Approved Rulings

[achilleus]

I agree, technology and better fencers have pushed the conventions to how they are. There is no nefarious plot to "twist the rules". I just believe that there is no reason not to clarify, for example, "extending" in the definition of attack. Would it hurt anybody to add a line saying "extending can begin at time x, must begin by time y, can be non-continuous just so long as the weapon is never pulled back, and must be finished by time z." If the conventions are definite, then let us make them rules. Why not? I feel that the reason is because they are not as definite as they seem, and actually codifying them would bring that out.

The conventions are definite, for now. As to why they aren't written down, well, they are. Check out the much talked about FIE guidelines that were written about 3 years ago.

Again, to be up to date on the conventions requires interest and effort.

Yes it would be convienent for the FIE to add the AR's, but it won't happen since the FIE is run by several different organizations, all with their own idea of how fencing should be.

For example, imagine the task of determining AR's fell to 2 people on this board. Myself and DanInMI. It's obvious that very little consensus would be reached even though we worked from the same rulebook.

So there will always be a variance. The variance diminish's at the higher level's of fencing, since the ref's are in the know.

[achilleus]

I can prove they hurt the sport. They hurt my opinion of the sport, and they reduce my participation in the sport. I cannot prove there is no gain there, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who claimed they fence more because of the lack of specificity in the rules.

Perhaps you have a reason why codifying the conventions hurts the sport?

So, if a small segment of the population says it hurts then it must be changed?

What about the large segment of competitive fencers who see nothing wrong with today's game? Don they prove that it helps just by saying 'I like it as it is'? They don't post here, but believe me, many competitive foil fencers love just the way fencing is. Many love the flick, the marching attack, and the bent arm attack.

As for why codifying conventions would hurt, I never said it would. I've just stated that these conventions already exist, and people have to make an effort to learn them because we aren't likely to receive any AR's from the FIE.

And even if we got them, I'm sure local coaches would argue the AR's.

[counterattack]

Yes it would be convienent for the FIE to add the AR's, but it won't happen since the FIE is run by several different organizations, all with their own idea of how fencing should be.

For example, imagine the task of determining AR's fell to 2 people on this board. Myself and DanInMI. It's obvious that very little consensus would be reached even though we worked from the same rulebook.

So there will always be a variance. The variance diminish's at the higher level's of fencing, since the ref's are in the know.

Exactly the problem. "Conventions" are what people make of them, and if the people at the top can't agree, then how "conventional" are they really? I have read the guidlines as they were linked from other threads, and I can say that they don't resolve much. I agree that it would be hard to get everyone to agree, but I think that it is something that should be done: majority rules. On questions of arbitrary rules, the majority really is what counts. There are ways to test these things: put it to a vote. I am not naive and I understand that there is an art to not bringing divisive issues to vote (see: United Nations, The). I still think it should be tried.

[Schiavona]

In the division where I live is a coach who is FOC. She has an outstanding national and international reputation as a referee, especially in foil. She has always shared her knowledge. She willingly explains her calls, teaches, runs clinics, tests - does whatever is necessary to help fencers understand how foil is called and help anyone who wants to become a rated referee.

Do you think she would like to move to Alaska? We would wash her feet with rose water and feed her sweet grapes

[noodle]

*cough*
i may be interested in moving to alaska...

[achilleus]

Exactly the problem. "Conventions" are what people make of them, and if the people at the top can't agree, then how "conventional" are they really? I have read the guidlines as they were linked from other threads, and I can say that they don't resolve much. I agree that it would be hard to get everyone to agree, but I think that it is something that should be done: majority rules. On questions of arbitrary rules, the majority really is what counts. There are ways to test these things: put it to a vote. I am not naive and I understand that there is an art to not bringing divisive issues to vote (see: United Nations, The). I still think it should be tried.

Have you watched the videos of the Olympics and World Champs? Notice how all the fencers and refs seem to be cool with almost every call. Sure there are the occasional calls that are met with catcalls and boos. The majority of the refs, fencers and audience understand the conventions.

The place I see everyone complaining about bad reffing is at local events, and on this board.

So, the conventions are pretty conventional. You may not agree with them, but you can learn them, and fence accordingly.

As for getting people to agree, it can be done. I'm sure it's been tried. But it hasn't happened yet, and honestly, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

So rather than complaining about the lack of clarification I think it be beneficial to learn the current conventions. It's not difficult, it just requires time, effort, and an open mind.

[Artisan]

Have folks taken a look at the FOC Referee's Handbook?
http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...es%20final.htm

It would seem to quell much of the recent discussion about conventions, interpretations, and allegedly "unwritten rules"

[Schiavona]

*cough*
i may be interested in moving to alaska...

How well do you likethe cold? A hot Summer day is in the low 70's...........

You'd also have to learn to refer to the rest of the country as Outside, as in, "Are you going Outside for Nationals this year?"

[Inquartata]

How well do you likethe cold? A hot Summer day is in the low 70's...........

So how long does it take you to thaw out the rose water, and to fight off the bears and the mosquitoes for the grapes?

[Schiavona]

So how long does it take you to thaw out the rose water, and to fight off the bears and the mosquitoes for the grapes?

Around about now for the first question, and all our fruit comes in neat plastic bags, bears don't like plastic.................


We don't talk about the other thing, you know, the M word. They might hear us

[counterattack]

Have you watched the videos of the Olympics and World Champs? Notice how all the fencers and refs seem to be cool with almost every call. Sure there are the occasional calls that are met with catcalls and boos. The majority of the refs, fencers and audience understand the conventions.

...

So rather than complaining about the lack of clarification I think it be beneficial to learn the current conventions. It's not difficult, it just requires time, effort, and an open mind.

Achilleus, I understand the current conventions, and I understand that the major problem that people have is that they are not used correctly at the lower levels. I think this is BECAUSE they are not in the rule book. Why not put them in the rule book? I agree with you that it isn't likely, but I think it is unfortunate. The full and complete set of definitions that determine how one can score in a game ought to be in the rules. That is my opinion. There are things that can't be put into words but, since you have provided a link to the very words, that argument can't be made here.

[achilleus]

Achilleus, I understand the current conventions, and I understand that the major problem that people have is that they are not used correctly at the lower levels. I think this is BECAUSE they are not in the rule book. Why not put them in the rule book? I agree with you that it isn't likely, but I think it is unfortunate. The full and complete set of definitions that determine how one can score in a game ought to be in the rules. That is my opinion. There are things that can't be put into words but, since you have provided a link to the very words, that argument can't be made here.

It seems we've reached a consensus.

We both agree that:

1) AR's written in the rules would be nice but they ain't gonna happen anytime soon due to politics, and the fact that they change constantly
2) The way the rules are applied is written, and is easily learned by those investing the effort
3) The problem with RoW is not the conventions themselves, but those that ignore or are unaware of the conventions

So how about until AR's are written in the rules, why don't people just get with the program?

Or is that task more impossible than having a AR's written into the rules?

[counterattack]

It seems we've reached a consensus.

We both agree that:

1) AR's written in the rules would be nice but they ain't gonna happen anytime soon due to politics, and the fact that they change constantly

I really do think that that is the point we disagree on. I think if they were made rules they would stop shifting. There is no reason for the de facto rules to shift in a way you can only divine in retrospect. I think that, until everyone agrees that the rules really do need to be nailed down as precisely as words can nail, there will be big and unending arguments... but not unending threads. I've said my piece.

[achilleus]

I really do think that that is the point we disagree on. I think if they were made rules they would stop shifting. There is no reason for the de facto rules to shift in a way you can only divine in retrospect. I think that, until everyone agrees that the rules really do need to be nailed down as precisely as words can nail, there will be big and unending arguments... but not unending threads. I've said my piece.

I've never disagreed with that statement that if they were made rules, they would stop shifting or shift less, as Artisan pointed out earlier. It might.

I've never disagreed with the fact that it could be good to add these applied rulings to the rules.

My point is that there are applied rulings written, not in the rules, but every competent ref knows them. Every competent coach knows them. Every competitve fencer should.

Why are people so unable to accept these? Because their not expressly written in the rulebook? Because these conventions clash with their own sense of how fencing should be? Because it's easier to blame a ref for losing rather than your own lack of practice?

None of those reasons above make much sense to me. It seems far easier to me to learn the conventions and fence accordingly.

I also don't see more explicit rules ending the arguments. I bet that even if the rules were nailed down, people would still complain about bad refs, unclear wording, and different interpretations existing.

Take a look at the NBA finals happening on TV right now. After every game, the LA coach steps up to the mike, and complains about reffing and not getting calls. The talk from the experts is that the more aggressive team gets the calls. The NBA rules are pretty explicitly defined, but I don't see anyone citing that rule.

Look out our own US Law. That's pretty explicit, yet we still have many issues that sway back and forth, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

[mrbiggs]

The fencing issue isn't like baseball at all. ( In my ever so humble opinion )The current rules would be similar to baseball's strike zone if, in the rulebook, the strike zone was defined as "The distance in the middle of the player's body that the referee must throw straight through, without curving, to be called a strike."

Then the refs (umps, whatevah) would say, well, it DOES say THAT in the rules, but we say that it has to be in between the shoulders and the knees. Also, it can curve, as long as it arrives in the strike zone, because it is called when it's in the strike zone, even if it is somewhere else at other times.
Then the refs (umps) from another field would say no, it says in the rules that it must go striaght through the middle, and it cannot curve. Pitch it underhand, if you have to.
In the World Series, conventions will probably be worked out, but it's still a pain on the local level, especially when the commitee could just define the rules.
ALSO, an English fencing rulebook is hard to find (and the American version isn't even "official"), so people can make rules up completely. We ALL have stories of that. (The umps says "Well, it was an invalid pitch, but you leaned into it, making it a strike", or something)
Of course, I already explained why I think the FIE is acting like this.

P.S. curve ball~flick, strike zone~target area...get it?