Assuming it's a sanctioned event, then the BC cannot run the event "how he likes". Regardless of his level of experience, the BC has to run the events according to the rules. You, as the referee, are there to apply the sport's rules, not apply the organizer's rules.

Furthermore, the authority of the referees is severely compromised if the bout committee, for whatever reason, decides to cave and ignore certain rules in order to make fencers happy. Enforcement becomes impossible.

From that point forward, a particularly cagey group of fencers--like, oh, say, veteran-age epeeists--will know that they can have rules selectively and advantageously thrown out by yelling at the bout committee, and at that point you're no longer fencing in any meaningful sense.

Oooooh, so that was the black card I saw in the results from *TOURNAMENT NAME REMOVED*

Jason, there is always going to be some tolerance. Some days or events you can be wicked strict on cards, some days you can let the fencers fence. Usually, if the BC gives some specific instruction [rule de jur] then refs will take that into some account when reffing. If the BC says "give cards" I'll probably be more strict than if they say "don't give cards unless someone dies." Its the middle ground that I'm talking about.

Yup, that was the black card you saw...

I love the irony of being called a rules lawyer by a vet epeeist though.

Usually, if the BC gives some specific instruction [rule de jur] then refs will take that into some account when reffing. If the BC says "give cards" I'll probably be more strict than if they say "don't give cards unless someone dies." Its the middle ground that I'm talking about.

What????

I really think you need to rephrase this section of your comment, or explain why, if my opponent is covering target, causing corps-a-corps, or committing some other infraction, you're going to let the bout committee decide that they are not getting carded, and thus put me at a disadvantage.

Like I said, its the middle ground that I'm talking about. If you hip check a fencer, I am going to card you. Period. If you blatantly cover target, I am going to card you. But, if its borderline, then what I was told by the person hiring me might matter.

Same as a national event where the head referee is harping about c-a-c to avoid a touch in the morning meeting, a referee might be more likely to give that card later on.

Does this really seem unreasonable to you?

Does this really seem unreasonable to you?

It sorta does.

The only reason that should change is that your awareness level of a certain situation changes; hopefully you always card hair on the lame if it's a problem, but maybe you're just a bit more aware of it if the FOC says something in a morning meeting. Much in the same way that if a coach leans on a ref about a certain detail which would affect a ROW call, they'd be more likely to notice it subsequently.

We all know refs who swallow their cards except in the most flagrant of situations, and refs who will happily "see" infractions that weren't close to happening, and demonstrate their copious rulebook knowledge at the expense of a bunch of Y-14 kids. But those are all known "strike-zone" quantities which can be modeled and adjusted for.

It's hard to adjust for tournament organizers screwing up.

It is unreasonable. It means in one event I can anticipate my student will get carded if he or she commits some blatant foul. A few weeks later at a different tournament, you're going to be carding that student for "regular" fouls (the fact that I have to start figuring out how to phrase the difference should be a clue about what future difficulty you're going to be causing).

I'm not going to be very happy. I'm not going to be happy trying to figure out what the 'ell you are doing that day, and I'm likely to be unhappy trying to explain to my fencer why it's not a card from you one day, but is a card from you the next.

You start to see where this is going?

If you referee a lot locally, you're likely to end up in more confrontations with more coaches and fencers because you're all over the map with cards and they aren't going to understand why.

This won't be pleasant for anyone, and the comments are not going to be kind.

Ultimately, the bout committee runs the tournament. But you run the bout.

Fair enough. I see what you guys are saying, and I agree.

But then what happens when you're in the impossible situation of what you normally do conflicts with what you're being told to do. For example, the first time someone's hair comes down, I usually don't give a card for it. I generally tell them to fix it, and if it comes down again, I'm going to to card them for it. Personally, I've found this generally solves the problem. So when I'm reffing with a certain observer sitting behind me, and someones hair comes down, I'm faced with a choice, continue on with what I would normally do, and the fencers might know me to normally do. And if I do that, I get reamed out after the bout by the observer. Or I can give the card. I'm either screwing myself, or screwing the fencers.

Is a favorable rating worth losing some of your integrity as a referee?

You've changed horses on me entirely.

I don't mean to change horses.

As often happens with me, theres something going on that I have a hard time putting into words. I kinds suck at communicating at times...

I still have this feeling that someone hiring me to do something has some control over how I do what I'm being hired to do. I can see, and to some to extent agree with the counter argument to this, but I still feel like it exists. Maybe I'm totally wrong, and I admit theres a good chance of that.

Say I wanted to run an event that wasn't sanctioned. No attacks into preparation would be called. Anyone moving forward WAS attacking. And I was very clear about my intentions with this event. I let refs know in my initial contact with them that this is the way the event would be run. If a ref chose to not work my event I couldn't blame them. But, if they showed up, then refused to referee the way I had instructed, I'd have a serious problem with it. Obviously, if I did this and tried to make it sanctioned it would be a big problem.

If I was working an event, and I was told to do XYZ that didn't really make any sense, I would feel some obligation to do it, because the person hiring me is telling me to do it. I'd have every right to not go back and referee that event again, I might even have grounds to suggest to higher authorities that the event should be desanctioned*, but it doesn't seem right for me to just NOT do what I was told.

In the military, if you're given an order that you are sure is illigal, you're obligated to disobey that order. I don't know the same thing applies in terms of the rules and refereeing. If a BC gives you instructions that differ from your understanding of the rules, are you obligated to disobey it? And if you are, this seems like a breeding ground for getting individual refs that call everything completely differently because "thats how I call it." Thats bringing in the issue of ref development which isn't the point here.

For example, in the events I talked about in the original blog post, the BC had no authority to overturn the red card for unjustified appeal. Granted, the rules become muddled when a ref is replaced mid bout, but the BC definitely doesn't have the authority to decide if a card should be given. Either I did, or the new referee would. But, just because thats my understanding of the rules, doesn't mean its reasonable for me to say "OH NO NO NO! YOU CANT DO THAT! WAHHH WAHHH WAHH." He's in charge, and if he wants to do something like that, I think its his perogative. I mentioned it that he shouldn't, and that he doesn't really have the authority to do that, but its his call. If he wants to, I feel like its his choice.

AH! Now I must depart and get ready for Virginia beach.


*For clarity, I wouldn't just blindly do something, then later talk about that crappy ref catwood that was grounds for desanctioning an event. If I was given instructions that severe, I would talk to the person giving them about the implications of those instructions.

Man up. You're there to do a job, not be someone's b**ch. If someone hires you to be a referee, that's the job you do. The BC doesn't define what that job is, the rules do. They can't say, "Hey Chris, since I hired you to referee this event, you have to go wash my car." If the BC is violating the rules--especially in this case when it's due to inexperience and a lack of understanding--you should politely inform them of their mistake. You're hired for a certain degree of expertise and a valued skill-set. If you don't personally value those skills enough to apply them, then you really shouldn't be doing the job.

You're confusing two issues here. There's a big difference between disobeying an illegal order, and being asked to follow the letter of an order.

Jason has the right of it. Your job is to supply expertise. If people don't want to listen to your expertise you can walk there and then, or just tell the BC later that you're not going to work for them until they understand how you do business*. Going along with every dumb idea or miskane interpretation of the rule is not going to build your integrety as a referee with the locals.

Your relationship with anal retentive observers is another subject entirely.

*Whats the quote from Aykroyd to Cusack in Grosse Point Blank: "Still working for idiots, I see."