Approved Rulings

[haroldbuck]

One of the big problems with the fencing rulebook is the lack of "Approved Rulings," or A.R.s, that you see in the rulebooks of other sports. These tell you exactly how the powers that be want the rules applied in practice. For example, in the lacrosse rulebook they have things like:

A.R. 62. Loose ball in crease, Team B goalkeeper covers ball with his crosse and makes no apparent effort to draw back and pick it up. RULING: Withholding ball from play. Ball awarded to Team A.

Sometimes the rulings are straightforward applications of the rules themselves, but sometimes they fill in gaps in the rules or clear up questions. They normally appear right after the rules that they correspond to.

How much simpler would it be to understand fencing if they included things like this:

A.R. 63 Fencer A moves forward while extending his arm as fencer B retreats. Fencer A momentarily withdraws his arm to initiate a flick, and--while the arm is withdrawing--fencer B extends his arm and stops retreating. Both fencers land valid. RULING: Fencer B has successfully executed an attack into preparation. Touch for B.

Or make the ruling something else. Just TELL us so we know what's going on!

[mrbiggs]

The FIE can't make a rule like "the arm MUST be extended at ALL TIMES during an attack" because the Germans would object. They couldn't go they other way because the French would object. So instead they make a rulebook that people can spend hundreds of posts arguing over that doesn't make sense to anybody, and leave it to the coaches to teach their own personal rules to their students. We're not SUPPOSED to be able to understand exactly what constitues ROW, and fencers are supposed to adapt to their directors' random interpretaions of the rules.

The powers that be can't agree on the rules themselves. If you're in Germany, a bent arm attack is A-OK! In France, it is NOT A-OK! In countries like the U.S. that consist of fencers from a multitude of countries, it's like a wildcard! You never know quite what call you're going to get!

[mrbiggs]

But on the other hand, I think it's really hurting the sport. The confusing aspects of ROW prevent anyone from just walking into a tournament and becoming interested. So many times I hear "Who just got the point" "He did" "Why?" "Well..." No one wants to explain ROW because there is no correct explanation. You may be explaining ROW to a newb while watching a bout, and the director will make a call of "attack" when you just told the newb it was "attack in prep", and then you have to explain how each person has their own set of rules they fence by. It isolates people from the sport, and prevents it from growing in popularity.
Epee doesn't have an advantage because watching it is an aquired taste. It can be very boring for someone off the street, even if it is extremely interesting for knowledgable fencers. So no ROW, but a smaller chance of getting people interested.
And that's why we're struggling for even 15 minutes of coverage at the olympics, even if it's at 1:00 AM.

[Genjuro]

Of course they can't make a rule like: 'The weapon arm must be extended whilst making a attack' This is a really an old (if not completely invalid) interpretation of the only way to get ROW (in foil).

What is wrong, is that some directors see any agressive forward movement (with the whole body) as a attack. And tend to ignore any rules about the correct distance for a 'attack' to have right of way (if my opponent has to make two steps and a lunge to make a hit, while I'm making a PIL (without moving) at his first step), ignore a fencer who is looking for the blade and make an attack directly afterwards. That kind of things spoil the game.

[achilleus]

Of course they can't make a rule like: 'The weapon arm must be extended whilst making a attack' This is a really an old (if not completely invalid) interpretation of the only way to get ROW (in foil).

What is wrong, is that some directors see any agressive forward movement (with the whole body) as a attack. And tend to ignore any rules about the correct distance for a 'attack' to have right of way (if my opponent has to make two steps and a lunge to make a hit, while I'm making a PIL (without moving) at his first step), ignore a fencer who is looking for the blade and make an attack directly afterwards. That kind of things spoil the game.

Conventions change so quickly. I wonder how long a written AR would last.

As it is, there is something that we competitors and refs refer to as current conventions and the FIE guidelines that cover this concept already.

For example, in the early to mid 90's the refs called the attack as the initial offensive action. They really had a very wide interpretation of threatening and extending. Things are changing not because individual refs just decided to, but because the FIE sat down the refs at various tournaments in the late 90's and said that's not how we want it done.

And things have been slowly changing. Unfortunately, since the way the FIE disperses information is not very efficient, it can take a long time for these changes to work their way into the smaller divisions, and less connected refs.

The best way to keep up to date requires effort and interest. One must attend the ref courses, go to large (i.e. national) tournaments, and if at all possible watch or attend international events. It's through these channels that fencers learn about the current conventions of how rules are applied.

The thing that hurts is when someone refs who is either a) out of date or b) only read the rulebook and is unaware of current conventions.

Also note that the US FOC has just started e-newsletter. The short commentary on distance parries that was discussed in a seperate thread was taken from the newsletter. So, it seems the FOC is attempting to inform the public of changes.

[CarlKnoch]

The problem is that the local folks HAVE told people how it's being called, but no one want's to listen to it. This has been gone over again and again on this board and people continue to think that the rules are being misapplied just because they don't agree with the interpretation that's being used. In my area it's pretty consistantly called one way and people still have a beef with it because it's not what THEY think the call should be. At the National level I think it's consistantly called as well and don't see a real need to play it out further in diagrams in the rules book.

Just my opinion.

[downunder]

The problem is that the local folks HAVE told people how it's being called, but no one want's to listen to it. This has been gone over again and again on this board and people continue to think that the rules are being misapplied just because they don't agree with the interpretation that's being used. In my area it's pretty consistantly called one way and people still have a beef with it because it's not what THEY think the call should be. At the National level I think it's consistantly called as well and don't see a real need to play it out further in diagrams in the rules book.

yeah thats how i find it as a highish level referee/fencer in europe

[Artisan]

Conventions change so quickly. I wonder how long a written AR would last.

Written ARs would have the effect of slowing the change of conventions - until an AR is overturned. The FOC would in effect have to develop a system equivalent to the Judicial system - ugh... what a mess...politically appointed regional fencing magistrates, appeal hearings, video taped "case law" that would be required for referee training - wait - thats not a bad idea?

[Schiavona]

Unfortunately, since the way the FIE disperses information is not very efficient, it can take a long time for these changes to work their way into the smaller divisions, and less connected refs.

The best way to keep up to date requires effort and interest. One must attend the ref courses, go to large (i.e. national) tournaments, and if at all possible watch or attend international events. It's through these channels that fencers learn about the current conventions of how rules are applied.

The thing that hurts is when someone refs who is either a) out of date or b) only read the rulebook and is unaware of current conventions.

Also note that the US FOC has just started e-newsletter. The short commentary on distance parries that was discussed in a seperate thread was taken from the newsletter. So, it seems the FOC is attempting to inform the public of changes.

This is why I made the suggestion for the 'Bout Commitee' folder. It is not always possible for people in the more remote divisions to attend the clinics and national tournaments. It's one thing to read a ref/rule change in a post, but another to use it in a local tournament. "Why did you call that action that way?" "I.....uh.....read it from some guy on the internet." It would be very different to say, "Bill Oliver from the FOC wrote that it's called this way." While I may not agree with the changes we all want to make sure that our fencers who do go to national tournaments are prepared and don't run into any suprises.

[counterattack]

The best way to keep up to date requires effort and interest. One must attend the ref courses, go to large (i.e. national) tournaments, and if at all possible watch or attend international events. It's through these channels that fencers learn about the current conventions of how rules are applied.

The thing that hurts is when someone refs who is either a) out of date or b) only read the rulebook and is unaware of current conventions.

This is true and this is terrible. Sports should be governed by rules, not conventions. There is no need to be vague, solid rules and clarifications can be crafted, and there is no excuse other than fencing politics for it not being done. It hurts the sport for no gain.

[achilleus]

This is true and this is terrible. Sports should be governed by rules, not conventions. There is no need to be vague, solid rules and clarifications can be crafted, and there is no excuse other than fencing politics for it not being done. It hurts the sport for no gain.

Have you watched pro sports lately?

There are the rules as they are written, and then how they are applied.
Think baseball and the strike zone.

Think basketball and the 3 second violation or traveling.
Think basketball and the waning seconds of the game and the ref "swallow their whistles".

It's that way in many prosperous sports.

Want to argue it? Check out previous threads, it's been argued to death already.

[achilleus]

Written ARs would have the effect of slowing the change of conventions - until an AR is overturned. The FOC would in effect have to develop a system equivalent to the Judicial system - ugh... what a mess...politically appointed regional fencing magistrates, appeal hearings, video taped "case law" that would be required for referee training - wait - thats not a bad idea?

It is a good idea. Until it actually happens (which is most likely never), however, those interested in how things are actually called have to be active in finding out the current conventions.

[esskreemr]

I'll have to agree with Mr. Knoch on this point. Convention dogma is a very maddening and divisive subject. Clubs in our division are constantly battling over interpretation of the rules.

As others have alluded to (in some case outright stated), conventions are a VERY political matter. The Germans, the French, the Italians, etc (insert other established fencing powers here) have battled for decades (more than a century in some cases) over conventions. I don't see it dissipating any time in the near future.

It will be interesting to see if other countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, U.S., etc(insert rising fencing powers here) that have less "consolidated" notions affect the interpretation of the conventions. Of course, convention clarifications or "adjustments" trickle down VERY slowly to the local level in many cases.

[downunder]

This is true and this is terrible. Sports should be governed by rules, not conventions. There is no need to be vague, solid rules and clarifications can be crafted, and there is no excuse other than fencing politics for it not being done. It hurts the sport for no gain.

cricket?

as has been said, baseball and basketball...?

rugby is another good example, with referees interpretations of the ruck, maul and tackles

[counterattack]

Have you watched pro sports lately?

There are the rules as they are written, and then how they are applied.
Think baseball and the strike zone.

Think basketball and the 3 second violation or traveling.
Think basketball and the waning seconds of the game and the ref "swallow their whistles".

I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I felt only fencing suffered from this. Baseball's strike zone is a great example: they are working hard with umps by evaluating the tapes of their calls throughout the season. They are trying to get it to be much more objective.
More to the point, to say that something DOES happen is not a counter argument to saying that it SHOULDN'T happen. There is no good reason for fencing to leave ROW up to conventions. There will always be judgement calls, but by clarifying rules you can make them less prominent. I repeat that there is no excuse or need for the current state of ROW.

[achilleus]

I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I felt only fencing suffered from this. Baseball's strike zone is a great example: they are working hard with umps by evaluating the tapes of their calls throughout the season. They are trying to get it to be much more objective.
More to the point, to say that something DOES happen is not a counter argument to saying that it SHOULDN'T happen. There is no good reason for fencing to leave ROW up to conventions. There will always be judgement calls, but by clarifying rules you can make them less prominent. I repeat that there is no excuse or need for the current state of ROW.

You commented that the conventions hurt the sport for no gain.

The most successful sports in the US all have the same written vs. applied rules. In that sense, it's not proven that the conventions hurt the sport.

And it really depends on your definition of a good reason. A lot of it is a highly politicized organizing body, but a lot of it also stems from athletes that are getting stronger, faster, and smarter every year.

The equipment changes are an attempt by the FIE to curtail judgement calls. We'll see how well they work.

[Fencing Mom]

CarlKoch said:
The problem is that the local folks HAVE told people how it's being called, but no one want's to listen to it. This has been gone over again and again on this board and people continue to think that the rules are being misapplied just because they don't agree with the interpretation that's being used.

CarlKoch is exactly right. 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.
Guess what? Some people disagree with her. (Right, Esskreemr?) She's wrong, they say. These folks refuse to attend divisional tournaments because the refs call it as the FOC has taught. At least two of those who disagree are coaches. Their students either turn to epee or else, when they do venture out to a divisional, sectional, or even national tournament, the students are like little lambs being led to slaughter because of the old-fashioned way in which they are being taught foil. Of course, if you asked the students why they did not do well, the students would say because of bad refereeing, thus perpetuating the myth of "bad" refs at the sectional/national level.

[noodle]

CarlKoch said:
The problem is that the local folks HAVE told people how it's being called, but no one want's to listen to it. This has been gone over again and again on this board and people continue to think that the rules are being misapplied just because they don't agree with the interpretation that's being used.

CarlKoch is exactly right. 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.
Guess what? Some people disagree with her. (Right, Esskreemr?) She's wrong, they say. These folks refuse to attend divisional tournaments because the refs call it as the FOC has taught. At least two of those who disagree are coaches. Their students either turn to epee or else, when they do venture out to a divisional, sectional, or even national tournament, the students are like little lambs being led to slaughter because of the old-fashioned way in which they are being taught foil. Of course, if you asked the students why they did not do well, the students would say because of bad refereeing, thus perpetuating the myth of "bad" refs at the sectional/national level.

this, pretty much, sums up the biggest problem i see with directing today and its unfortunate because, unlike some other problems i can see, this one doesn't have any real solution. there will always be people who disagree with interpretations of rules, disagree with calls, coach poorly/incorrectly in order to succeed competitively, and/or are crooked coaches in general.

[counterattack]

And it really depends on your definition of a good reason. A lot of it is a highly politicized organizing body, but a lot of it also stems from athletes that are getting stronger, faster, and smarter every year.

The equipment changes are an attempt by the FIE to curtail judgement calls. We'll see how well they work.

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.

[counterattack]

You commented that the conventions hurt the sport for no gain.

The most successful sports in the US all have the same written vs. applied rules. In that sense, it's not proven that the conventions hurt the sport.

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?