge a hit that was against me if I was sure, but...

In the club sabre I was at 4-4 (having been carded for fleching, because the president had got it into his head that any fleche like movement rather than feet crossing, and not awarded a hit that was clearly mine). Whether I won or lost that poule fight determined if I had to fence the only specialist sabreur in the DE before the finals (so it meant the difference between second and third). On the last hit I parried and riposted, but I wasn't confident I had contacted before the hit, or at the moment of the hit. The president awarded me the hit, and I won.

Now the Wingerworth club sabre is hardly the world's most important competition, but the feeling I had just been robbed of two points, and my desire to get a second place was still enough to blur my judgement. (Some-one I trust on this was watching and he was clear it hadn't been my point).

Now if the possibility of a second place in the club that could claim the title of 'worst sabre club in the UK' can warp my judgement that badly I can only imagine what making the finals of the British Champioships could do.

Robert

aao, in my opinion you were right and your coach was wrong.

C'est moi!
-14th July 2004, 12:54
To raise a point on Gav’s original comment that he doubts favouritism was involved on the ref’s part; I should like to say that if this is the case then there is really no need to point it out….(somewhat like being told ‘don’t think of pink elephants,’ and we all know the effect that has.) I would like to think that his comment was written with a genuine hope to disperse all thoughts along that line, but given the fact that he feels the winning fencer was looking ‘innocent’ at the decision, I’m afraid I have my doubts. (Of course, I could be reading into this far too much and fully accept I ought to take it at face value!)

I know the winning fencer concerned and have seen him fence many, many times. I know for a fact that had he any doubt in his mind as to the hit, then he would have stated so, and would certainly not think of claiming a hit that was not his to even up any decision in a past fight. I think that the suggestion that any fencer would do this at the level we're talking about, is really disingenuous and says quite a lot about the person making it.

Whilst every sportsperson wants to win, I know that the fencer concerned has the highest of morals when it comes to competing, as well as the strongest sense of fair play of any competitive sportsperson that I have met.

As to the ‘innocent’ look, I might perhaps say that I think this really an unnecessary comment, which doesn’t put the winning fencer in a good light at all. Perhaps we would do well to remember that looks aren’t everything (!) and I for one know from watching myself fencing on video that I pull some rather funny faces which do not match my thoughts at all.

I think that aao is quite right when he says that if there is any doubt in the fencer’s mind then the best thing to do is to let the ref decide. After all, I know that where I have instantly said that I thought the hit was not valid, it has had the effect of swaying the ref, and upon later reflection, I realise that I was probably not sure, but too anxious not to be seen as a bad sport. If you speak up then it should only be if you are definitely certain about the hit, but even then there are times when a ref doesn’t want to have their authority usurped. After all, when we fence, that’s exactly what we do-concentrate on the fencing, the whole reason for having a ref is to let them have the problem of working out what’s gone on and be admired or reviled for their decisions….

I guess the point it that you win some you lose some, but any suggestion of foul play by the winning fencer in this case is truly unwarranted in my opinion.

:soap:

Priapus
-14th July 2004, 13:51
Is it possible that somebody on this forum craves this guy's success? Not only our man is a top-level fencer in the UK and Europe; he is a very successful attorney and, according to the Evening Standard, one of the 50 most eligible bachelors in London. Is that enough?

Captain Max
-14th July 2004, 14:42
Originally posted by tigger
I used to acknowledge hits and correct wrong decisions that had been given in my favour. But over time you learn the reality of life is that that the favour is very rarely returned, and that fortune evens out in the end.

I wouldn't acknowledge a hit if the ref has made a dodgy decision against me in the same bout. As you say if it isn't returned you shouldn't do it.

gbm
-14th July 2004, 14:51
Ah, the fun of reffing your bouts...

I'm never even sure what I'm doing usually, so I rarely concede dodgy points, simply because I'm not sure myself (the ref has the best view, if not the best seats in the house), but I do concede blatant ones.

And you should try this when all the spools start to go on the blink and come up off-target instead of on target, and you try to say whether the hit was on or off target... semi-steam. Fun.

Cheetara
-14th July 2004, 15:16
Perhaps I ought to have added, 'unless of course there's no way on this planet you could possibly have hit your opponent'

Have you ever tried to fence and at the same time think about, and remember exactly what is going on? Both need concentration and when you're concentrating completely on the fencing can anyone really say they trust their judgement as to what had really happened?

Sorry if it read differently

Captain Max
-14th July 2004, 15:33
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Ah, the fun of reffing your bouts...

I'm never even sure what I'm doing usually...

Is that when you're reffing, fencing or just life in general? :tongue:

Neo
-14th July 2004, 17:37
To add to controversy, in a totally unrelated way, we were watching a foil bout and overhead a certain coach tell one of his fencers... if he gets close to you again just fall to the floor, he's already on a yellow, he'll get a red...;)

Neo
-14th July 2004, 17:41
Originally posted by Priapus
Is it possible that somebody on this forum craves this guy's success? Not only our man is a top-level fencer in the UK and Europe; he is a very successful attorney and, according to the Evening Standard, one of the 50 most eligible bachelors in London. Is that enough?

erm, I suspect you're referring to his dad. The fencer in question is still in law school

gbm
-14th July 2004, 17:57
Originally posted by Neo
To add to controversy, in a totally unrelated way, we were watching a foil bout and overhead a certain coach tell one of his fencers... if he gets close to you again just fall to the floor, he's already on a yellow, he'll get a red...;)

Ah, the joys of proper coaching support...

Insipiens
-15th July 2004, 08:52
Originally posted by Neo
erm, I suspect you're referring to his dad. The fencer in question is still in law school

It seems unlikely that he would be
according to the Evening Standard, one of the 50 most eligible bachelors in London. if he has a son at law school.

Neo
-15th July 2004, 13:47
I'm informed neither is correct (as to the fencer in question - no idea about anyone else)

ihunter
-27th July 2004, 22:32
I've just caught up with this thread and I've thought hard about putting in my tuppence worth.I hardly know where to start with all the refereeing expertise on display regularly in this forum.!?
This incident is no big deal either way.....in the great scheme of things the pursuit of perfection is an admirable aim but..........!!!
Rules introduced within the last few seasons were promulgated by M. Roch to tidy up fencing and particularly epee fencing. Competitors are provided with a 11/2 -2 metre piste and they persist in fencing right on the edge. Step off and you're penalised etc. Those of you actually interested in refereeing might want to be informed of my current thoughts about hits to foot that palpably land off the piste!!!(another thread i think).
Let me clear one point up now. Referee's are NOT there to see hits. That's what the box is there for.They are responsible for observing actions and recorded lights in relation to the position of the fencers to each other and to the piste. Epee refereeing is a 3 dimensional activity in real time, that's what makes it difficult. I didn't see the 'incident ' but have heard all about it. I do have an opinion but not one I wish to publish on this forum. I hope to see all you expert ref's at a course or seminar, to get you qualified, and then I'll share my opinion with you. I'll finish by saying that I wish every hit I'd ever given was valid, in time and within the rules. Bearing in mind I've been doing some International sabre this season, i have my doubts.

gbm
-27th July 2004, 22:35
Originally posted by ihunter
I hope to see all you expert ref's at a course or seminar, to get you qualified, and then I'll share my opinion with you.

Where's the next one then? :grin:

Australian
-28th July 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Where's the next one then? :grin:

usually at the bar of the next big open....?

Robert
-28th July 2004, 08:17
Originally posted by Australian
usually at the bar of the next big open....?

Then that would be why no-one is there. The standard of refereeing (as was raised some 12 months ago on this forum) is the fault of the BFA, not fencers.

Robert

gbm
-28th July 2004, 11:22
Originally posted by Robert
Then that would be why no-one is there. The standard of refereeing (as was raised some 12 months ago on this forum) is the fault of the BFA, not fencers.

Robert

If you offer to referee, and you are not competent, it is YOUR fault, not the BFA's. If you make a mistake, or misapply a rule, it is YOUR fault, not the BFA's. It is not the responsibility of the BFA to provide referees (except at British Championships e.t.c.). The organisers of competitions like Opens generally have to rely on self-presiding. But they don't force anybody to referee. If I offered to drive you home, and I didn't know how to drive, would that be the fault of the government, or the Driving Instructors association, or the DVLA, for not preventing me?
The BFA do run refereeing courses. Unfortunately I missed the last one at Cardiff. I have heard they have run refereeing seminars at Opens where nobody has turned up. Whose fault is it that fencers who blatantly can't referee then volunteer?
Not the BFA's.

Robert
-28th July 2004, 11:41
Originally posted by goodbadandme
I have heard they have run refereeing seminars at Opens where nobody has turned up. Whose fault is it that fencers who blatantly can't referee then volunteer?
Not the BFA's.

The BFAs.

Sorry you live on another planet but the reason no-one turns up is no-one tells fencers they are happening. Last year there was a huge fuss on this forum about this. The BFA moaned no-one had turned up to the seminar at Leicester, why? Because the BFA had not bothered to tell anyone the seminar was on. In the main hall there were fencers moaning about lack of referees seminars who had finished DEs and fifty yards away was a referees seminar they hadn't been told about.

If the BFA held lots of seminars at opens, and publicised them well, and the standard was still low that would be fencers fault. While the BFA doesn't hold these events and doesn't tell anyone when they do.

Robert

P.S The LPJS being the one notable exception (but there you can see part of the problem with 1 Manchester ref, and everyone else in London), congratulations to the people involved in organising that.

gbm
-28th July 2004, 11:52
Originally posted by Robert
While the BFA doesn't hold these events and doesn't tell anyone when they do.


I can tell people what to do - ring up the BFA, buy a copy of their nice new updated rulebook, and read it. Then read all my posts on this forum (joking, read Keith A Smith's instead). Then all will become clear...
I'd like to think I know at least a little bit of the rules, and I've never made it to a seminar yet.
I can't ref, but that's a different matter altogether!

Robert
-28th July 2004, 12:22
GBM,

Everyone is capable of reading the rulebook, and many people do. PinkElephant, myself, Australian, and Prometheus have all read the rulebook (more than once and critically). I am certain we have all also read the guidelines for refs, and we've all been involved in the debates on this forum. All four of us also preside at various competitions.

Yet you can find disagreements between any of those people on this forum (if you dig around you should find a real stand-up fight between myself and Prometheus on whether hand extension or foot movement indicates priority in an advance-lunge, for just one example).

Reading the rulebook is not sufficient (your own admission on presiding is proof of that). You need a system of training, qualifying and updating to ensure consistency. It is that system which is missing from British Fencing (last year was particularly bad as Inverclyde was cancelled).

Now, if there was a system of seminars at opens timed to coincide with the end of 1st or 2nd round DEs and aimed at basic presiding, well publicised, and which then gave the opportunity to shadow top presidents doing the finals, that would be good. Unfortunately at the moment that doesn't exist.

One last thing. You said that fencers were at fault if they presided when they lacked ability. Fine, but who else is going to do it. In any poule of six, three fencers have to preside. The best president presides all but five, the second best presides four, and the third best has to preside the first two. If people followed your advice most poules would be unable to proceed.

Robert

Prometheus
-28th July 2004, 13:31
Originally posted by Robert
Yet you can find disagreements between any of those people on this forum (if you dig around you should find a real stand-up fight between myself and Prometheus on whether hand extension or foot movement indicates priority in an advance-lunge, for just one example).........

Robert


Well said......Robert, re. the advance lunge....I still maintain I'm right, because...........;)

ihunter
-28th July 2004, 17:39
I've been invited to leicester and if allowed by the organisers I'll run a reffing seminar, any weapon, whenever there's a demand for it over the w/e.(ie enough people to make it worthwhile.)
For those of you i havn't met and who are unaware of who /what i am. see below.



FIE FOIL 'B'
FIE SABRE 'B'
FIE EPEE 'A'

I am currently one of the 2 brits, the other one being Keith, on the fie list of ref's for Grand prix epee comps and did the team finals in Vancouver and Legnano and the individual final in legnano this year, so I can't be accused of not being current.I've also reffed junior world cup sabre at Arricia and Logrono this year asv well as the late , lamented Corble Cup.

ps. behave yourself Mr. Baker, I'll obviously have to report this infraction of refereeing ethics to Peter Osvath who will agree that none of us drinks!!!

Robert
-28th July 2004, 18:01
Originally posted by ihunter
I've been invited to leicester and if allowed by the organisers I'll run a reffing seminar, any weapon, whenever there's a demand for it over the w/e.(ie enough people to make it worthwhile.)

I'm interested. How much will you charge? Where do we register?

Foil in my case, but we should have about half a dozen fencers down that weekend (mostly epee) so I would hope at least one other would be up for it.

Robert

gbm
-28th July 2004, 18:07
How do I qualify as a referee? I'm fairly sure I can pass any written test, it's just the practical bit that might be more of a problem...

Rdb811
-28th July 2004, 23:32
Originally posted by goodbadandme
If you offer to referee, and you are not competent, it is YOUR fault, not the BFA's. <snip>
Whose fault is it that fencers who blatantly can't referee then volunteer?
Not the BFA's.

How about the b*gg*rs that can referee but don't ?

gbm
-29th July 2004, 10:17
Originally posted by Rdb811
How about the b*gg*rs that can referee but don't ?

I would if I could, but I can't, so I shan't (yet).

Rdb811
-29th July 2004, 23:21
Doesn't mean that there isn't some U12 event that your services aren't required for.

gbm
-30th July 2004, 11:33
I suppose I could volunteer for the Welsh Youth comps...
(grumble grumble)

randomsabreur
-30th July 2004, 20:56
I can referee, or at least a couple of BFA referees committee examiners have said that I can. However, this is only the case when I am not fencing. I have combined refereeing in and fencing in a pool on several occasions, and on most of those, one, or more likely both of the things I was attempting to do (i.e. refereeing or fencing) have gone horribly wrong.

So tho' I am qualified, at a big open, where I am likely to be fairly stressed, I do my best to avoid reffing my own pool. This means that i am (somewhat) less likely to go and try and find something unmoving (to avoid getting told off/kicked out) but satisfying to kick after the pool or DE, or to avoid getting moaned at, or feeling guilty because I have failed to recognise the subtle attack on preparation or attack-counter attack that could have turned the fight around.

So in effect me not reffing while also attempting to fence is a good thing for all concerned, especially the poor soul who has to spend the journey home in a car with me!

Robert
-30th July 2004, 23:01
Originally posted by randomsabreur
I have combined refereeing in and fencing in a pool on several occasions, and on most of those, one, or more likely both of the things I was attempting to do (i.e. refereeing or fencing) have gone horribly wrong.


I agree with random, I fence and ref worse when I am doing both. If other people are happy to ref I let them, but unfortunately that often isn't the case.

Robert