Lame - t47

[JEC]

1. Limitation of the target
t.47 At foil, only hits which arrive on the target are counted as valid. The target at foil excludes the limbs and the head. It is confined to the trunk, the upper limit being the collar up to 6 cm above the prominences of the collar bones; at the sides to the seams of the sleeves, which should cross the head of the humerus; and the lower limit following a horizontal line across the back joining the tops of the hip bones, thence by straight lines to the junction of the lines of the groin (see Figure 4, p24).

Last Saturday, I officiated in a regional Cadet foil competition. As usual, the most important thing is getting the kids to fence and have fun. We checked weapons and let them fence. After a few bouts, I had a incident that I did not enjoy, and made me think about parents' involvement in fencing.

Before the eight bout started in a pool, the opposing fencer calls me, the referee, and asked as whether the lame of his opposing fencer was regulation. I examined the lame and found it to not conform the rules. About 2 inches above the hip and 1.5 inches medial (smaller) to the shoulder boundary (see t47). I gave a yellow card.

What follow made me think that parents and coaches should back away, and read the rules. Fencing is about sportsmanship, and Cadet fencing is about teaching those values to the kids.

I would like to hear from more experienced referees how often you call t47 before bouts start, or the latitude used when opposing fencers request a check.

[Epee_Pox]

[quote=JEC]

What follow made me think that parents and coaches should back away, and read the rules. Fencing is about sportsmanship, and Cadet fencing is about teaching those values to the kids.

Don't leave us hanging -- what happened next?

[oso97]

I do it as component of the general equipment check that I do as everyone is checking into the pool/DE Tableau. For foil, that would be "Two weapons, two body chords, underarm protector (and chest protector for women), mask examination, lame examination, knickers overlap check." For the lame examination I'm looking for the presence of a stamp and if the lame appears to be otherwise in good working order - just beacuse a stamp is there, doesn't mean the referee shouldn't check it over, things could have popped up in the interim, and also, the armourers DON'T check the fit of the lame. The "good working order" check includes a look to see that the lame looks right. Now, I don't actually check the placement of the hipbones, but I do give it a long look. If I think its a bit short, THEN I check the hipbones.

Its kinda like checking the bend of the blade, I eye it and only if I think its too much do I check. But, eyeing it IS important.

When I being trained as a referee, one of the things that was hammered home to me was having an absolutely SOLID routine for things where the referee has to check stuff, so that you do it the same way every time and don't miss anything that could come back to bite you in the *** later.

That includes:
-Pool and DE Tableau Check in (should include a visual examination of the strip)
-Fencer hookup (note that you need a different routine for each of the three weapons, cause you have to check different things)
-Fencer presenting weapon a weapon to ask you to test after a doubtful touch
-Calling halt and awarding the touch (make your call, keeping an eye on the fencer who LOST the touch, and keep an eye on them while you are writing down the score)

At least 75% of ALL problems can be headed off by the referee having good routines and following them every single time. For one, they intercept problems before they arrive (did I loose sight of him as he was testing the epee on his toe? was that clip on the body chord fastened at the start of the bout? does the lame fit properly?). Additionally, they give the fencers (and coaches) confidence in you as a referee and are less likely to dispute your calls, or if they do, to do it in a respectful manner and tone).

[JEC]

A comedy of errors.

I asked the carded fencer whether she had another lame. She answered no. I asked her then if she could borrow another lame, and she said that other fencer was her size. As I was not sure whether the only vendor in the venue might have lame, I then asked both fencers if they wanted to fence. (my mistake). Both said yes. Which brings me to the point that it is not obvious, the opposing coach had only told the fencer about to ask for the lame. Here it is a judgment call. I let them fence 5 touches (the carded fencer was losing 1-4), when a bout committee member came and confer with me. The bout committee complaint was called by the opposing coach. We stopped fencing. Her mother got a new lame from the only vendor, fortunately one of her size. We resumed fencing. She lost the bout.

Corollary:
I learned. I talked to a few of the referees who also learned. Some parents of nationally ranked fencers also learned about the rules.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by JEC

A comedy of errors.

I asked the carded fencer whether she had another lame. She answered no. I asked her then if she could borrow another lame, and she said that other fencer was her size. As I was not sure whether the only vendor in the venue might have lame, I then asked both fencers if they wanted to fence. (my mistake). Both said yes. Which brings me to the point that it is not obvious, the opposing coach had only told the fencer about to ask for the lame. Here it is a judgment call. I let them fence 5 touches (the carded fencer was losing 1-4), when a bout committee member came and confer with me. The bout committee complaint was called by the opposing coach. We stopped fencing. Her mother got a new lame from the only vendor, fortunately one of her size. We resumed fencing. She lost the bout.

Corollary:
I learned. I talked to a few of the referees who also learned. Some parents of nationally ranked fencers also learned about the rules.

JEC, for the record - I wasn't at the tournemnt, nor have I talked with anyone who was yet (the Bobcat, right?)

However, let me suggest that this is how I would suggest you should have approached the situation, based entirely on what you have reported:

Fencer X asks for a lame check on Fencer Y.

You check the placement of lame on Fencer Y, and discover it doesn't fit.

Give the yellow card for non-conforming equipment.

Now, at this point you're in a quandery because you don't know "should I let the bout proceed or not?" And the USFA has set the precident of allowing fencers with "non-conforming equipment" (lack of name on pants/jacket/lame) to continue fencing after the yellow card has been given and you have an interpretaion question. It is NOT the job of the referee to make up new interpretations of rules - his job is to apply the rules correctly and using the interpretations that have been handed down. What you have is an interpreation that you don't know the answer to, so IMMEDIATELY call over the person's responsible for making that judgement - in this case, the Head Armourer and Head Referee - let THEM take the brunt for making that judgement, its their job, not yours.

Incidentally, if the Head Armourer and Head Referee know their stuff, they will also be able to counteract the influence of the coach on the bout properly and quietly.

As you said though... its a learning experience. Good to see more people getting it! Everyone goes through it. Even the head of the FOC was a beginning referee at one point (waits for the lightning to strike).

Hehehehehe...

[DHCJr]

This is not just a problem at the local level. If you read Carla Richards' Olympic Log, the problem has gotten so bad of consistent testing of fit of the lame by the referee, that the fencers have to show up at control wearing all their equipment and the lame is tested for fit by the Armorer.

[neevel]

Originally Posted by oso97

Now, at this point you're in a quandery because you don't know "should I let the bout proceed or not?" And the USFA has set the precident of allowing fencers with "non-conforming equipment" (lack of name on pants/jacket/lame) to continue fencing after the yellow card has been given and you have an interpretaion question.

The exception you mention doesn't really apply here-- the lack of a name on the uniform does not confer an advantage to the fencer that could affect the outcome of the bout. Having a lame that does not cover the valid target does. It's the same as having a weapon that doesn't pass weight-- you don't give a yellow card and then let them fence with the weapon.

-Dave

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by JEC

What follow made me think that parents and coaches should back away, and read the rules. Fencing is about sportsmanship, and Cadet fencing is about teaching those values to the kids.

This line implies that you think what the coaches did was unsportsmanlike.

One duty of a coach's job is to make sure that his student is not at a disadvantage. The coach was doing his job. A ref's job is to make sure the bout was equal and fair to both participants. You were not doing your job. It was a good learning experience to have at a small event.

That said, how is asking that the opponent obey the same rule that everyone else obeys unsportsmanlike?

Why is it that people in general think it's sportsmanlike to let kids slide on the rules? I've heard so many times, at smaller events, 'He's young, we don't need to be strict.'

Having played other sports when young, I learned a lot more about sportsmanship with the strict refs. I learned to know and obey the rules. To not act up (or risk a technical foul), and in general to behave myself.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by neevel

The exception you mention doesn't really apply here-- the lack of a name on the uniform does not confer an advantage to the fencer that could affect the outcome of the bout. Having a lame that does not cover the valid target does. It's the same as having a weapon that doesn't pass weight-- you don't give a yellow card and then let them fence with the weapon.

That would be my interpretation as well, but in the absence of clear guidelines at a local event - I'd kick the question to those who were in charge of making the decision. ESPECIALLY since its going to cause a stink from one of the fencers and coach no matter which way I rule. Which is not to say that I avoid making controversal decisions - I referee sabre afterall! - but that if I as a referee know that a ruling I'm about to make is going to cause a bout committee to be called or otherwise generate a stink, I prefer to either 1) make the ruling in the presence of a senior official after asking their input or 2) kick it upstairs. Again, not to shirk responsiblity, but to forestall problems, and ultimately save tons of time.

The whole point is that the fencer never should have been allowed to hook up to strip - and proper check in proceedures at the pool start could have avoided this. Then the fencer could have complained to the BC, the coach made his protest and the new lame bought while the rest of the pool had gotten started. This is how we learn...

But, were I asked to make the ruling at either one of my tournaments or as head referee to back up someone else's judgement in this exact situation (fencer presents themselves on strip, other fencer complains, etc), yea, it simple. Yellow card, confiscate the lame, find a new one, or start collecting red ones for delay of bout or refusal to obey the referee (and get a new lame).

[JEC]

Achilleus,
I agree with a portion of your assessment, which is that "one duty of a coach's job is to make sure that his student is not at a disadvantage."
However, there was more than the factual information that I described.

oso97,
I appreciate your comment but find it difficult to apply it strictly in local / regional tournaments, especially at youth level. Although I have disagreed with you in the past, it is extremely helpful to have been directing to appreciate the difficulty of consistently making good calls.

JEC

[oso97]

Originally Posted by JEC

oso97,
I appreciate your comment but find it difficult to apply it strictly in local / regional tournaments, especially at youth level. Although I have disagreed with you in the past, it is extremely helpful to have been directing to appreciate the difficulty of consistently making good calls.

JEC, okay, so i'm curious what you think its difficult to apply strictly in local/regional tournaments?

[JEC]

1. Need more armorers.
For example, at the Bobcat, Mr. Waddoups was fixing reels all day. He was only checking masks, not lames or body cords.

2. Need better qualified referees.
I was pushed to direct because there was nobody else available. It's a thankless job that I now admire to those who do it every tournament. My referee in pools made several mistakes even just keeping the score. Furthermore, he missed several clearly floor touches (most strips were not grounded). He also did not checked under the guard pad.

3. There is the "new fencer issue", which is compounded with "new youth fencer".
In my epee pool (not directing), there was a talented lefty who was using baseball knickers, not overlapping. He actually got a yellow card for a malfunctioning weapon, so I could have push the issue of his knickers for a yellow card = 1 point. Perhaps, lossing the bout 1-0 and being disqualified if no conforming equipment is found. However, he is a newbie who might get hook into the sport. Why ruining it? Fencing requires expensive equipment, which if bought at once and up front by a parent who does not even know whether the kid will be fencing in 4 weeks might limit the number of kids trying it.

4. How far do we check?
In WC, people bring their weapons a day ahead, and the flexibility (200gm) at the tip is measured along with passing the box test, etc. Do we measure and check all the rules or select only those that are pertinent. At NACs or Nationals, I never seen flexibility being check. Now, back to the lame question. Do we get a uniformed ruling by the armourers or bout committee, or each referee is doing checks?

[oso97]

Yep, I see what your points are. I thought it might be something like that so let me address how >I< see the issue from there.

Originally Posted by JEC

1. Need more armorers.
For example, at the Bobcat, Mr. Waddoups was fixing reels all day. He was only checking masks, not lames or body cords.

This is a tournament operations issue. All reels should be repaired before the tournament and lames and body chords should be checked - I'll get into that later, and explain my reasoning why.

Originally Posted by JEC

2. Need better qualified referees.
I was pushed to direct because there was nobody else available. It's a thankless job that I now admire to those who do it every tournament. My referee in pools made several mistakes even just keeping the score. Furthermore, he missed several clearly floor touches (most strips were not grounded). He also did not checked under the guard pad.

Preaching to the choir here. One thing I tell my fencers to do is if their referee seems to be of this sort, then quietly help him/her out. Keep score, and hand off the scoresheet to another fencer when its your turn. Offer to floor judge. When he checks your stuff, don't just wait for him to look at it, SHOW it to him (make him LOOK under the pad if you have to, make him LOOK at your underarm protector, SHOW him that your lame is legal).

Originally Posted by JEC

3. There is the "new fencer issue", which is compounded with "new youth fencer".
In my epee pool (not directing), there was a talented lefty who was using baseball knickers, not overlapping. He actually got a yellow card for a malfunctioning weapon, so I could have push the issue of his knickers for a yellow card = 1 point. Perhaps, lossing the bout 1-0 and being disqualified if no conforming equipment is found. However, he is a newbie who might get hook into the sport. Why ruining it? Fencing requires expensive equipment, which if bought at once and up front by a parent who does not even know whether the kid will be fencing in 4 weeks might limit the number of kids trying it.

Again a problem with people being pushed into competition too early. This is a problem on the part of the COACHES. Let the fencers develop themselves in a club setting, break into their equipment slowly there, and don't let them compete without ALL the required equipment. Non-overlapping knickers are a safety issue. However, another thing the referee often has to do is to explain and teach new fencers. I don't object do doing this at all - so long as they don't waste everyone's time with equipment that was incomplete. If they don't know any better, thats the fault of the COACH. Its not my job as a referee to teach someone how to put all their equipment on! I have enough to do! But I'll happily discuss right of way, how to make calls, rule interpretations... just show up properly attired PLEASE! (rant mode off)

Originally Posted by JEC

4. How far do we check?
In WC, people bring their weapons a day ahead, and the flexibility (200gm) at the tip is measured along with passing the box test, etc. Do we measure and check all the rules or select only those that are pertinent. At NACs or Nationals, I never seen flexibility being check. Now, back to the lame question. Do we get a uniformed ruling by the armourers or bout committee, or each referee is doing checks?

So last season I had an interesting discussion with Joe Byrnes about the issue of "what do we check, how much should we check and why?" Let me paraphrase what his words were, I think they're pretty good.

The question of what equipment to check concerns two basic things - Safety and Fairness with a dose of Time Management thrown in. For a question of Safety, the armourer should check masks, and the referee should check underarm protectors and knickers overlap. This is the bare minimum that should be examined at EVERY competition, no matter what the level.

For everything else, its a question of Fairness and time management. Checking lame conductivity (and FIT) is a matter of making sure that the fencers are on equal footing. If the tournament organizers don't want to run a fair tournament, that's one thing, but they should publizise that fact. There is also the concern of what are the stakes and how much do you have to check in order to ensure a level playing field. Joe's position on that was to apply this test "How likely is the incidence of a failure to impact the results?" For example, at an event like the Bobcat, a lame with a deadspot its likely to have a pretty serious impact - if you consider a touch that should have been counted but is not a serious impact. So, basically, if you are concerned with fairness, check the conductivity of all lames at the armoury and have referees check the fit.

Now, if you're going to check lames, its a pretty simple matter to check body chords and doesn't add much additional time to the check in process (assuming you have ENOUGH competent armourers and assistants). And why do this? Because a dead body chord on strip wastes all sorts of time, which is in even shorter supply then good referees! Checking all body chords at the beginning of the competition short circuits at least half of all on strip problems. Functional reels and floor cords takes care of most of the rest.

As to why not the flexibility, its because it isn't likely to affect the outcome of the competition, and isn't feasable (requires an additional day of weapons control, etc) given the tournament setup, where as checking lames and body chords is.

Bottom line though, its the job of the referee to apply the rules. If there is a modification of the rules, then that is the job of the BC to make.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by oso97

As to why not the flexibility, its because it isn't likely to affect the outcome of the competition, and isn't feasable (requires an additional day of weapons control, etc) ...

An extremely flexible foil might overcome a parry and register, which with the new timings might lock out a legal riposte. An extremely flexible epee might flick/sneek over the bell guard.

Flexibility checks are not as difficult as it sounds if you have the box, vise and appropriate weight for the tip. The weapon fits or does not fit the box. Once is then fixed in a vise, the deflection is measured in centimeters in less than a minute or so.

Again, how many volunteers for the armoury or for refereeing???

[neevel]

Originally Posted by JEC

An extremely flexible foil might overcome a parry and register, which with the new timings might lock out a legal riposte. An extremely flexible epee might flick/sneek over the bell guard.

Flexibility checks are not as difficult as it sounds if you have the box, vise and appropriate weight for the tip. The weapon fits or does not fit the box. Once is then fixed in a vise, the deflection is measured in centimeters in less than a minute or so.

Again, how many volunteers for the armoury or for refereeing???

Doing a full weapons test for a 30-40 participant tournament with a single gabarit would probably add 2-3 hours to check in (and that's just for 1 event). I'm figuring 5 minutes to do 3-4 weapons per fencer-- assuming the person at the gabarit will have no other distractions.

Keep in mind that gabarits aren't exactly a common item. The USFA doesn't even own any (when needed-- such as at NYC this last June-- they're borrowed or rented from a handful of folks who have them). You're looking at a couple of grand to buy one.

-Dave

[jBirch]

JEC,

There seems to be a conflict here between what *SHOULD* be done and what is reasonable to do given the situation.

In terms of what *SHOULD* be done, I think that oso97 is right on the ball. However, I do think that most of the suggestions put forth are not practical to implement for a host of reasons. The concept of fairness and safety is a good one though. Are you checking Lame's for safety or fairness? How strenuous should the tests be to ensure each?

The other issue is that you are experiencing the ref's job for the first time in a competitive environment with coaches that are working for their fencers. *grin* "You ain't seen nothin' yet!" comes to mind. There are generally three things going on when you have a coach looking after a fencer on the piste:

1) They are trying to confer unfair advantage by:

a) Tweaking the ref (intimidation, most usually)
b) Giving tactical advise
c) Giving support

2) They are trying to ensure fair advantage by:

a) questioning the ref's decisions when they are marginal
b) blunting the opponent's coach from doing 1 above
c) Explaining the situation to their fencer and setting them up for the bout

3) They are trying to recruit new fencers by having good fencers suceed.

My advise, if you want it, is to stay consistent in your application of the rules and understand what each of the participants are doing. Really, a ref's job is not to be fair, but to be correct. You are to see and judge correctly and apply the rules as consistently as you can, not try to be fair in their interpretation. There are the rules in the book and then there are the rules of the bout committee and the day. Figure out which are which. What's the point of the competition? A WC is pure competition. A local tournament is encouragement of fencing. Talk to your DT before the competition and get consistent in your rules with THEM, not the book. After all, you work for the DT, not the FIE.

The answer, then, to your Lame question, is to pose it to your DT at the beginning of the day (or when you get asked to take over a piste) and do it their way.

Hope this helps.

[JEC]

Supply and demand drives the cost. Look at what happen with the cost of low-budget scoring machines.

My point to David is that there are a number of rules that are not being enforced even at Nationals. There is some advantage to some fencers when those rules are not being enforced at all, or not enforced equitatively across all pools and competition. Here again it is a judgement call that is based upon fairness; enforcing those rules that confer the most advantage.

In the example described at the beginning of the thread, the fencer that was carded, was wearing her non-conforming lame when she was waiting for her DE's. I do not know as to whether she was wearing it or not when she fenced DE's, or if that was the case, whether it was called nonconforming in DE's (I doubt it and truly it wouldn't have made much of a difference except for sportsmanship). I have no question that the fit was not conforming.

[DHCJr]

JEC, I have to agree with Neevel on the Gabarit and flexability. When they first came up with the S2000 blades, Ron Herman built some testers with what he had. Because of the type of clamps, every blade took over 1 minute, much too long. Second, let us consider Epee, because basically the guards are made to the maximum any dent will fail them. I don't know Dave's experience when he has gone with the team, but I am shocked when a Epee fencer turns in an Epee guard that actually passes without me work