Drop foil and saber from the Olympics?

[Black Jeebus]

Don't know too much about them but the thing about relaying spatial coordinates sounds something like the capteurs from decade ago sabre.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by darius

The problem is that replays are often controversial, even in slow motion. In football, even with bazillions of cameras everywhere, replays often are inconclusive, which means the ruling on the field stands.

Ultimately, adding instant replay to fencing would probably be more hassle than it's worth; could you imagine challenging every two-light action? Computerized reffing is not a bad idea, but it's much more difficult than people make it out to be, unless we put ping-pong balls all over the fencing uniforms.

Instant Replay could be possible. Not all actions SHOULD be contested. Penalize with a red card if the replay supports the call.

Even better, if a touch is replayed and the replay board deems that the touch was incorrectly given, anull the touch but don't award it to the fencer who asked for the replay. If the replay supports the ref's call, the complaining fencer recieves a red card. I'm sure there are other rules that could be instituted to make sure that the replay is used only once or twice per bout.

[Robert (2)]

I've discussed the technical solution with a few people (not anything more than after fencing pub talk), and think it is conceivable.

The purpose would not be to get a machine to do the director/ROW job. Rather you would replace the present ROW with a different ROW. The advantage would be that it was completely arbitrary and therefore everyone was on equal footing.

My thoughts on this would be to do the following:

--------------
1, Two measurements are required. The extension/retraction of the arm (achievable with some sort of tension system). The point of contact between the blades (namely if during a contact the point is closer to one persons forte).

2, Use a fairly simple algorithm:

A fencer has priority once his arm starts to extend and loses it the moment he retracts/halts.
Below a minimum tension a fencer cannot gain priority, and above a certain tension a fencer may halt without losing priority.
If a blade contact occurs the fencer whose point of contact was closer to the forte gains priority and retains it until their arm retracts.
-----------

As you can see it doesn't exactly duplicate ROW but it keeps the spirit and removes the subjectivity of ROW calls.

A few people here have technical expertise. How easy/difficult is it to meaure the two things we would need to measure, and how difficult is a real-time application to run the algorithm.

Robert

[Robert (2)]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Instant Replay could be possible. Not all actions SHOULD be contested. Penalize with a red card if the replay supports the call.

Even better, if a touch is replayed and the replay board deems that the touch was incorrectly given, anull the touch but don't award it to the fencer who asked for the replay. If the replay supports the ref's call, the complaining fencer recieves a red card. I'm sure there are other rules that could be instituted to make sure that the replay is used only once or twice per bout.

Or an alternative, a judging solution.

Have three judges seated at different points on the piste. Fence the point. Then they get a slow motion replay of the last 3 seconds. Then they press a button. X judges have to agree. The box would beep to tell the fencers to stop fencing, then 4-5 seconds later one of the lights would come on. Easy and clear.

Robert

[veeco]

It's not possible to use a video replay system in fencing. Fencing is a combat sport, and the intensity has to be kept high. One cannot wait for the judges to spend 15 minutes discussing an action and decide who gets the point. You need to keep the rythm of the bout going and the fencers' thoughts together.

Why do you think there are penalties for delaying the bout?

As for Robert's suggestion, the system you are proposing is the same than in boxing, which is still very contested.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by Robert (2)

2, Use a fairly simple algorithm:

A fencer has priority once his arm starts to extend and loses it the moment he retracts/halts.
Below a minimum tension a fencer cannot gain priority, and above a certain tension a fencer may halt without losing priority.

You may get unintended consequences in gaming the system, like what about someone who is constantly sawing back and forth?

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by veeco

Using video systems is a bad idea anyway. Our sport is a combat sport, where stopping the action to review a video is not an option. Because it will change the rythm of a bout, and will make it less tiring, and less intense.

Just to be clear, I suggested using video that would be digitally processed, not reviewed by a human. The light would go on for who got awarded the point by the computer. There would be no review of video.

It is not a matter of whether this is possible. It clearly is, or would be with sufficient R&D. The hard part is programming it. Of course, we can't even agree now on how to program our simple boxes.

[P00Man]

the problem isnt the rules, its the fact that everything happens so quickly (especially in sabre) and the differences between a touch and not a touch are so minute (again, this is especially true in sabre). Also, the human eye is only so fast and often times the actions are occuring at a speed that is too great for us to conciously percieve.

[Grasshopper]

There has been a lot of negativity regarding judging in fencing almost to the point where we are saying "Get rid of them!!".

IMHO, I like having a ref. And I don't agree with the "The best ref is not even noticed" thinking - like they should act like a waiter in a posh French restaurant. FORGET THAT!! I like a ref who shows some emotion and passion to the actions because it shows that he is interested and really paying attention to the moves. The robotic ref who just puts up his hands and recites the action in monotone is BORING!

I want my ref to be happy and passionate about his job - who remembers Andy Shaw? - not that was reffing! He was like the conductor of a jazz band - he was excited, into the actions, fair, communicative - he made you feel like fencing better just to impress him. AND, because he was passionate and explaining the actions in simple-man's terms, THE CROWD got into it and magically, even the layman could understand what was going on. He was the JFKennedy of reffing. And you know what, because he was overflowing with confidence and passion about fencing, very few people questioned his calls.

After the bout, he would be happy to talk to the fencers and explain why he made the calls he did.

Major League Baseball Umpires are passionate, confident, vocal, strong - so should fencing refs be.

[Robert (2)]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

You may get unintended consequences in gaming the system, like what about someone who is constantly sawing back and forth?

Yes, but you get unintentional effects in the modern rules. In the case you describe the person would lose to someone who made a slow smooth constant extension, but two fencers like that would be constantly swapping priority and could well lose track of it themselves.

Robert

[grotto]

I think the present method of calling the action with simple hand signals is part of why there is so much ambiguity in ROW and reffing now. I learned to ref by directing dry events where the ref needed to describe the action so the judges could know which action the ref was asking about etc. I still run across directors who do this and I think it makes the action easier to understand from the spectators point of view, and clues in the fencers as to what the director is seeing in the action. (even if I don't agree with the call.) I have had spectators (non-fencers) comment that it really helped them watch the bout when the director would call the action. typically sounds like a play by play. "Attack from the left, no, parried, repost no, remise, yes touch left" Rather than create more "invisible" technology an agressive push to standardize and train refs (like baseball, football etc.) and use them as sort of realtime play by play. I think this would go a long way in removing the perception of arbitrary point assignment.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Robert (2)

Or an alternative, a judging solution.

Have three judges seated at different points on the piste. Fence the point. Then they get a slow motion replay of the last 3 seconds. Then they press a button. X judges have to agree. The box would beep to tell the fencers to stop fencing, then 4-5 seconds later one of the lights would come on. Easy and clear.

Robert

hmmm
what if you have three judges.

One (the director) runs the bout. When he calls halt. All three indicate who had RoW on a handheld device. It is immediate, and more objective.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Just to get back to that SI article for a moment, isn't every sport a "judged" sport in one way or another? Even in simple race events, like swimming or track and field, competitors are sometimes disqualified for some rule infraction or another. Referees' calls are regularly disputed in most team sports (football, basketball, and my favorite, baseball). And even in ROW-less epee, there's still a person or a machine counting valid touches (as opposed to a hit with the flat of the blade, or a poke at the floor).

So by all means, let's work on ways to make refereeing or judging less complicated, or more accurate, or more fair; but to propose eliminating "judged sports" from the Olympics strikes me as just plain ludicrous.