March Madness 2004

[The0ne]

OK. . . When I watch sabre, I am always thinking in foil tempo so I usually get those kind of calls wrong!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

lol, and when I watch foil same thing. Nationals in Austin, div II final, I knew a fencer in it. So I sat down to watch, and my Lord, I couldn't follow a thing. I just kept watching for teh director to raise a hand. Granted that could partially be influenced by the fact that I was sitting and the very end of the strip and couldn't see mutch. But the same thing happened this weekend, until the final bout of course.

[The0ne]

I remember hearing some Sabre fencer at NCAA's saying "What is it with foil? There is like no such thing as preperation!!!" Thought that was pretty funny!

[veeco]

The guy who refereed the final in sabre is one of the referees selected for the Olympic Games. I think he knows his stuff ;-)

[The0ne]

Yeah, I'm guessing that the guy going to ref the Olympics might have a little better sense of Sabre ROW than I do. . .

[oiuyt]

She should have been in the top four, some director screwed up a call that pushed her off the end of the strip at 4-4. granted "stuff" happens, but there really should be competent directors at a national championship (not that USFA directing is all that better at national levels either). Oh well - given that was the only flagrant error i heard of all weekend i suppose the directing was pretty good.

Speaking as said referee, the call wasn't blown.

It was in the overtime minute, Ruth had priority, there were ~18 seconds left, her back foot was on her end line. Ruth's rear foot went off the side of the strip, I called halt just before Ruth began a fleche (which incidently single-lighted her opponent). Halt was before the fleche, touch was annulled. Opponent was advanced a meter which forced Ruth off the end of the strip. There's not the slightest bit of doubt that any of the above is what happened. Her rear foot stepped WELL off the side of the strip, no question. Also no question that it occurred before the fleche began. Sucky way to lose a bout, but the rules were NOT misapplied, the call was NOT blown.

-B

[DJ Apostrophe]

I took this picture ... it is out of focus... but was taken at an interesting moment. Crompton has landed in his lunge, but his hand is still back. You will also notice that Isayenko hasn't started to do anything yet (I believe he was still moving backwards). So I believe Pascal called "Attack no, no riposte from the left, remise from the right is good."

I had to scale the image down a bunch so the board would accept it. The orig. file is around 2 megs. If you want a copy of it, PM me and I will e-mail you the full file.

-w

[fencingguy]

For the men's sabre final, I don't remember the exact action, I just remembering being pretty certain that Isayenko had scored the touch. Granted that could be because I was standing right by Yuri.

Was anyone talking about Brad's directing? I thought this whole discussion currently revolved around Pascal...

Edit: Nevermind, just saw it.

[a517dogg]

Speaking as said referee, the call wasn't blown.

It was in the overtime minute, Ruth had priority, there were ~18 seconds left, her back foot was on her end line. Ruth's rear foot went off the side of the strip, I called halt just before Ruth began a fleche (which incidently single-lighted her opponent). Halt was before the fleche, touch was annulled. Opponent was advanced a meter which forced Ruth off the end of the strip. There's not the slightest bit of doubt that any of the above is what happened. Her rear foot stepped WELL off the side of the strip, no question. Also no question that it occurred before the fleche began. Sucky way to lose a bout, but the rules were NOT misapplied, the call was NOT blown.

-B

I heard that there was corps a corps, halt was called, then they both stepped back with Ruth putting one foot off the strip. The halt was called right after corps a corps and before the foot went off and that was the issue - since Ruth believed her foot went off after halt was called that she shouldn't have lost a meter.

After the bout the other fencer as well as her father both came up to Ruth and said they believed the call was wrong.

[dunastor]

After the bout the other fencer as well as her father both came up to Ruth and said they believed the call was wrong.

These things is why the only one who's right is the ref.
He is the one who sees the things happen, and calls it that way.
believing has nothing to do with it.

(not that refs make no mistakes, but claiming that the ref saw something wrong just doesn't have any grounds... it says so in the FIE reglement)

[hpfencing]

Speaking as a referee. I know sometimes we blow calls just like fencers sometime blow bouts

A referee can only call what they see and how they see it. Referees spend lots of time and practice to be ready for events and sometimes calls are blown; it happens.

Instead of arguing over the last call of a bout, as a coach, I suggest to my fencers to look at the rest of the game. Why did you (the fencer) ever let the score get to 14-14 or what-ever? It's always easier to blame someone else than to look at the real cause.

Another idea is to not play the back of the strip. I also suggest my fencers stay close to the warning line and NOT back up that far. this gives them a little lea-way in cases like this as if they loose a meter they are still on the strip.

In this case it sounds like the call was made and the referee did it correctly just from listening to the discussion here but I was not there.

[The0ne]

yeah, I've made calls and seconds later I think "why did I make THAT call!?!?!" to myself. . . Everyone knows that refs miss a call or two, whatever. . . Fencers just like to whine about it!!!

The only reason I brought it up in the first place was that to my foil-trained eye, it looked like the ref called the action differently than he had in the past. . . Someone who actually fences sabre informed me that the actions were different, and I definately trust his judgement over mine. . . Sabre tempo is always tighter than I think it is. . .

[whtouche]

My personal thoughts on the issue of the last call for MS, initially I thought that it was the same action being called differently. But upon further reflection, and this might be something different from what Pascal saw - but as I saw it: before, crompton would land his "lunge"(really just the start of a rolling attack) and nearly as soon as his foot hit the ground isayenko would hit him, effectively making it attack no, riposte. What was different about the last touch was there was much more distance between them, so crompton's front foot landing was the start of his attack in this action. Just think of it as another piece of footwork. If you get hit while you're advancing it's the same thing.

Another possible explanation I suppose is that this was not just a footwork variation, but that definitively this was his "lunge" (Which it obviously isn't, note the picture at the landing of his foot his sabre is held back - obviously the start of an attack) and that once it lands sergi has tempo to take over the action and form a riposte, which would negate the validity of cromptons continued attack - and make the last call wrong.

But, that's not how I see it. And Im tired so pardon the incoherency.

[oiuyt]

I heard that there was corps a corps, halt was called, then they both stepped back with Ruth putting one foot off the strip. The halt was called right after corps a corps and before the foot went off and that was the issue - since Ruth believed her foot went off after halt was called that she shouldn't have lost a meter.

After the bout the other fencer as well as her father both came up to Ruth and said they believed the call was wrong.

The reason I said halt was for the foot. The foot was definitely off before the halt command. I don't remember any actions prior to that, my general sense of what I remember is that both fencers were still trying to manipulate distance to set up an action rather than that they were just coming out of a close exchange (and certainly had I seen a corps a corps that would have been a halt). This would generally be backed up by my certain memory that immediately following my saying halt that Ruth fleched. Bouncing off of a corps a corps it would be exceedingly hard to a) reverse direction into a fleche, b) have the proper distance for what was a very nice fleche that single-lighted her opponent. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the memory of a corps a corps comes from the fleche action which began after the halt.

In fact, the more I think about it the more certain I am about my memory reconstruction of the events. Ruth had been fencing near the tape for a significant part of the bout. Her foot just drifted wide on a fairly typical step. That her opponent didn't see this is not surprising to me. She certainly had other things to occupy her attention. The referee that I was sharing the strip with saw the same things and same timing that I did. George K. (the opponent was NOT a Columbia fencer, Alexie Rubin was in the same travelling group as Ruth) did as well (he actually was the person who calmed Attilio down). I think the reconstruction that you heard is just mixed up slightly from what happened.

As mentioned before, sucky way to lose a bout, but there's no doubt in my mind that the call was correct. I'm certainly not infallible, but this one was clear.

-B