Directing, See No Evil

[Joe biebel]

See no evil

How could we make directing better? One simple way might be to get over the idea that the calling of infractions should be ignored or saved for only the most egregious or dangerous infractions. Whenever I look at video of matches from my NAC competitions or “Nationals” I see glaring examples of referees not making infractions calls. This is not to say that I don’t break rules. At the last NAC, I hit an opponent (my fault entirely) so hard with my guard in the thigh, that he limped the rest of the match and the next day and I’m still having to do physical therapy for my wrist and forearm. The impact could have been detected by a blind person and the call was, “off-target, en guarde.” Totally my fault, clearly deserving of a card.

This last example was glaring. I think the ratio of infractions called to the number of infractions committed, must be quite low. A directors job is not to “let stuff go”, or to “let the boys fence.” They are there to insure an honest result inside the framework of the rules. If you want “clean” fencing you have to enforce the rules. If you fail to enforce the rules as a director you are incompetent or favoring the person breaking the rules.

I had the distinct pleasure of fencing in an FIE competition this last year where the officiating was good and the rules were enforced. Bend your blade on the strip, yellow card. Bump your opponent, card. Duck covering target, card. Reverse the shoulders, card. Equipment out of order, card. Was the fencing clean? Yes, As clean as it could be. Did the directors make mistakes? Of course they did. But, they did not make the mistake of ignoring the rules.

Most rules violations, I believe, are accidental or inadvertent. This does not mean they should be ignored. Purposeful cheating is a whole different level of rule breaking.
Is it possible there is a culture of “see no evil” in our officiating at the national level? I believe so. I don’t know if it actually exists. One might hope that it does and that it can be improved by simply having the bout committee give a directive to enforce the rules. One other possibility is that the infractions are not being seen. This would mean a certain level of incompetence, which could be a lot harder and take a lot longer to improve.
Joe Biebel

[noodle]

i agree that some of these are problems. but for every director that i've found to be lax on carding people, i've seen one that is extremely strict.

part of the problem is that there are more people willing to be directors in an FIE competition. they tend to be able to pick good directors and get them working. i don't doubt (unfortunately) that we'll have a bit of a director shortage for summer nationals. this means that anyone who is willing and able, will probably be on the floor. experienced or not. keen working knowledge of the rules or not. that is the issue, in my opinion. the state of directing here is based on the fact that the best directors are overworked and we have a much higher demand than supply. getting more and better directors is another issue altogether.

if a fencer really wants to cheat, a director doesn't have a good chance to see them cheating. if a fencer wants to cheat, they've worked out and practiced a plan, probably. this includes practicing sliding the cheating past a director. cheating is also pretty tough to card (group 3+) for unless its obvious (there's a big red button under their bell, etc). say, if an epeeist constantly hits himself when infighting. maybe he got away with some points by it and you didn't notice, but now you know its likely to happen. would you card him if he kept doing it? can you tell if its intentional or not?

[edew]

I think, in the RoW weapons, we desire having referees who can see the right of way more than referees who understand and can apply certain rules. Most infractions don't occur on a regular basis, so newbie referees just see them in a state of shock when it happens and stand mute, not knowing what to do or say. So they ignore it.

Others just don't see the infraction. A common one is the one foot off the strip. They're busy watching the right of way that they can't see the foot going off. Another is covering target in foil. In many cases, the arm is not so blatantly covering. So the referee chooses to not award any penalty under the false assumption of "well, it might be accidental". It might very well be, but that's not the opponent's problem, is it?

[CarlKnoch]

I agree with Joe. Infractions need to be carded. The rules are there to be enforced, and they should be.

Noodle brings up that for every lax ref there is another that is strict. If they all carded when it was appropriate, then there would be no misconception of strict versus lax.

It's not the referees job to determine if the rules were broken on purpose, or accidentally. There is no difference. If the rule was broken, and it's a cardable infraction, then the card MUST be given. To do otherwise is unfair to both fencers. One will get the idea that the infraction will never be called, and the other will not reap the benefit of having the rules applied.

When it comes to things that the referee doesn't see, like the foot off the strip, that's not refusing to call the infraction, which is what this thread is about. That's a simple missed call that would have been called had it been seen.

C

[edew]

My point is that an experienced referee will see the one-foot-off incidents while the inexperienced referee will not because they're too focussed on seeing the right of way. It's still wrong for referees to not apply the rules when an infraction occurs, regardless of whether it was due to inattention or personal decision to not enforce a rule.

[noodle]

Noodle brings up that for every lax ref there is another that is strict. If they all carded when it was appropriate, then there would be no misconception of strict versus lax.

my point goes hand-in-hand with edew's. there are a lot of lax refs for a lot of different reasons: they're focused on row not on other circumstances (feet off strip, covering target, et al), they're just not focused in general, they're new, they've forgotten rules, they're just plain bad, they've been paid off, etc etc.

more than half of the time, though, the issue isn't that the director ignores the rule. its that they didn't see it. and everyone knows you can't call an action you didn't see.

[Peach]

I've heard it said that if referees carded every infraction that occurs, most bouts would take twice as long. To me, the ideal referee manages the strip, keeps the bout going so that the best fencer wins, whoever it is that day, and cards obvious infractions. That way the the tournament ends without anyone having a nervous breakdown. The point of the cards is largely to keep anyone from having an unfair advantage.

I'm not saying I won't card someone for a cardable offense, or that I wouldn't notice them. I'm just saying I'm not going to nit-pick.

I've known referees who were card-happy as well as ones that didn't card anything, and neither type is particularly good for fencing depending on the circumstances. I knew one who particularly liked to card young male sabre fencers who muttered curses under their breath, when he would have had to have followed them down the strip to hear what they were saying.

Of course, my least favorite referees are the ones who card the fencer who they think is supposed to lose.

[Lotan]

if a fencer really wants to cheat, a director doesn't have a good chance to see them cheating. if a fencer wants to cheat, they've worked out and practiced a plan, probably. this includes practicing sliding the cheating past a director

Cheating in fencing? It just seems so... wrong.

[BOliver]

Just a small nit-pick...

Directors make movies. The guys in blue are referees, and referee bouts.

FYI, at every NAC, the referees are brought together in a meeting, and, among other things, instructed to enforce all of the rules. The FOC is working diligently to bring our referees around to the understanding that enforcing the penalties is the right way to conduct a fencing match.

[Inquartata]

Just a small nit-pick...

Directors make movies. The guys in blue are referees, and referee bouts.

Aha! So that's what the USFA's Board of Directors does! I knew it wasn't anything to do with fencing...

But seriously, folks! Er, that is, Mr. Oliver. From the FOC Referee's Manual:

"Again, the director must judge whether one (or both) of the fencers was on or off the strip and avoid describing the precise position of the fencer at any specific time."

Hmmm?

[oiuyt]

Even with the smilies that's getting more than a bit nitpicky. In the entire document the word "director" is used 3 times. The time quoted by Inq, and twice in the context of "USFA Board of Directors". The word referee is used over 200 times. Additionally, I believe this document was originally written by George K. rather than Bill Oliver. I remember seeing it back when I was still in college, so the 1997-1998 season at the latest. I don't recall exactly when the change-over occurred, but I'm willing to guess that at the time the presiding official was still referred to as the director and this was merely the one bit of text that wasn't corrected.

Mmmm, just reread your post, I guess you weren't saying that Mr. Oliver had written the handbook, merely that your citation helped support your reference to an official as a director.

Still, given that less than .5% of the references used "director"....

-B :)

[Schiavona]

Gads! I sometimes slip and refer to the direc....er, referee as the president, as in president of the jury. This reminds me of the house I grew up in, the address changed twice and the phone number three times-and we didn't even move!

[achilleus]

Aha! So that's what the USFA's Board of Directors does! I knew it wasn't anything to do with fencing...

But seriously, folks! Er, that is, Mr. Oliver. From the FOC Referee's Manual:

"Again, the director must judge whether one (or both) of the fencers was on or off the strip and avoid describing the precise position of the fencer at any specific time."

Hmmm?

I know that was meant as a joke, but it makes me cry.

[Schiavona]

Even with the smilies that's getting more than a bit nitpicky. In the entire document the word "director" is used 3 times. The time quoted by Inq, and twice in the context of "USFA Board of Directors". The word referee is used over 200 times.

Still, given that less than .5% of the references used "director"....

-B

You actually counted?

[oiuyt]

You actually counted? :frightene

Meh, counting to 200 doesn't take all that long. I've wasted WAY more time doing things like trying to determine whether the weighted average of USFA members is East or West of Chicago (using estimates of the distance each division is from Chicago and using that to estimate the average distance of members of that division, plus the USFA numbers for members of each division). With a "find" feature it just takes ~200 mouse clicks to do this counting. Maybe 2 minutes tops?

-B :)

[Schiavona]

Meh, counting to 200 doesn't take all that long. I've wasted WAY more time doing things like trying to determine whether the weighted average of USFA members is East or West of Chicago (using estimates of the distance each division is from Chicago and using that to estimate the average distance of members of that division, plus the USFA numbers for members of each division). With a "find" feature it just takes ~200 mouse clicks to do this counting. Maybe 2 minutes tops?

-B

You're not married, are you.

[Inquartata]

Even with the smilies that's getting more than a bit nitpicky.

I figured that one good nitpick deserves another.

I guess you weren't saying that Mr. Oliver had written the handbook, merely that your citation helped support your reference to an official as a director.

Not even that, really...I am not agitating for the use of "director". Though I do think that the change of terms to "referee" was more than a bit silly, it's a fait accompli, no point kvetching about it.

[noodle]

shrug, i've used them in the past sometimes interchangably, being brought up as a fencer with 'director' being the term. i usually use ref now, but i slide back into old habits sometimes as i did earlier because of the tone of the original post. i guess i'll go change the wikipedia entry on fencing. (i suggest you guys add stuff to it, too)

[Artisan]

I too thought they refereee and director were interchangeable. Can a referee direct a bout? I suppose then that in a dry bout there is no "president" only a referee and assistants?

[haroldbuck]

I've heard it said that if referees carded every infraction that occurs, most bouts would take twice as long.

I've never bought this excuse. Sure, they might take twice as long AT FIRST. But then people would realize they weren't going to get away with anything and they'd clean up their fencing.

However, I *am* in favor of applying the principal of advantage/disadvantage (TPOAD) to fencing refereeing. For example, if you're four meters from your opponent and you cover target, should you get a card? Of course not, because there's no possible advantage gained even if you've technically violated the rule. At 1 meter the same covering should get called.

TPOAD does not apply to safety calls or line calls, or anything else that is black and white (e.g., either a weapon fails a weapons check or it doesn't, regardless of whether the way it fails actually confers an advantage to the fencer).